Determinants of Environmental Efficiency of the EU Countries Using Two-Step DEA Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- EnerCon—Energy consumption in t per capita
- Fert(Nitr)—Fertilizers use (nitrogen in t per capita)
- Ln(ProdIn)—Logarithm of productivity index where 100% is in year 2010
- RoadTr—Road freight transport in t per capita
- Waste—Waste produced in county in kg per capita
- MeanInc—Mean income of inhabitants in €
- ResProd—Resources productivity in € per kg
- EnvTax—Total environmental taxes in € per capita
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Soares, T.C.; Fernandes, E.A.; Toyoshima, S.H. The CO2 emission Gini index and the environmental efficiency: An analysis for 60 leading world economies. EconomiA 2018, 19, 266–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaninsky, A. Energy-environmental efficiency and optimal restructuring of the global economy. Energy 2018, 153, 338–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iftikhar, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, B.; Wang, B. Energy and CO2 emissions efficiency of major economies: A network DEA approach. Energy 2018, 147, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tajudeen, I.A.; Wossink, A.; Banerjee, P. How significant is energy efficiency to mitigate CO2 emissions? Evidence from OECD countries. Energy Econ. 2018, 72, 200–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gałaś, S.; Gałaś, A.; Zeleňáková, M.; Zvijáková, L.; Fialová, J.; Kubíčková, H. Environmental Impact Assessment in the Visegrad Group countries. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2015, 55, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jebali, E.; Essid, H.; Khraief, N. The analysis of energy efficiency of the Mediterranean countries: A two-stage double bootstrap DEA approach. Energy 2017, 134, 991–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, T.; Gao, P.; Yu, Q.; Fang, D. An Improved Eco-Efficiency Analysis Framework Based on Slacks-Based Measure Method. Sustainability 2017, 9, 952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solnørdal, M.T.; Thyholdt, S.B. Drivers for energy efficiency: An empirical analysis of Norwegian manufacturing firms. Energy Procedia 2017, 142, 2802–2808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saikku, L.; Mattila, T.J. Drivers of land use efficiency and trade embodied biomass use of Finland 2000–2010. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 77, 348–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cecchini, L.; Venanzi, S.; Pierri, A.; Chiorri, M. Environmental efficiency analysis and estimation of CO2 abatement costs in dairy cattle farms in Umbria (Italy): A SBM-DEA model with undesirable output. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 895–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Testa, F.; Styles, D.; Iraldo, F. Case study evidence that direct regulation remains the main driver of industrial pollution avoidance and may benefit operational efficiency. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 21, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vlontzos, G.; Niavis, S.; Manos, B. A DEA approach for estimating the agricultural energy and environmental efficiency of EU countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 40, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toma, P.; Miglietta, P.P.; Zurlini, G.; Valente, D.; Petrosillo, I. A non-parametric bootstrap-data envelopment analysis approach for environmental policy planning and management of agricultural efficiency in EU countries. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 83, 132–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanz-Díaz, M.T.; Velasco-Morente, F.; Yñiguez, R.; Díaz-Calleja, E. An analysis of Spain’s global and environmental efficiency from a European Union perspective. Energy Policy 2017, 104, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwon, D.S.; Cho, J.H.; Sohn, S.Y. Comparison of technology efficiency for CO2 emissions reduction among European countries based on DEA with decomposed factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 151, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madaleno, M.; Moutinho, V.; Robaina, M. Economic and Environmental Assessment: EU Cross-country Efficiency Ranking Analysis. Energy Procedia 2016, 106, 134–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moutinho, V.; Madaleno, M.; Robaina, M. The economic and environmental efficiency assessment in EU cross-country: Evidence from DEA and quantile regression approach. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 78, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duman, Y.S.; Kasman, A. Environmental technical efficiency in EU member and candidate countries: A parametric hyperbolic distance function approach. Energy 2018, 147, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, W.-H.; Lee, H.-L.; Yang, C.-H.; Huang, C.-C. Input-Output Analysis for Sustainability by Using DEA Method: A Comparison Study between European and Asian Countries. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mardani, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Streimikiene, D.; Jusoh, A.; Khoshnoudi, M. A comprehensive review of data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach in energy efficiency. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 1298–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Vaio, A.; Varriale, L.; Alvino, F. Key performance indicators for developing environmentally sustainable and energy efficient ports: Evidence from Italy. Energy Policy 2018, 122, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farrell, M.J. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. Gen. 1957, 120, 253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, W.W.; Seiford, L.M.; Tone, K. Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software, 2nd ed.; Springer US: New York, NY, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-0-387-45281-4. [Google Scholar]
- Simar, L.; Wilson, P.W. Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. J. Econ. 2007, 136, 31–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wijesiri, M.; Viganò, L.; Meoli, M. Efficiency of microfinance institutions in Sri Lanka: A two-stage double bootstrap DEA approach. Econ. Model. 2015, 47, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandes, F.D.S.; Stasinakis, C.; Bardarova, V. Two-stage DEA-Truncated Regression: Application in banking efficiency and financial development. Expert Syst. Appl. 2018, 96, 284–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charnes, A.; Clark, C.T.; Cooper, W.W.; Golany, B. A developmental study of data envelopment analysis in measuring the efficiency of maintenance units in the U.S. air forces. Ann. Oper. Res. 1984, 2, 95–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, K.; Wei, Y.-M.; Zhang, X. A comparative analysis of China’s regional energy and emission performance: Which is the better way to deal with undesirable outputs? Energy Policy 2012, 46, 574–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, G.-M.; Bi, J.; Wang, J.-N. Chinese regional industrial energy efficiency evaluation based on a DEA model of fixing non-energy inputs. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 6172–6179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bian, Y.; Yang, F. Resource and environment efficiency analysis of provinces in China: A DEA approach based on Shannon’s entropy. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 1909–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Database—Eurostat. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (accessed on 10 August 2018).
- Cheng, S.; Liu, W.; Lu, K. Economic Growth Effect and Optimal Carbon Emissions under China’s Carbon Emissions Reduction Policy: A Time Substitution DEA Approach. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, C.; Zhang, H.; Zeng, Y.; Li, F.; Liu, Y.; Qin, C.; Yuan, J. Total-Factor Energy Efficiency in BRI Countries: An Estimation Based on Three-Stage DEA Model. Sustainability 2018, 10, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alsaleh, M.; Abdul-Rahim, A.S.; Mohd-Shahwahid, H.O. Determinants of technical efficiency in the bioenergy industry in the EU28 region. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 1331–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arbolino, R.; Carlucci, F.; De Simone, L.; Ioppolo, G.; Yigitcanlar, T. The policy diffusion of environmental performance in the European countries. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 89, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andreasi Bassi, S.; Christensen, T.H.; Damgaard, A. Environmental performance of household waste management in Europe—An example of 7 countries. Waste Manag. 2017, 69, 545–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mrkajić, V.; Stanisavljevic, N.; Wang, X.; Tomas, L.; Haro, P. Efficiency of packaging waste management in a European Union candidate country. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 136, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woo, C.; Chung, Y.; Chun, D.; Seo, H.; Hong, S. The static and dynamic environmental efficiency of renewable energy: A Malmquist index analysis of OECD countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 47, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Chen, Z.; Xia, P. An extended DEA-based measurement for eco-efficiency from the viewpoint of limited preparation. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 721–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Stat | CO2/Cap | Methan/Cap | NitrousOxide/Cap | GDP/Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|
N | 234 | 234 | 234 | 234 |
Mean | 6519.595 | 39.083 | 1.845 | 23,533.760 |
St. Dev. | 2629.122 | 16.966 | 0.977 | 12,698.280 |
Min | 3012.348 | 11.866 | 0.903 | 4900 |
Max | 15,727.490 | 113.893 | 5.587 | 57,500 |
Stat | EnerCon | Fert(Nitr) | ln(ProdIn) | RoadTr | Waste | MeanInc | ResProd | EnvTax |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | 234 | 234 | 234 | 234 | 234 | 234 | 234 | 234 |
Mean | 2.257 | 0.024 | 4.628 | 29.472 | 472.034 | 13,313.250 | 1.532 | 620.040 |
St. Dev. | 0.763 | 0.014 | 0.129 | 11.284 | 121.084 | 5301.647 | 0.960 | 398.465 |
Min | 1.090 | 0.008 | 4.081 | 8.600 | 247 | 3062 | 0.243 | 110.225 |
Max | 4.885 | 0.076 | 5.056 | 79.725 | 830 | 23,112 | 4.474 | 1931.471 |
Country | CCR_In_Eff Non Bootstr. (Average) | Slacks (Average) | Double-Bootstrapped Efficiency Characteristics | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CO2 (kg per Capita) | Methan (kg per Capita) | Nitrous Oxide (kg per Capita) | Average | Min | Max | StDev | ||
Belgium | 0.5742 | 5.8682% | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.5586 | 0.4500 | 0.6599 | 0.0729 |
Bulgaria | 0.1727 | 8.5988% | 0.0000% | 0.9849% | 0.1576 | 0.1202 | 0.1949 | 0.0261 |
Czech Rep. | 0.2823 | 4.0432% | 5.8626% | 0.0000% | 0.2778 | 0.2608 | 0.2940 | 0.0118 |
Denmark | 0.4524 | 8.6478% | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.4433 | 0.3963 | 0.4831 | 0.0301 |
Germany | 0.6697 | 23.3072% | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.6601 | 0.5294 | 0.7566 | 0.0741 |
Estonia | 0.2176 | 11.3121% | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.2125 | 0.1812 | 0.2619 | 0.0233 |
Ireland | 0.5846 | 0.0000% | 43.2554% | 29.7273% | 0.5643 | 0.4422 | 0.7710 | 0.1171 |
Greece | 0.3573 | 1.4671% | 2.2932% | 0.0000% | 0.3474 | 0.3309 | 0.3888 | 0.0196 |
Spain | 0.6139 | 1.4890% | 10.6341% | 0.0000% | 0.5972 | 0.5858 | 0.6255 | 0.0120 |
France | 0.7780 | 0.0000% | 42.1232% | 25.9003% | 0.7461 | 0.6308 | 0.8605 | 0.0827 |
Croatia | 0.2909 | 0.0000% | 14.1513% | 4.8547% | 0.2736 | 0.2260 | 0.3397 | 0.0320 |
Italy | 0.7658 | 5.4902% | 4.7242% | 0.0000% | 0.7478 | 0.6782 | 0.8078 | 0.0447 |
Cyprus | 0.5973 | 19.8501% | 18.4051% | 0.0000% | 0.5909 | 0.5450 | 0.6235 | 0.0291 |
Latvia | 0.2838 | 0.0000% | 16.1791% | 16.1796% | 0.2725 | 0.1878 | 0.3340 | 0.0438 |
Lithuania | 0.2163 | 0.0000% | 11.8785% | 11.6234% | 0.2076 | 0.1864 | 0.2365 | 0.0158 |
Hungary | 0.2732 | 0.0000% | 11.3008% | 0.9046% | 0.2573 | 0.2438 | 0.2675 | 0.0062 |
Netherlands | 0.6755 | 11.9761% | 0.4678% | 0.0000% | 0.6640 | 0.6046 | 0.7180 | 0.0344 |
Austria | 0.8377 | 8.0002% | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.8206 | 0.6972 | 0.9164 | 0.0746 |
Poland | 0.1671 | 0.0000% | 1.8132% | 0.0000% | 0.1621 | 0.1343 | 0.1883 | 0.0173 |
Portugal | 0.4842 | 0.0000% | 21.6440% | 0.0000% | 0.4706 | 0.4152 | 0.4973 | 0.0244 |
Romania | 0.1963 | 0.0000% | 14.1238% | 0.0000% | 0.1839 | 0.1581 | 0.2282 | 0.0246 |
Slovenia | 0.4194 | 4.8087% | 5.4348% | 0.0000% | 0.4115 | 0.3960 | 0.4335 | 0.0115 |
Slovakia | 0.2635 | 1.3708% | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.2563 | 0.1803 | 0.3273 | 0.0476 |
Finland | 0.4223 | 3.9356% | 0.3728% | 0.6482% | 0.3916 | 0.3278 | 0.4316 | 0.0364 |
Sweden | 0.8636 | 0.9979% | 2.3410% | 0.7337% | 0.7954 | 0.6065 | 0.9084 | 0.1077 |
UK | 0.8035 | 8.0368% | 11.7177% | 0.0000% | 0.7875 | 0.6405 | 0.9654 | 0.1104 |
Country | BCC_In_Eff Non Bootstr. (Average) | Slacks (Average) | Double-Bootstrapped Efficiency Characteristics | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CO2 (kg per Capita) | Methan (kg per Capita) | Nitrous Oxide (kg per Capita) | Average | Min | Max | StDev | ||
Belgium | 0.6676 | 1.1367% | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.6394 | 0.5633 | 0.7064 | 0.0520 |
Bulgaria | 0.9395 | 1.4464% | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.8548 | 0.7635 | 0.9053 | 0.0503 |
Czech Rep. | 0.6029 | 7.3695% | 9.9839% | 0.0000% | 0.5926 | 0.5518 | 0.6266 | 0.0207 |
Denmark | 0.4986 | 13.7999% | 2.9272% | 0.3433% | 0.4406 | 0.3767 | 0.5794 | 0.0608 |
Germany | 0.7618 | 21.9921% | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.7375 | 0.6431 | 0.7882 | 0.0506 |
Estonia | 0.5090 | 8.7290% | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.4721 | 0.4542 | 0.5139 | 0.0165 |
Ireland | 0.6495 | 0.0000% | 24.1708% | 15.5208% | 0.5584 | 0.4546 | 0.7599 | 0.1031 |
Greece | 0.6545 | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.6339 | 0.5556 | 0.6827 | 0.0436 |
Spain | 0.8710 | 1.3858% | 3.3357% | 0.0000% | 0.8445 | 0.8156 | 0.8781 | 0.0207 |
France | 0.9103 | 0.0000% | 1.1466% | 1.2333% | 0.8577 | 0.7578 | 0.9290 | 0.0587 |
Croatia | 0.9450 | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 12.1491% | 0.9020 | 0.8177 | 0.9448 | 0.0389 |
Italy | 0.9344 | 4.7705% | 1.3703% | 0.0000% | 0.9015 | 0.8032 | 0.9585 | 0.0515 |
Cyprus | 0.8836 | 27.3742% | 24.0988% | 0.0000% | 0.8688 | 0.7517 | 0.9813 | 0.0847 |
Latvia | 0.8631 | 0.0000% | 3.4553% | 47.9455% | 0.8283 | 0.7824 | 0.8696 | 0.0261 |
Lithuania | 0.6493 | 0.0000% | 2.0054% | 35.3218% | 0.6235 | 0.5810 | 0.7419 | 0.0478 |
Hungary | 0.8887 | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.2146% | 0.8509 | 0.7881 | 0.8875 | 0.0275 |
Netherlands | 0.6861 | 12.7075% | 1.4868% | 0.0000% | 0.6592 | 0.6101 | 0.7116 | 0.0300 |
Austria | 0.8749 | 7.6829% | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.8445 | 0.7436 | 0.9066 | 0.0550 |
Poland | 0.5497 | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.5345 | 0.4807 | 0.5561 | 0.0201 |
Portugal | 0.9305 | 0.0000% | 28.7814% | 0.0000% | 0.9141 | 0.8048 | 0.9660 | 0.0492 |
Romania | 0.8602 | 0.0000% | 36.7540% | 1.4658% | 0.8278 | 0.7527 | 0.8802 | 0.0438 |
Slovenia | 0.7553 | 7.5039% | 4.8335% | 0.0000% | 0.7402 | 0.7152 | 0.7729 | 0.0163 |
Slovakia | 0.6841 | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.0000% | 0.6595 | 0.5575 | 0.7298 | 0.0529 |
Finland | 0.5000 | 0.8427% | 0.0000% | 0.5963% | 0.4651 | 0.4053 | 0.5210 | 0.0356 |
Sweden | 0.9175 | 0.1257% | 0.3798% | 0.1889% | 0.8149 | 0.7589 | 0.8827 | 0.0416 |
UK | 0.8759 | 8.0246% | 10.7360% | 0.0000% | 0.8462 | 0.7544 | 0.9392 | 0.0683 |
Dependent Variable | DEA CCR Input Efficiency Double Bootstrapped | ||
---|---|---|---|
Explanatory Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
Intercept | −0.235170 | 0.012534 | 0.004464 |
EnerCon | −0.029970 | 0.145195 *** | 0.050919 *** |
FertNitr | −1.870600 *** | −4.380676 *** | −2.429000 *** |
Ln(ProdIn) | 0.065336 | −0.004878 | - |
RoadTr | −0.002291 ** | −0.005278 *** | −0.000735 |
Waste | 0.000054 | 0.000846 *** | 0.000377 *** |
MeanInc | 0.000038 *** | ||
ResProd | 0.082396 *** | 0.111090 *** | |
EnvTaxes | −0.000139 *** | ||
Sigma | 0.083568 *** | 0.161080 *** | 0.111090 *** |
Log-Lik (df) | 249.72 (10) | 100.16 (7) | 187.18 (7) |
R2 | 0.863156 | 0.490403 | 0.762161 |
Dependent Variable | DEA BCC Input Efficiency Double Bootstrapped | ||
---|---|---|---|
Explanatory Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
Intercept | 1.394100 *** | 1.905100 *** | 1.053500 *** |
EnerCon | −0.035126 | −0.053342 ** | −0.066360 *** |
FertNitr | −3.863200 *** | −4.976900 *** | −4.858100 *** |
Ln(ProdIn) | −0.117390 | −0.179520 * | |
RoadTr | −0.005259 *** | −0.005405 *** | −0.004750 *** |
Waste | 0.000380 ** | 0.000146 | 0.000078 |
MeanInc | 0.000012 ** | ||
ResProd | 0.043247 ** | 0.039897 ** | |
EnvTaxes | −0.000323 *** | ||
Sigma | 0.113590 *** | 0.130190 *** | 0.130390 *** |
Log-Lik (df) | 204.23 (10) | 178.01 (7) | 176.95 (7) |
R2 | 0.561430 | 0.416311 | 0.414725 |
DEA CCR Input Efficiency Group 1A Western Europe | DEA CCR Input Efficiency Group 2A Eastern Europe | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
Intercept | −0.199570 | −1.126038 * | 0.418730 *** | −1.478400 * | −2.021457 ** | −0.007913 |
EnerCon | −0.106230 *** | 0.054736 ** | 0.029056 | 0.005685 | 0.370590 *** | 0.261327 *** |
FertNitr | −1.458300 ** | −2.557034 ** | −1.542100 * | −0.695960 | −3.381870 * | −1.797841 |
Ln(ProdIn) | 0.152030 * | 0.433915 *** | 0.347790 ** | 0.409588 ** | ||
RoadTr | −0.001912 * | −0.007441 *** | −0.002436 | −0.009998 *** | −0.009850 *** | −0.008495 ** |
Waste | −0.000670 *** | −0.000184 | −0.000005 | 0.000805 *** | 0.001318 *** | 0.001019 *** |
MeanInc | 0.000049 *** | 0.000008 | ||||
ResProd | 0.019415 | 0.107350 *** | 0.124070 | 0.176447 ** | ||
EnvTaxes | −0.000040 | 0.001288 *** | ||||
Sigma | 0.084678 *** | 0.138612 *** | 0.012412 *** | 0.010889 *** | 0.001318 *** | 0.136078 *** |
Log-Lik (df) | 142.7 (10) | 78.6 (7) | 93.7 (7) | 99.6 (10) | 69.0 (7) | 69.8 (7) |
R2 | 0.717735 | 0.260045 | 0.414279 | 0.583597 | 0.421865 | 0.433924 |
DEA BCC Input Efficiency Group 1B Stronger Efficient Countries | DEA BCC Input Efficiency Group 2B Weaker Efficient Countries | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
Intercept | 2.597000 *** | 2.436400 *** | 0.921650 *** | -0.158730 | 0.150600 | 1.009000 *** |
EnerCon | −0.172530 *** | −0.006604 | 0.015241 | 0.030750 | 0.009336 | −0.001347 |
FertNitr | 2.566600 *** | 0.724210 | 0.422020 | −4.635100 *** | −4.353900 *** | −2.985600 *** |
Ln(ProdIn) | −0.319100 *** | −0.315180 *** | 0.212500 ** | 0.188660 ** | ||
RoadTr | 0.000434 | −0.001349 | −0.005315 *** | −0.004961 *** | −0.005025 *** | −0.003953 *** |
Waste | −0.000435 *** | −0.000185 * | 0.000440 | 0.000579 *** | 0.000223 *** | −0.000018 |
MeanInc | 0.000009 ** | 0.000006 | ||||
ResProd | −0.055936 *** | 0.009109 | 0.075125 *** | 0.059669 *** | ||
EnvTaxes | 0.000391 *** | −0.000262 *** | ||||
Sigma | 0.047689 *** | 0.056734 *** | 0.060089 *** | 0.067011 *** | 0.070526 *** | 0.071340 *** |
Log-Lik (df) | 215.61 (10) | 192.5 (7) | 183.27 (7) | 164.32 (10) | 149.78 (7) | 153.27 (7) |
R2 | 0.578961 | 0.398869 | 0.294819 | 0.549793 | 0.489620 | 0.478865 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lacko, R.; Hajduová, Z. Determinants of Environmental Efficiency of the EU Countries Using Two-Step DEA Approach. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3525. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103525
Lacko R, Hajduová Z. Determinants of Environmental Efficiency of the EU Countries Using Two-Step DEA Approach. Sustainability. 2018; 10(10):3525. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103525
Chicago/Turabian StyleLacko, Roman, and Zuzana Hajduová. 2018. "Determinants of Environmental Efficiency of the EU Countries Using Two-Step DEA Approach" Sustainability 10, no. 10: 3525. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103525