Undesirable outputs and weighting schemes in composite indicators based on data envelopment analysis

This paper discusses different models that can be used to construct composite indicators with both desirable and undesirable output indicators. Two approaches are considered. The first is an indirect approach, based on a traditional Data Envelopment Analysis model, requiring a prior transformation in the measurement scale of the undesirable outputs. The second is a direct approach, based on a directional distance function model. The use of a directional distance function allows for the accommodation of undesirable indicators in their original form. The main limitations of these approaches are discussed related to the data transformation in the case of the indirect approach and the possibility to obtain negative margin rates of substitution between the desirable and undesirable outputs in the case of the direct approach. These issues lead to the proposal of a new composite indicator model based on a directional distance function that overcomes the limitations associated with the existing approaches. The incorporation of information on the relative importance of individual indicators using weight restrictions is discussed. Proposed here is an enhanced formulation of weight restrictions, in the form of assurance regions type I, that reflects the relative importance of the indicators in percentage terms. The models are illustrated in the assessment of Brazilian hydropower plants and are suitable for any assessment involving the aggregation of key performance indicators whenever undesirable outputs are present.

[1]  Yaakov Roll,et al.  An application procedure for DEA , 1989 .

[2]  Bruce Hollingsworth,et al.  Use of ratios in data envelopment analysis , 2003 .

[3]  A. Charnes,et al.  Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis , 1984 .

[4]  Holger Scheel,et al.  Undesirable outputs in efficiency valuations , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[5]  Laurens Cherchye,et al.  Creating composite indicators with DEA and robustness analysis: the case of the Technology Achievement Index , 2006, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[6]  Giorgia Oggioni,et al.  Eco-efficiency of the world cement industry: A data envelopment analysis , 2011 .

[7]  Emmanuel Thanassoulis,et al.  Incorporating Value Judgments in DEA , 2004 .

[8]  Chris Tofallis,et al.  An automatic-democratic approach to weight setting for the new human development index , 2012 .

[9]  Lawrence M. Seiford,et al.  Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation , 2002, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  L. R. Christensen,et al.  MULTILATERAL COMPARISONS OF OUTPUT, INPUT, AND PRODUCTIVITY USING SUPERLATIVE INDEX NUMBERS* , 1982 .

[11]  Cláudia S. Sarrico,et al.  Pitfalls and protocols in DEA , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[12]  Ângela Carrancho da Silva,et al.  Performance assessment of Alternative Energy Resources in Brazilian power sector using Data Envelopment Analysis , 2012 .

[13]  B. W. Ang,et al.  Weighting and Aggregation in Composite Indicator Construction: a Multiplicative Optimization Approach , 2010 .

[14]  Wade D. Cook,et al.  Evaluating power plant efficiency: a hierarchical model , 2005, Comput. Oper. Res..

[15]  Nuria Ramón,et al.  Reducing differences between profiles of weights: A "peer-restricted" cross-efficiency evaluation , 2011 .

[16]  R. Färe Derivation of Shadow Prices for Undesirable Outputs: A Distance Function Approach , 1993 .

[17]  Diego Prior,et al.  Efficiency and environmental regulation: a "complex situation" , 2005 .

[18]  Emmanuel Thanassoulis,et al.  Data Envelopment Analysis:the mathematical programming approach to efficiency analysis , 2008 .

[19]  Ana S. Camanho,et al.  Evaluation of performance of European cities with the aim to promote quality of life improvements , 2011 .

[20]  R. Färe,et al.  Benefit and Distance Functions , 1996 .

[21]  C. Lovell,et al.  Measuring the macroeconomic performance of the Taiwanese economy , 1995 .

[22]  Rolf Färe,et al.  Productivity and Undesirable Outputs: A Directional Distance Function Approach , 1995 .

[23]  Laurens Cherchye,et al.  An Introduction to ‘Benefit of the Doubt’ Composite Indicators , 2007 .

[24]  Russell Pittman,et al.  Multilateral Productivity Comparisons with Undesirable Outputs , 1983 .

[25]  Dimitris K. Despotis,et al.  A reassessment of the human development index via data envelopment analysis , 2005, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[26]  P. Murias,et al.  A Composite Indicator for University Quality Assesment: The Case of Spanish Higher Education System , 2008 .

[27]  Cláudia S. Sarrico,et al.  Restricting virtual weights in data envelopment analysis , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[28]  John E. Beasley,et al.  Restricting Weight Flexibility in Data Envelopment Analysis , 1990 .

[29]  C.A.K. Lovell,et al.  Multilateral Productivity Comparisons When Some Outputs are Undesirable: A Nonparametric Approach , 1989 .

[30]  Russell G. Thompson,et al.  The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming , 1990 .

[31]  S. M. Hatefi,et al.  A common weight MCDA–DEA approach to construct composite indicators , 2010 .

[32]  Abraham Charnes,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of decision making units , 1978 .

[33]  Nicky Rogge,et al.  Undesirable specialization in the construction of composite policy indicators: The Environmental Performance Index , 2012 .

[34]  W. Cook,et al.  A data envelopment model for aggregating preference rankings , 1990 .

[35]  Laurens Cherchye,et al.  Constructing composite indicators with imprecise data: A proposal , 2011, Expert Syst. Appl..

[36]  Dimitris K. Despotis,et al.  Measuring human development via data envelopment analysis: the case of Asia and the Pacific , 2005 .

[37]  Emmanuel Thanassoulis,et al.  Weights restrictions and value judgements in Data Envelopment Analysis: Evolution, development and future directions , 1997, Ann. Oper. Res..

[38]  M. Farrell The Measurement of Productive Efficiency , 1957 .

[39]  A. Hashimoto A DEA SELECTION SYSTEM FOR SELECTIVE EXAMINATIONS , 1996 .

[40]  J. Pastor,et al.  Measuring macroeconomic performance in the OECD: A comparison of European and non-European countries , 1995 .