估算城市废物处理服务的生态效益,实现可持续废物管理

IF 9.9 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
M. Molinos-Senante, A. Maziotis, R. Sala-Garrido
{"title":"估算城市废物处理服务的生态效益,实现可持续废物管理","authors":"M. Molinos-Senante, A. Maziotis, R. Sala-Garrido","doi":"10.1002/sd.2983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Assessing the eco‐efficiency of municipalities regarding the provision of solid waste services is a useful tool for improving its sustainability. However, robust, and reliable methods are needed to benchmark the performance of municipalities. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) methods typically used to assess the eco‐efficiency of municipal solid waste (MSW) service providers. However, the variables used in the eco‐efficiency assessment bear distinct weights for each individual unit, limiting thus interpretation. Therefore, benchmarking the performance of MSW service providers becomes challenging because different conditions are applied. Thus, this study uses a common set weights DEA (DEA‐CSW) model assess the eco‐efficiency of different municipalities in providing MSW services. Eco‐efficiency scores were estimated by integrating total costs, recycled waste and unsorted waste as input, desirable outputs and undesirable outputs, respectively. The empirical application of the model demonstrated that when using DEA‐CSW, only one municipality (out of 36) was eco‐efficient in managing MSW. The weightings for inputs and outputs were allocated based on the degree of satisfaction estimated for each municipality. Satisfaction ranged from 0.829 to 1.000 indicating that none of the municipalities were heavily penalized based on the eco‐efficiency scores estimation when allocating common weights. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that compared to traditional DEA models, the DEA‐CSW approach is more adequate at benchmarking the performance of municipalities regarding the provision of MSW services.","PeriodicalId":48174,"journal":{"name":"Sustainable Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimating the eco‐efficiency of urban waste services towards sustainable waste management\",\"authors\":\"M. Molinos-Senante, A. Maziotis, R. Sala-Garrido\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/sd.2983\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Assessing the eco‐efficiency of municipalities regarding the provision of solid waste services is a useful tool for improving its sustainability. However, robust, and reliable methods are needed to benchmark the performance of municipalities. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) methods typically used to assess the eco‐efficiency of municipal solid waste (MSW) service providers. However, the variables used in the eco‐efficiency assessment bear distinct weights for each individual unit, limiting thus interpretation. Therefore, benchmarking the performance of MSW service providers becomes challenging because different conditions are applied. Thus, this study uses a common set weights DEA (DEA‐CSW) model assess the eco‐efficiency of different municipalities in providing MSW services. Eco‐efficiency scores were estimated by integrating total costs, recycled waste and unsorted waste as input, desirable outputs and undesirable outputs, respectively. The empirical application of the model demonstrated that when using DEA‐CSW, only one municipality (out of 36) was eco‐efficient in managing MSW. The weightings for inputs and outputs were allocated based on the degree of satisfaction estimated for each municipality. Satisfaction ranged from 0.829 to 1.000 indicating that none of the municipalities were heavily penalized based on the eco‐efficiency scores estimation when allocating common weights. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that compared to traditional DEA models, the DEA‐CSW approach is more adequate at benchmarking the performance of municipalities regarding the provision of MSW services.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sustainable Development\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sustainable Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2983\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainable Development","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2983","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

评估市政当局在提供固体废物处理服务方面的生态效率是提高其可持续性的有用工具。然而,我们需要稳健可靠的方法来衡量城市的绩效。数据包络分析(DEA)方法通常用于评估城市固体废物(MSW)服务提供商的生态效率。然而,生态效率评估中使用的变量对每个单位都有不同的权重,从而限制了解释。因此,由于采用的条件不同,为城市固体废物服务提供商的绩效设定基准就变得具有挑战性。因此,本研究采用共同权重 DEA(DEA-CSW)模型来评估不同城市在提供 MSW 服务方面的生态效益。生态效益得分是通过将总成本、回收废物和未分类废物分别作为投入、理想产出和不理想产出来估算的。该模型的实证应用表明,在使用 DEA-CSW 时,36 个城市中只有一个城市在管理都市固 体废物方面具有生态效率。投入和产出的权重是根据每个城市的满意度估算分配的。满意度从 0.829 到 1.000 不等,表明在分配共同权重时,根据生态效率分数估算,没有一个城市受到严重惩罚。总之,本研究表明,与传统的 DEA 模型相比,DEA-CSW 方法更适合作为市政当局提供 MSW 服务绩效的基准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Estimating the eco‐efficiency of urban waste services towards sustainable waste management
Assessing the eco‐efficiency of municipalities regarding the provision of solid waste services is a useful tool for improving its sustainability. However, robust, and reliable methods are needed to benchmark the performance of municipalities. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) methods typically used to assess the eco‐efficiency of municipal solid waste (MSW) service providers. However, the variables used in the eco‐efficiency assessment bear distinct weights for each individual unit, limiting thus interpretation. Therefore, benchmarking the performance of MSW service providers becomes challenging because different conditions are applied. Thus, this study uses a common set weights DEA (DEA‐CSW) model assess the eco‐efficiency of different municipalities in providing MSW services. Eco‐efficiency scores were estimated by integrating total costs, recycled waste and unsorted waste as input, desirable outputs and undesirable outputs, respectively. The empirical application of the model demonstrated that when using DEA‐CSW, only one municipality (out of 36) was eco‐efficient in managing MSW. The weightings for inputs and outputs were allocated based on the degree of satisfaction estimated for each municipality. Satisfaction ranged from 0.829 to 1.000 indicating that none of the municipalities were heavily penalized based on the eco‐efficiency scores estimation when allocating common weights. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that compared to traditional DEA models, the DEA‐CSW approach is more adequate at benchmarking the performance of municipalities regarding the provision of MSW services.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.30
自引率
11.20%
发文量
168
期刊介绍: Sustainable Development is a publication that takes an interdisciplinary approach to explore and propose strategies for achieving sustainable development. Our aim is to discuss and address the challenges associated with sustainable development and the Sustainable Development Goals. All submissions are subjected to a thorough review process to ensure that our readers receive valuable and original content of the highest caliber.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信