| Literature DB >> 29385781 |
Zheng-Xin Wang1,2, Dan-Dan Li3, Hong-Hao Zheng4.
Abstract
In China's industrialization process, the effective regulation of energy and environment can promote the positive externality of energy consumption while reducing negative externality, which is an important means for realizing the sustainable development of an economic society. The study puts forward an improved technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution based on entropy weight and Mahalanobis distance (briefly referred as E-M-TOPSIS). The performance of the approach was verified to be satisfactory. By separately using traditional and improved TOPSIS methods, the study carried out the empirical appraisals on the external performance of China's energy regulation during 1999~2015. The results show that the correlation between the performance indexes causes the significant difference between the appraisal results of E-M-TOPSIS and traditional TOPSIS. The E-M-TOPSIS takes the correlation between indexes into account and generally softens the closeness degree compared with traditional TOPSIS. Moreover, it makes the relative closeness degree fluctuate within a small-amplitude. The results conform to the practical condition of China's energy regulation and therefore the E-M-TOPSIS is favorably applicable for the external performance appraisal of energy regulation. Additionally, the external economic performance and social responsibility performance (including environmental and energy safety performances) based on the E-M-TOPSIS exhibit significantly different fluctuation trends. The external economic performance dramatically fluctuates with a larger fluctuation amplitude, while the social responsibility performance exhibits a relatively stable interval fluctuation. This indicates that compared to the social responsibility performance, the fluctuation of external economic performance is more sensitive to energy regulation.Entities:
Keywords: TOPSIS; energy regulation; environmental performance; information overlap; multi-attribute decision making; sustainable development
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29385781 PMCID: PMC5858305 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15020236
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
The properties, advantages, and limitations of traditional TOPSIS, E-TOPSIS, and E-M-TOPSIS.
| Methods | Properties | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional TOPSIS | The relative closeness degree is changed for non-singular linear transformation | 1.Rational and understandable logic | 1. Subjective weight-determining process |
| E-TOPSIS | The relative closeness degree is unchanged for non-singular linear transformation | 1. Objective weight-determining process | The correlation between indexes cannot be eliminated |
| E-M-TOPSIS | 1. The relative closeness degree is unchanged for non-singular linear transformation | 1. Objective weight-determining process | The nonlinear correlation between indexes cannot be eliminated |
The performance index system for external responsibility of the energy regulation.
| Class | Index | Calculation Method | Unit | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| External economic performance | Energy consumption elasticity index | Average annual growth rate of energy consumptions/average annual growth rate of GDP | No | |
| Power consumption elasticity index | Average annual growth rate of power consumptions/average annual growth rate of GDP | No | ||
| Output of energy consumption per unit | GDP/total energy consumption | 104 CNY/tons standard coal | ||
| Output of power consumption per unit | GDP/total power consumptions | CNY/kW·h | ||
| Social responsibility performance | Environmental performance | SO2 emission amount per GDP | SO2 emission amount/GDP | Tons/104 CNY |
| Dust emission amount per GDP | Dust emission amount/GDP | Tons/104 CNY | ||
| Wastewater discharge amount per GDP | Wastewater discharge amount/GDP | Tons/CNY | ||
| Energy safety performance | External dependence | Energy import amount/total energy consumption | No | |
| Proportion of primary energy yield in the worldwide yield | Primary energy yield/total world energy yield | No | ||
| Primary energy self-sufficient rate | No | |||
Descriptive statistics.
| Index | Mean | Median | Mode | Standard Deviation | Minimum | Maximum | Skewness | Kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energy consumption elasticity index | 0.714 | 0.610 | 0.130 a | 0.433 | 0.130 | 1.670 | 1.154 | 0.875 |
| Power consumption elasticity index | 1.008 | 1.120 | 1.120 | 0.380 | 0.070 | 1.560 | −0.857 | 0.865 |
| Output of energy consumption per unit | 0.756 | 0.729 | 0.644 a | 0.085 | 0.644 | 0.910 | 0.368 | −1.276 |
| Output of power consumption per unit | 6.599 | 6.409 | 6.172 a | 0.400 | 6.172 | 7.360 | 0.925 | −0.547 |
| SO2 emission amount per GDP | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.021 | 0.051 | −1.535 |
| Dust emission amount per GDP | 0.006 | 0.005 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.013 | 0.851 | −0.394 |
| Wastewater discharge amount per GDP | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.004 | 0.373 | −1.277 |
| External dependence | 0.135 | 0.125 | 0.068 a | 0.038 | 0.068 | 0.184 | −0.035 | −1.314 |
| Proportion of primary energy yield in the worldwide yield | 0.141 | 0.144 | 0.094 a | 0.032 | 0.094 | 0.185 | −0.169 | −1.387 |
| Primary energy self-sufficient rate | 0.872 | 0.885 | 0.818 a | 0.036 | 0.818 | 0.932 | −0.218 | −1.276 |
Note: the superscript a refers to where the index shows several modes to present the minimum of the modes in this context.
Figure 1Fluctuation trend of performance indexes concerning external economic (X1 and X2).
Figure 2Fluctuation trend of performance indexes concerning external economic (X3 and X4).
Figure 3Fluctuation trend of social responsibility performance indexes (X5–X7).
Figure 4Fluctuation trend of social responsibility performance indexes (X8–X10).
Pearson correlation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1 | 0 .835 ** | − 0 .559 * | − 0 .094 | 0 .487 * | 0 .295 | 0 .423 | − 0 .350 | − 0 .440 | 0 .397 |
|
| 0 .835 ** | 1 | − 0 .563 * | − 0 .060 | 0 .504 * | 0 .316 | 0 .455 | − 0 .356 | − 0 .458 | 0 .408 |
|
| − 0 .559 * | − 0 .563 * | 1 | − 0 .334 | − 0 .932 ** | − 0 .768 ** | − 0 .873 ** | 0 .908 ** | 0 .859 ** | − 0 .916 ** |
|
| − 0 .094 | − 0 .060 | − 0 .334 | 1 | 0 .609 ** | 0 .798 ** | 0 .718 ** | − 0 .625 ** | − 0 .708 ** | 0 .539 * |
|
| 0 .487 * | 0 .504 * | − 0 .932 ** | 0 .609 ** | 1 | 0 .917 ** | 0 .986 ** | − 0 .961 ** | − 0 .979 ** | 0 .954 ** |
|
| 0 .295 | 0 .316 | − 0 .768 ** | 0 .798 ** | 0 .917 ** | 1 | 0 .955 ** | − 0 .873 ** | − 0 .914 ** | 0 .819 ** |
|
| 0 .423 | 0 .455 | − 0 .873 ** | 0 .718 ** | 0 .986 ** | 0 .955 ** | 1 | − 0 .954 ** | − 0 .988 ** | 0 .933 ** |
|
| − 0 .350 | − 0 .356 | 0 .908 ** | − 0 .625 ** | − 0 .961 ** | − 0 .873 ** | − 0 .954 ** | 1 | 0 .956 ** | − 0 .986 ** |
|
| − 0 .440 | − 0 .458 | 0 .859 ** | − 0 .708 ** | − 0 .979 ** | − 0 .914 ** | − 0 .988 ** | 0 .956 ** | 1 | − 0 .946 ** |
|
| 0 .397 | 0 .408 | − 0 .916 ** | 0 .539 * | 0 .954 ** | 0 .819 ** | 0 .933 ** | − 0 .986 ** | − 0 .946 ** | 1 |
Note: ** exhibits a significant correlation under a level of 0.01 (bilateral). * shows a significant correlation under a level of 0.05 (bilateral).
A comparison between the appraisal results separately obtained based on E-M-TOPSIS and E-TOPSIS methods.
| Year | Mahal+ | Mahal− | E-M-TOPSIS | E-TOPSIS | Traditional TOPSIS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Closeness | Order | Closeness | Order | Closeness | Order | |||
| 1999 | 10.307 | 13.397 | 0.565 | 1 | 0.461 | 10 | 0.456 | 11 |
| 2000 | 11.416 | 12.644 | 0.526 | 4 | 0.387 | 13 | 0.408 | 13 |
| 2001 | 11.044 | 12.544 | 0.532 | 2 | 0.414 | 12 | 0.417 | 12 |
| 2002 | 11.482 | 12.202 | 0.515 | 5 | 0.383 | 14 | 0.371 | 15 |
| 2003 | 11.198 | 12.420 | 0.526 | 3 | 0.304 | 16 | 0.260 | 17 |
| 2004 | 13.080 | 10.555 | 0.447 | 17 | 0.291 | 17 | 0.267 | 16 |
| 2005 | 12.302 | 11.128 | 0.475 | 9 | 0.380 | 15 | 0.374 | 14 |
| 2006 | 12.530 | 10.987 | 0.467 | 13 | 0.454 | 11 | 0.504 | 10 |
| 2007 | 12.753 | 10.783 | 0.458 | 15 | 0.532 | 7 | 0.596 | 7 |
| 2008 | 12.198 | 11.329 | 0.482 | 8 | 0.655 | 2 | 0.735 | 2 |
| 2009 | 12.016 | 11.607 | 0.491 | 6 | 0.594 | 4 | 0.680 | 4 |
| 2010 | 12.398 | 11.204 | 0.475 | 10 | 0.511 | 8 | 0.592 | 8 |
| 2011 | 12.587 | 11.057 | 0.468 | 12 | 0.497 | 9 | 0.565 | 9 |
| 2012 | 12.860 | 10.713 | 0.454 | 16 | 0.583 | 5 | 0.680 | 5 |
| 2013 | 12.631 | 10.854 | 0.462 | 14 | 0.558 | 6 | 0.646 | 6 |
| 2014 | 12.442 | 11.015 | 0.470 | 11 | 0.628 | 3 | 0.731 | 3 |
| 2015 | 11.999 | 11.433 | 0.488 | 7 | 0.681 | 1 | 0.788 | 1 |
Figure 5Fluctuation trends of relative closeness degrees of the equivalent-weight traditional TOPSIS, E-TOPSIS, and E-M-TOPSIS methods.
Figure 6The fluctuation trends of the external economic and social responsibility performances using E-M-TOPSIS.