Measuring the energy efficiency for airlines under the pressure of being included into the EU ETS

Measuring the energy efficiency for airlines under the pressure of being included into the EU ETS
复制标题

DOI:
10.1002/atr.1420
复制
发表时间:
2016
影响因子:
2.3
通讯作者:
Q. Cui;Yi-Ming Wei;Chenjie Yu;Ye Li
Q. Cui;Yi-Ming Wei;Chenjie Yu;Ye Li
中科院分区:
工程技术4区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Q. Cui;Yi-Ming Wei;Chenjie Yu;Ye Li

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

摘要2008年,欧盟宣布从2012年起,在欧盟境内起降的每架国际航班都将获得排放许可。因此,2008-2012年期间可视为全球航空公司的缓冲期。虽然欧盟于2014年3月4日正式决定将非欧盟航空公司排除在欧盟排放交易体系之外,但有必要调查该政策对航空公司能源效率的影响。将航空公司的能源效率分为运营阶段、服务阶段和销售阶段,将温室气体排放作为服务阶段的非期望输出。建立了弱可处置性网络范围调整测度模型和强可处置性网络范围调整测度模型,对2008 - 2012年22家国际航空公司的效率进行了评价。研究结果表明:(1)大部分航空公司的效率在此期间有所下降,欧盟排放交易制度对效率的改善效果不明显;(2)欧洲航空公司的平均效率与非欧洲航空公司的平均效率基本相同;以及(iii)具有弱可处置性的模型在区分效率差异方面更合理,而强的一次性使用性是处理不期望的输出的更合理的方式。版权所有© 2016约翰威利父子有限公司.
Summary In 2008, European Union (EU) announced that from 2012, each international flight taking off and landing in EU would be given an emission permit. Therefore, the period of 2008–2012 can be regarded as a buffer period for global airlines. Although EU formally decides to exclude non-EU airlines from the EU Emission Trading System on March 4, 2014, it is necessary to investigate the impacts of the policy on airline energy efficiency in this period. Airline energy efficiency is divided into three stages—operations stage, service stage, and sales stage—and Greenhouse gas emission is treated as an undesirable output of service stage. Two models, network range-adjusted measure model with weak disposability and network range-adjusted measure model with strong disposability, are established to evaluate the efficiencies of 22 international airlines from 2008 to 2012. The results show that (i) most airlines' efficiencies have decreased in the period, and the EU Emission Trading System is not effective for the efficiency improvement; (ii) the average efficiency of European airlines is almost the same as that of non-European airlines; and (iii) the model with weak disposability is more reasonable in distinguishing efficiency differences, while strong disposability is a more reasonable way in treating undesirable outputs. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.