Review Article
Review of Life-Cycle Approaches Coupled with Data Envelopment Analysis: Launching the CFP + DEA Method for Energy Policy Making
Table 2
Strengths and weaknesses of implementing the CFP + DEA method.
| Aspect | Rating | Justification |
| Strengths | | | Consistency | + | Independency of operational inputs | Quantification | ++ | This method allows the quantification of the minimisation of operational inputs to attain target efficiency levels | Benchmarking | ++ | Useful mechanism to determine target environmental improvements for industries and governments | Revision of reference values | + | Environmental benchmarking to recalculate pollutant reference values | Communication | ++ | Advantages of communicating to stakeholders and general public as compared to LCA + DEA methods due to broader appeal of CFP | Interpretation | + | Reduced complexity as compared to the LCA + DEA methods for knowledge transfer and decision making | Weaknesses | | | Factors influencing inefficiency | −− | Lack of identification of the underlying factors of inefficiency | Economic costs | −− | The method does not provide a direct quantification of the costs derived from optimisation procedures | Dependency on sample size | − | The number of DMUs condition the amount of operational items (inputs and outputs) that can be included in the DEA matrix |
|
|
“++” = major strength; “+” = minor strength; “−” = minor constraint; “−−” = major constraint.
|