Evaluation of Environmental Efficiency and Shadow Price of Pollutants Determination in Khuzestan Province Meat Livestock

Subject Areas : Environmental Economics

Habib Shahbazi ¹ , Zahra Gheitasi ²

1 - Assistant Professor, Agricultural Economics, Sayyed Jamaleddin Asadabadi University, Asadabad, Hamedan, Iran. *(Corresponding Author)
2 - Ms.c in Agricultural Economics, Bu-Ali-Sina University, Hamedan, Iran.

Received: 2017-08-11 Accepted : 2018-04-09 Published : 2023-03-21

Keywords: Technical Efficiency, a random fronteier production function, Environmental Issues, Environmental Efficienc,

Abstract :

Background and Objective: The growing environmental problem and then Added cost which create diverse environmental activities, led scientists to modify their efficiency and productivity models with well-liked products and undesirable products effects. Emissions of greenhouse gases from various sources, especially from agriculture sector, are one of the main causes of environmental pollution.Material and Methodology: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the environmental effecuency and determination of the shadow price of pollutants for meat dairy in Khuzestan province. In this study, 60 samples and a random fronteier production function model have been used by frontier functions using the maximum likelihood method and the FRONTIER econometric software.Findings: Results indicate that the technical efficiency of the meat livestock units of the province is 0.99 which could indicate that meat livestock units have relatively high technical efficiency. Also, the results of environmental efficiency of Khuzestan province meat livestock units have shown that the average environmental efficiency is 0.29. In fact, this level of environmental efficiency shows that meat livestock units in Khuzestan province have relatively low environmental performance.Discussion and Conclusion: In order to prevent inaccurate decisions in the field of management and development of economic activities without concern for environmental issues, planner, policymaker and investors, in addition of technical effciency, should use enviromental efficency as developing criteria of their acivites.

References:

1. Ghorbani M, Darijani A, Kouchaki AR, Motalebi M. Estimation of environmental costs of greenhouse gases emission in Mashhad dairy farms. Agricultural Economics and Development. 2009; 17(2(66)):43-64. (In Persian)


2. Agricultural statistics of Khuzestan province. Vice-Chancellor of Livestock Product Improvement, Annual report. 2014 and 2016. (In Persian)


3. Food and Agricultural Organization. Annual Report. 2014. [Internet] [cited 2023 Sep 17]. Available from: FAO.org


4. Khosravi M, Nowrozi R. A systematic estimation of methane emissions during the statistical period 1375 to 1385. 4th Iran Climate Change Conference, Niro Research Institute, Tehran. 1389. (In Persian)


5. Darijani A, Sharzehei GA, Yazdani S, Peykani Machiani GR, Sadr Alashrafi SM. Estimation of environmental efficiency by stochastic frontier analysis: a case study of livestock slaughterhouses in Tehran province. Agricultural Economics and Development. 2005; 13 (3(51)):113-34. (In Persian)


6. Nikbakht A, Fathi M, Dehghanian F, Mansour S. Presenting a method to evaluate environmental efficiency using data envelopment analysis method. The 6th International Industrial Engineering Conference. 2017. (In Persian)


7. Nguyen VH, Shashi K, Virginia M. Shadow prices of environmental outputs and production efficiency of household-level paper recycling units in Vietnam. Ecological Economics. 2008; 65:98-110.


8. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CAK, Pasurka C. Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: a nonparametric approach. Review of Economics and Statistics. 1989; 71:90-8.


9. Darijani A. Evaluation of technical and environmental efficiency of livestock slaughterhouses in Tehran province [dissertation]. University of Tehran; 2014.


10. Molaei M, Sani F. Estimation of technical and environmental efficiency of dairy farms in Sarab County (data envelopment analysis approach). Journal of Animal Science Research. 2016; 25 (4):141-55. (In Persian)


11. Molaei M, Sani F. Evaluating the impact of environmental pollutants on technical efficiencies of dairy farms using stochastic frontier analysis. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research. 2017; 48 (1):35-42. (In Persian)


12. Shahbazi H. Green productivity of Iran with environmental approach. Sustainability, Development & Environment. 2020; 1(0):69-82. (In Persian)


13. Reinhard R, Lovell CAK, Thijssen GJ. Environmental efficiency with multiple environmentally detrimental variables: estimated with SFA and DEA. European Journal of Operational Research. 2000; 121:287-303.


14. Coelli TJ. Formulation of technical, economic and environmental efficiency measures that are consistent with the materials balance condition. Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Social Science Unit. 2006 Mar 15.


15. Kuo HF, Tsou KW. Application of environmental change efficiency to the sustainability of urban development at the neighborhood level. Sustainability. 2015; 7: 10479-98.


16. Üstün K. Evaluating environmental efficiency of Turkish cities by data envelopment analysis. Global Nest Journal. 2015; 17 (2):281-90.


17. Hernández-del-Olmo F, Gaudioso E, Dormido R, Dur N. Energy and environmental efficiency for the N-ammonia removal process in wastewater treatment plants by means of reinforcement learning. Energie. 2017; 9: 2-17.


18. Lee P, Park YJ. Eco-efficiency evaluation considering environmental stringency. Sustainability. 2017; 7:2-18.


19. Wu J, Wu Y, Bing W. Environmental efficiency and the optimal size of Chinese cities (May-June 2017). China & World Economy. 2017; 25 (3):60-86.


20. Reka L. Shadow price of air pollution emissions in the Czech energy sector estimation distance function. Institute of Economic Studies Faculty of Social Sciences Charles University in Prague. 2011.


21. Greene WH. Frontier production function. In: Pesaran MH, Schmidt P, editors. Handbook of Applied Econometrics, vol II: Microeconomics. Blackwell; 1997. p. 81-166.


22. Reinhard S, Lovell CAK, Thijseen GJ. Econometric estimation of technical and environmental efficiency: an application to Dutch dairy farms. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1999; 81:44-60.


23. Coelli TJ, Perelman S. Efficiency measurement, multi-output technologies and distance functions: with application to European railways. Crepp Working Paper 96/05. Centre de Recherche en Economie Publique ET Economie de la Population, Université de Liège; 1996.


24. Morrison CJ, Johnston WE. Efficiency in New Zealand sheep and cattle farming: pre and post reform. Paper presented at Georgia Productivity Workshop II, Athens GA; 1996.


25. Hadley D. Estimation of shadow prices for undesirable outputs: an application to UK dairy farms. American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, Utah; 1998.


26. Shepherd RW. Theory of cost and production function. Princeton University Press; 1970.


27. Tyteca D. Linear programming models for the measurement of environmental performance of firms: concepts and empirical results. Journal of Productivity Analysis. 1997; 8:97-183.


28. Greene WH. Maximum likelihood estimation of economic frontier functions. Journal of Economics. 1980; 13:27-56.


29. Greene WH. The econometric approach to efficiency analysis. In: Fried HO, Lovell CAK, Schmidt SS, editors. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency: Techniques and Applications. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.


30. Ministry of Agriculture. 2014. Agricultural statistics of Khuzestan province. Animal Chapter. (In Persian)


31. Hollmann, M., K.F. Knowlton and M.D. Hanigan. 2008. Evaluation of solids, nitrogen, and phosphorus excretion models for lactating dairy cows, Journal of Dairy Science, 91: PP: 1245–1257.


32. Central Bank of Iran. 2015. Iran's National Accounts Report 2014-2015, based on 2015. cbi.ir