Abstract
This chapter reviews the construction of Benefit-of-the-Doubt Composite Indicators (BoD CI) that allow the aggregation of individual indicators to obtain an overall measure of performance. This involves using frontier methods to reflect the relative performance of multidimensional concepts beyond the traditional production setting involving the transformation of inputs into outputs. The chapter reviews the alternative formulations of CI, including the Directional BoD CI based on a Directional Distance Function model, which allows the aggregation of desirable and undesirable indicators. CI models often require the specification of weight restrictions to reflect the relative importance of indicators. Alternative formulations for indicator-level and category-level restrictions are discussed. The advantages and limitations of using virtual weight restrictions, expressing the importance of indicators in percentage terms, are also explored. This chapter finishes with a small illustrative application of assessments involving Directional Composite Indicators with weight restrictions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Allen, R., Athanassopoulos, A. D., Dyson, R. G., & Thanassoulis, E. (1997). Weights restrictions and value judgments in data envelopment analysis: Evolution, development and future directions. Annals of Operations Research, 0(73), 13–64.
Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.
Boussemart, J. P., Briec, W., Kerstens, K., & Poutineau, J.-C. (2003). Luenberger and Malmquist productivity indices: Theoretical comparisons and empirical illustration. Bulletin of Economic Research, 55, 391–405.
Burck, J., Hermwille, L., & Krings, L. (2012). Climate Change Performance Index. Technical report, Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe, Berlin, Germany.
Chambers, R. G., Chung, Y., & Fare, R. (1996). Benefit and distance functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 70(2), 407–419.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.
Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2007). An introduction to ‘benefit of the doubt’ composite indicators. Social Indicators Research, 82(1), 111–145.
Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2011). Constructing composite indicators with imprecise data: A proposal. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(9), 10940–10949.
Chung, Y., Fare, R., & Grosskopf, S. (1997). Productivity and undesirable outputs: A directional distance function approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 51(3), 229–240.
Cook, W. D., & Green, R. H. (2005). Evaluating power plant efficiency: A hierarchical model. Computers & Operations Research, 32(4), 813–823.
Cook, W. D., & Kress, M. (1990). A data envelopment model for aggregating preference rankings. Management Science, 36(11), 1302–1310.
Dyson, R. G., Allen, R., Camanho, A. S., Podinovski, V. V., Sarrico, C. S., & Shale, E. A. (2001). Pitfalls and protocols in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 132(2), 245–259.
Emerson, J. W., Hsu, A., Levy, M. A., de Sherbinin, A., Mara, V., Esty, D. C., & Jaiteh, M. (2012). Environmental Performance Index and Pilot Trend Environmental Performance Index. Technical report, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, New Haven.
Färe, R., & Karagiannis, G. (2014). Benefit-of-the-doubt aggregation and the diet problem. Omega, 47, 33–35.
Hollingsworth, B., & Smith, P. (2003). Use of ratios in data envelopment analysis. Applied Economics Letters, 10(11), 733–735.
Koopmans, T. (1951). Analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation (pp. 33–97). New York: Wiley.
Lins, M. E., Oliveira, L. B., da Silva, A. C. M., Rosa, L. P., & Pereira, A. O., Jr. (2012). Performance assessment of alternative energy resources in Brazilian power sector using data envelopment analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 898–903.
Liu, W. B., Meng, W., Li, X. X., & Zhang, D. Q. (2009). DEA models with undesirable inputs and outputs. Annals of Operations Research, 173(1), 177–194.
Lovell, C. A. K. (1995). Measuring the macroeconomic performance of the Taiwanese economy. International Journal of Production Economics, 39(1–2), 165–178.
Lovell, C. A. K., Pastor, J. T., & Turner, J. A. (1995). Measuring macroeconomic performance in the OECD: A comparison of European and non-European countries. European Journal of Operational Research, 87(3), 507–518.
Morais, P., & Camanho, A. S. (2011). Evaluation of performance of European cities with the aim to promote quality of life improvements. Omega, 39(4), 398–409.
Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffmann, A., & Giovannini, E. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Oggioni, G., Riccardi, R., & Toninelli, R. (2011). Eco-efficiency of the world cement industry: A data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2842–2854.
Rogge, N. (2012). Undesirable specialization in the construction of composite policy indicators: The environmental performance index. Ecological Indicators, 23, 143–154.
Sarrico, C. S., & Dyson, R. G. (2004). Restricting virtual weights in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 159(1), 17–34.
Scheel, H. (2001). Undesirable outputs in efficiency valuations. European Journal of Operational Research, 132(2), 400–410.
Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2002). Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 142(1), 16–20.
Thanassoulis, E., Portela, M. C., & Allen, R. (2004). Incorporating value judgments in DEA. In Handbook on data envelopment analysis. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Thompson, R. G., Langemeier, L. N., Lee, C. T., Lee, E., & Thrall, R. M. (1990). The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming. Journal of Econometrics, 46(1–2), 93–108.
Thompson, R. G., Singleton, F. D., Thrall, R. M., & Smith, B. A. (1986). Comparative site evaluations for locating a high-energy physics lab in Texas. Interfaces, 16(6), 35–49.
United Nations. (2013). 2013 Human development report. Technical report, United Nations Development Programme, New York.
Wong, Y. H. B., & Beasley, J. E. (1990). Restricting weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41(9), 829–835.
Zanella, A., Camanho, A. S., & Dias, T. G. (2015). Undesirable outputs and weighting schemes in composite indicators based on data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 245(2), 517–530.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Camanho, A.S., Zanella, A., Moutinho, V. (2023). Benefit-of-the-Doubt Composite Indicators and Use of Weight Restrictions. In: Macedo, P., Moutinho, V., Madaleno, M. (eds) Advanced Mathematical Methods for Economic Efficiency Analysis. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 692. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29583-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29583-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-29582-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-29583-6
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)