IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i17p5298-d622442.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the Sectoral Energy Development Intensity in the Euro Area Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Romualdas Ginevičius

    (Department of Engineering Management, Bialystok University of Technology, 15-351 Bialystok, Poland)

  • Yuriy Bilan

    (Faculty of Management, Rzeszow University of Technology, 35-959 Rzeszów, Poland)

  • Grzegorz Kądzielawski

    (Department of Applied Sciences, WSB University, 41-300 Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland)

  • Miloslav Novotny

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Brno Technical University, 601 90 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Tomasz Kośmider

    (Institute of Safety Science, Academy of Justice, 00-071 Warszawa, Poland)

Abstract

National economic development largely depends on the development of the energy sector. Its condition is most commonly assessed based on the situation over the last year. An alternative approach, however, is to evaluate fluctuations in development that have occurred over a longer period. In this paper, both methodologies have been applied, in order to assess, based on the results, which of them is more accurate. The article hypothesizes that the second method is more accurate. To prove this empirically, values representing the energy development in various sectors (industrial, agricultural, transport, service and the other (miscellaneous) sectors) in various European countries over the 2009–2018 period were estimated. The development fluctuations that occurred during the period under consideration were evaluated according to two parameters—intensity and stability. The first parameter was taken to be the difference between the values representing energy development in a given sectors at the end and beginning of the period under consideration. The second parameter was taken as the aggregate change across consecutive time slots during which positive or negative fluctuations occurred. The value of energy development in a particular economic sector was estimated as the product of the latter coefficient and the development intensity indicator. Comparison of the results representing evaluation of energy development based on the methodology proposed, and the analysis of the situation in the last year for which data was available revealed that the results in both cases differed, with the values varying from 2% (for the transport sector) to 4.5% (for the agricultural sector). Taking into account the fact that the indicator representing energy development in particular economic sectors was estimated as a percentage of the total sectoral energy consumption, this difference was relatively significant (22.7 and 1.5% respectively). Thus, the findings suggest that application of the proposed methodology is relevant. The methodology provides a greater potential to adequately research issues related to national economic development.

Suggested Citation

  • Romualdas Ginevičius & Yuriy Bilan & Grzegorz Kądzielawski & Miloslav Novotny & Tomasz Kośmider, 2021. "Evaluation of the Sectoral Energy Development Intensity in the Euro Area Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-12, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:17:p:5298-:d:622442
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/17/5298/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/17/5298/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael A. Toman & Barbora Jemelkova, 2003. "Energy and Economic Development: An Assessment of the State of Knowledge," The Energy Journal, , vol. 24(4), pages 93-112, October.
    2. Tom Waas & Jean Hugé & Thomas Block & Tarah Wright & Francisco Benitez-Capistros & Aviel Verbruggen, 2014. "Sustainability Assessment and Indicators: Tools in a Decision-Making Strategy for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(9), pages 1-23, August.
    3. Ang, B.W. & Goh, Tian, 2018. "Bridging the gap between energy-to-GDP ratio and composite energy intensity index," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 105-112.
    4. Inglesi-Lotz, Roula, 2016. "The impact of renewable energy consumption to economic growth: A panel data application," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 58-63.
    5. Romualdas Ginevicius & Martin Schieg & Magdalena Kot-Radojewska & Marta Jarocka, 2021. "Quantitative Assessment of the Dynamics of Socioeconomic Processes," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 23(57), pages 504-504.
    6. Carmona, Mónica & Feria, Julia & Golpe, Antonio A. & Iglesias, Jesus, 2017. "Energy consumption in the US reconsidered. Evidence across sources and economic sectors," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1055-1068.
    7. Tom Waas & Jean Huge & Thomas BLOCK & Tarah Wright & Francisco Javier Benitez Capistros & Aviel Verbruggen, 2014. "Sustainability assessment and indicators: Tools in a decision-making strategy for sustainable development," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/189410, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Borozan, Djula, 2013. "Exploring the relationship between energy consumption and GDP: Evidence from Croatia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 373-381.
    9. Olena Kozyreva & Rita Sagaidak-Nikituk & Natalia Demchenko, 2017. "Analysis Of The Socio-Economic Development Of Ukrainian Regions," Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, Publishing house "Baltija Publishing", vol. 3(2).
    10. Sharma, Susan Sunila, 2010. "The relationship between energy and economic growth: Empirical evidence from 66 countries," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(11), pages 3565-3574, November.
    11. Pirlogea, Corina & Cicea, Claudiu, 2012. "Econometric perspective of the energy consumption and economic growth relation in European Union," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(8), pages 5718-5726.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tayebeh Sadat Tabatabaei & Pedram Asef, 2021. "Evaluation of Energy Price Liberalization in Electricity Industry: A Data-Driven Study on Energy Economics," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Yuriy Bilan & Serhiy Kozmenko & Inna Makarenko, 2023. "Recent Advances in the Energy Market Development: Current Challenges and Perspectives of Energy Crises in Academia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-6, February.
    3. Vlad-Cosmin Bulai & Alexandra Horobet & Oana Cristina Popovici & Lucian Belascu & Sofia Adriana Dumitrescu, 2021. "A VaR-Based Methodology for Assessing Carbon Price Risk across European Union Economic Sectors," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-21, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Romualdas Ginevičius & Gracjana Noga & Eigirdas Žemaitis & Barbara Piontek & Karel Šuhajda, 2021. "Comparative Assessment of the Impact of Electricity Consumption in Different Economic Sectors on the Economic Development of the EU Member States," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Łukasz Nazarko & Eigirdas Žemaitis & Łukasz Krzysztof Wróblewski & Karel Šuhajda & Magdalena Zajączkowska, 2022. "The Impact of Energy Development of the European Union Euro Area Countries on CO 2 Emissions Level," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-12, February.
    3. Catherine Le Roux & Marius Pretorius, 2016. "Conceptualizing the Limiting Issues Inhibiting Sustainability Embeddedness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-22, April.
    4. Justyna Patalas-Maliszewska & Hanna Łosyk, 2020. "An Approach to Assessing Sustainability in the Development of a Manufacturing Company," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, October.
    5. Sofia Dahlgren & Jonas Ammenberg, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part II—Applying a Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, January.
    6. María Luisa Pajuelo Moreno & Teresa Duarte-Atoche, 2019. "Relationship between Sustainable Disclosure and Performance—An Extension of Ullmann’s Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-33, August.
    7. Weiwei Li & Pingtao Yi & Danning Zhang, 2018. "Sustainability Evaluation of Cities in Northeastern China Using Dynamic TOPSIS-Entropy Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Zafar, Muhammad Wasif & Shahbaz, Muhammad & Hou, Fujun & Sinha, Avik, 2018. "¬¬¬¬¬¬From Nonrenewable to Renewable Energy and Its Impact on Economic Growth: Silver Line of Research & Development Expenditures in APEC Countries," MPRA Paper 90611, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Dec 2018.
    9. Svatava Janoušková & Tomáš Hák & Bedřich Moldan, 2018. "Global SDGs Assessments: Helping or Confusing Indicators?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, May.
    10. Sungjo Hong & Ihl Kweon & Bum-Hyun Lee & Heechul Kim, 2019. "Indicators and Assessment System for Sustainability of Municipalities: A Case Study of South Korea’s Assessment of Sustainability of Cities (ASC)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-21, November.
    11. Johan Du Plessis & Wouter Bam, 2018. "Comparing the Sustainable Development Potential of Industries: A Role for Sustainability Disclosures?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, March.
    12. Jean Hugé & Nibedita Mukherjee & Camille Fertel & Jean-Philippe Waaub & Thomas Block & Tom Waas & Nico Koedam & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas, 2015. "Conceptualizing the Effectiveness of Sustainability Assessment in Development Cooperation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-17, May.
    13. Mumtaz, Rehma & Zaman, Khalid & Sajjad, Faiza & Lodhi, Muhammad Saeed & Irfan, Muhammad & Khan, Imran & Naseem, Imran, 2014. "Modeling the causal relationship between energy and growth factors: Journey towards sustainable development," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 353-365.
    14. Kajsa Borgnäs, 2017. "Indicators as ‘circular argumentation constructs’? An input–output analysis of the variable structure of five environmental sustainability country rankings," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 769-790, June.
    15. Livas-García, A. & Bonilla, D. & Escalante Soberanis, M.A. & Bassam, A., 2019. "Projecting the energy pathway using a methodological sequence: The case of Mexico," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    16. Romualdas Ginevičius & Roman Trishch & Yuriy Bilan & Marcin Lis & Jan Pencik, 2022. "Assessment of the Economic Efficiency of Energy Development in the Industrial Sector of the European Union Area Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-12, May.
    17. Anupam Das & Adian McFarlane & Luc Carels, 2021. "Empirical exploration of remittances and renewable energy consumption in Bangladesh," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 65-89, February.
    18. Catherine Dezio & Davide Marino, 2018. "Towards an Impact Evaluation Framework to Measure Urban Resilience in Food Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-13, June.
    19. Marcellinus Essah, 2022. "Gold mining in Ghana and the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Exploring community perspectives on social and environmental injustices," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 127-138, February.
    20. Karel Doubravský & Alena Kocmanová & Mirko Dohnal, 2018. "Analysis of Sustainability Decision Trees Generated by Qualitative Models Based on Equationless Heuristics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:17:p:5298-:d:622442. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.