›› 2019, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (11): 1926-1934.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2019.11.20

• Agricultural Economy and Development • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Evaluation of agricultural sustainable development level in Zhejiang Province

MAO Xiaobao1, FU Linlin1, MAO Xiaohong1, AIHAITI Adila2   

  1. 1. Institute of Rural Development, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou 310021, China;
    2. China Academy for Rural Development, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
  • Received:2019-06-10 Online:2019-11-25 Published:2019-12-04

Abstract: In the present study, 25 national agricultural sustainable development experimental demonstration counties (cities, districts) in Zhejiang Province were selected as investigation objects, and a multi-level comprehensive evaluation index system was constructed based on 6 aspects, namely, agricultural resource endowment, agricultural development level, agricultural practitioners' technology level, economic benefit, social benefit and ecological benefit. By using data dimensionless treatment and coefficient of variation method, the sustainable development level was evaluated from both subsystem score and synthesis score. It was shown that the subsystem score of agricultural resource endowment, agricultural development level, agricultural practitioners' technology level, economic benefit, social benefit and ecological benefit of 25 national agricultural sustainable development experimental demonstration counties (cities, districts) was 0.071 1-0.642 9, 0.195 4-1.311 9, 0.093 1-1.066 8, 0.587 0-1.720 1, 0.012 3-0.917 9, 0.383 3-1.880 9, respectively, and the synthesis score was 3.261 1-5.946 4. Deqing got the highest synthesis score, and was followed by Anji and Dinghai, while Lanxi got the lowest synthesis score. In general, the sustainable development level was balanced among the 25 demonstration counties (cities, districts). In these subsystems, the score rate of agricultural development level and ecological benefit was higher than 50%, yet the score rate of agricultural practitioners' technology level and social benefit was less than 40%. According suggestions were put forward such as enhancing talent cultivation, focusing on the sustainable development of agricultural ecology, improving the development balance within regions.

Key words: resource utilization efficiency, agricultural sustainable development, comprehensive evaluation

CLC Number: