4.6 Article

A Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process-Based Analysis of the Dynamic Sustainable Management Index in Leisure Agriculture

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 12, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su12135395

关键词

fuzzy analytic hierarchy process; dynamic sustainable management index; leisure agriculture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Agricultural leisure is one of the development trends in modern society. However, in leisure agriculture management, managers must consider the dual characteristics of agricultural production technology and the leisure service industry. Therefore, managers often face various selection pressures during management decision-making. This study examined the following five evaluation aspects: organization and operation, leisure agricultural resources, environmental maintenance management, public facility maintenance management, and operational performance. Thereafter, according to the five evaluation aspects, 21 subprojects were further divided at the second level on the basis of different attributes. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) was adopted to calculate the relative weights of various indicators, and the indicators were dynamically sorted according to their importance. Moreover, the study summarized the dynamic management indicators of leisure agriculture and contributed to research on leisure farming. The results show that managers' approach toward leisure agriculture management can be divided into three types: active, moderate, and conservative. The indicators in which the active managers attach importance when managing leisure agricultural enterprises are clearly different from those valued by moderate and conservative managers. Finding managers who are suitable for leisure agriculture management is of great significance to leisure agriculture enterprises. Appointing managers with appropriate attitudes who can continuously improve the efficiency of enterprises and create a competitive advantage can bring sustainable business value to these enterprises.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据