4.7 Article

A comprehensive evaluation paradigm for regional green development based on Five-Circle Model: A case study from BeijingTianjin-Hebei

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 277, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124076

关键词

Green development; Five-circle model; Evaluation indicators; Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei; Policy recommendations

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71871146]
  2. MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Humanities and Social Science [18YJA630090]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An evaluation of a region's green development status is an essential prerequisite to improve region's ecological environment. Indicator systems used for such evaluations within previous studies mainly based on the meanings ascribed to green development. However, these meanings were relatively narrow, focusing primarily on economic development and environmental protection. Therefore, in this study, we proposed an updated definition of green development, and proposed a corresponding five-circle model of green development. We devised a methodology to determine an evaluation indicator system of green development based on five-circle model. We used a combination of subjective and objective weight methods to evaluate the green development performance of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, which is China's core economic zone. The results of the evaluation indicated a general improvement in the overall performance of this region during the period 2006-2017. Within the region, Beijing ranked highest because of the strong performances of its economic advancement, resource utilization, and social progress indexes. Tianjin's economic advancement and social progress indexes performed well, but its ecological environment index performed poorly. In Hebei, the economic advancement and social progress indexes were both underdeveloped. In conclusion, we offer policy recommendations to promote green development in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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