4.6 Article

Comprehensive benefit evaluation of eco-industrial parks by employing the best-worst method based on circular economy and sustainability

期刊

ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 1229-1253

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10668-017-9936-6

关键词

Eco-industrial parks; Comprehensive benefit evaluation; Best-worst method (BWM); Circular economy

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71373076]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

At the aim of solving the increasing conflicts among the economic growth, resource shortage, and environmental aggravation, the eco-industrial park becomes a significant research issue to achieve sustainable development and circular economy. Therefore, evaluating the comprehensive benefit of eco-industrial parks and providing references and policy formulation in supporting the improvement of construction and management level for eco-industrial parks are of great significance. In this paper, a hybrid framework was proposed to assess the comprehensive benefit of eco-industrial parks in terms of circular economy and sustainability. Firstly, the evaluation index system was constructed by using grey-Delphi method, which included economic benefit criteria, social benefit criteria, and environmental benefit criteria with nine quantitative sub-criteria and four qualitative sub-criteria. Then, a new comparison-based method, namely the best-worst method, was employed to determine the weights of all sub-criteria and the performance values of all selected eco-industrial parks with respect to the qualitative sub-criteria. Finally, five selected representative eco-industrial parks in China were ranked in terms of comprehensive benefit, and the optimal eco-industrial park was selected. According to the results of comprehensive benefit evaluation for eco-industrial parks, the strengths and weaknesses of each eco-industrial park were obvious. At the end, the recommendations for the effective and rapid development of eco-industrial parks were formulated.

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