Download The Construction and Application of “Resource-Conserving and

The Construction and Application of “Resource-Conserving and
Environmentally Friendly Agriculture” Evaluation System
LIU Zhixiong1, KUANG Yuanpei2
1. Business School of China University of Political Science and Law, P.R.China, 102249
2. Department of Economics of Hunan Agricultural University, P.R.China, 410128
[email protected]
Abstract: This paper proposed the framework of “Resource-Conserving and Environmentally Friendly
Agriculture” evaluation system, which consists of three levels and twenty-one specific indexes, and
applied the comprehensive evidence-based evaluation system to the analysis of “Resource-Conserving
and Environmentally Friendly Agriculture” in the district of Changsha, Zhuzhou, Xiangtan of Hunan
Province. According to the research, the “Resource-Conserving and Environmentally Friendly
Agriculture” in the district is still in its primitive stage.
Keywords: Resource-Conserving and Environmentally Friendly Agriculture, Evaluation Index,
Measurement
1. Introduction
Faced with China’s current situation of low supply of agricultural resources and low volume of per
capita possession, it appears to be especially important to construct “Resource-Conserving and
Environmentally Friendly Agriculture” (hereinafter to be referred as “amphitypy agriculture”).
Recently, there are many documents in China, which focus on the construction of “amphitypy
agriculture” evaluation system. According to these documents available, the evaluation system chiefly
focuses on four aspects as follows. The first aspect is the evaluation index of amphitypy society. For
example, Zeng Xiangyu (2008) builds the comprehensive evaluation system of “amphitypy society” and
assessed the development process of “amphitypy society” in the city of Wuhan. Liu Jinsong (2008)
builds the evaluation system of “amphitypy society”. Yuan Zhiming (2008) builds the evaluation system
of environmentally friendly society. And Zhao Minghua and Li Guixiang (2007) build the evaluation
system of resource-conserving society. The second aspect is the evaluation index of modern agriculture.
Wen Hua and Jiang Cuihong et al. (2008) conduct a nationwide evaluation study on the development
process of modern agriculture. Ren Yijun and Ren Murong (2008) build an overall evaluation system of
modern agriculture development of Hunan Province. The third aspect is the evaluation index of
sustainable agriculture: Zhou Yasha and Zhu Mande (2003), Peng Yinian and Lue Zhongwei (2007) had
a comprehensive assessment on the nationwide sustainable agriculture development. The fourth aspect is
the evaluation index of circulative agriculture. Si Wei (2007) pointed out that the evaluation system of
agricultural circular economy development should consist of resource system index, environment
system index, economy system index, society system index and population system index.
At present, a shortage of a comprehensive evaluation system of “amphitypy agriculture” appears at
home and abroad. Hence, this paper is trying to construct a comprehensive evaluation system of
“amphitypy agriculture” on the basis of previous studies.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces and analyzes the evaluation system. Section 3
presents positive analysis. Section 4 provides the conclusions and extended advice of this paper.
2. The Construction of “Resource-Conserving and Environmentally Friendly
Agriculture” Evaluation System
This paper evaluates “amphitypy agriculture” from three levels. The first level is the general index of
amphitypy agriculture’s comprehensive development evaluation. The second level is composed of four
195
indicators. The third level sets 21 indictors. The specific statement is as follows.
2.1 The Definition of Indicators
2.1.1 Indicators of the Supporting Capacity of Economy, Society and Science and Technology
Indicators are defined as fallows. (1) Per Capita Agriculture GDP in Rural Areas (YUAN). It is
measured by the ratio of the rural GDP in the district (the total value of the first industry) to the rural
population, and means the higher the rural per capita GDP is, the more solid the basis for the
construction of “amphitypy agriculture” is.
(2) Per Capita Net Income in Rural Areas (YUAN). It is measured by rural total incomes per capita
minus rural expenditure per capita, and means the indicator will specify the capability for the society
and farmers to construct “amphitypy agriculture”.
(3) The indicator for the adjustment range of industrial structure (%). It is measured by the proportion of
rural nonagricultural production value to Gross Output Value of Farming Forestry, Animal Husbandry,
and Fishery. We consider that the rural nonagricultural production value amounts to the disparity
between gross Domestic products and Gross Output Value of Farming Forestry, Animal Husbandry, and
Fishery, which is an important component to develop “amphitypy agriculture”, to upgrade industrial
structure, and to increase farmers’ income.
(4) Education year for the agricultural labor per capita (YEAR). It means the agricultural labor’s basic
cultural qualities and capability to get production technology of “amphitypy agriculture” as well as their
environmental consciousness and sustainable development concept. This is a positive dictator, and
means the higher the value of the indicator, the more beneficial for the advancement of “amphitypy
agriculture”.
(5) The contribution rate for agriculture science and technology progress (%). It means the standard for
agriculture science and technology to be converted into productivity, and represents a critical indicator
for the promotion and application of amphitypy agriculture’s science and technology. The contribution
rate for agriculture science and technology progress in Hunan Province is 51.3%, 3.3% higher than
nationwide average level.
(6) Processing rate of agricultural products (%). It is measured by the ratio of the output value of
processing industry for agricultural products to the total value of agricultural products. The higher the
rate the higher level for agriculture industrialization, hence, the more outstanding achievement for
“amphitypy agriculture” construction.
2.1.2 Indicators of Resources Consumption Efficiency
(1) Water-conserving index (%). It consists of two measurement indexes:
Water consumption of
agricultural output of 10 000 RMB (m3/10 000RMB) is the ratio of yearly agricultural water
consumption to gross output value of agriculture. It is a negative index, so a higher index signifies
higher disadvantages for the construction of “amphitypy agriculture”.
Irrigation efficiency rate (%) is
the ratio of effective irrigation area to the total cultivated area. The rate, as a positive indicator, reflects
the effective irrigation of agricultural production.
(2) Land-conserving index (%). It consists of four measurement indexes.
Grain output per unit area
of farmland (ton/hectare) is the ratio of total grain output to total cultivated area.
Multiple cropping
index of the farmland (%) is the ratio of total grain planting area of crops to the arable land, which
reflects the agroclimate and land production proficiency. So the higher the multiple cropping is, the
better the proficiency of “amphitypy agriculture” is.
Improvement rate of low-yielding farmland (%)
is the ratio of yearly improvement area of low-yielding farmland to the arable land.
Rate of farmland
output (10 000 RMB per hectare) is the ratio of agriculture output to the arable land.
(3) Labor-conserving index (%). It consists of three measurement indexes.
The total power of
agriculture machinery possessed by per unit area of farmland (watt per hectare) is the ratio of the total
power of the agriculture machinery to the total grain planting area of crops. A higher index represents a
wide range of power operation in place of hand operation in “amphitypy agriculture” production.
，
①
②
①
②
③
①
④
②
196
Agriculture employment ratio (%) is the ratio of agriculture labor to rural labor. It reflects the diversity
of the farmer’s employment and income source and also indirectly reflects the operation scale of
agriculture development. The higher the ratio is the greater pressure the agricultural resources bear.
The ratio of farmers under professional training (%) is the ratio of the number of the farmers under
professional training and the number of transfer of surplus labor force.
(4) Energy-conserving index (%). It consists of five measurement indexes.
The index of SNPK area
(%) is the ratio of SNPK area to the total grain planting area of crops.
The index of plastic mulch
culture area (%) is the ratio of agricultural plastic mulch culture area to the total grain planting area of
crops.
Effective utilization rate of fertilizers (10 000RMB per ton) is the ratio of total value of
agriculture output to the application content of agriculture fertilizers.
The index of agriculture
electricity utilization KWH per RMB is the ratio of rural electricity utilization quantity to the total
value of the first industry.
The index of agriculture diesel fuel consumption (ton per 10 000RMB) is
the ratio of agriculture diesel fuel consumption to the total value of the first industry.
2.1.3 Indicators of Environmental Protection Efficiency
(1) The forest-coverage rate (%). The forest cover rate plays an important role in defending natural
disaster and acts as an important indicator for environment quality. A higher forest cover rate would
satisfy the demand of “amphitypy agriculture”.
(2) The soil erosion conservation rate (%) is composed of two measurement indexes.
Yearly soil
erosion conservation project rate is measured by yearly soil erosion conservation project area divided by
soil erosion area. The greater the investment into agricultural environment and the conservation intensity
are, the more favorable “amphitypy agriculture” construction enjoys.
Rate of stable yields area
despite drought or excessive rain is the ratio of stable yields area despite drought or excessive rain to
total cultivated area.
(3) Environmental protection investment rate (%). It is the proportion of financial investment into
environmental protection to total value of agricultural output, which explains the relevant authority’s
stress upon environmental protection and their determination and vigor to enhance agricultural
environments.
(4) The utilization intensity of fertilizers, chemicals and agricultural film (%) consist of three
measurement indexes.
Fertilizer amount of per unit area on the existing cultivated land is the ratio of
fertilizer amount to the sown area of crops.
Chemicals amount of per unit area on the existing
cultivated land is the ratio of chemical amount to the sown area of crops.
Agriculture film amount of
per unit area on the existing cultivated land is the ratio of agriculture film amount to the sown area of
crops. All these three indexes are negative indicators for environmental friendly “amphitypy agriculture”.
With their increasing intensity and frequency, they will do more harm to the soil and agriculture
products, as a result, the environments and food would be seriously polluted.
(5) Soil environmental quality index (%) is composed of three measurement indexes. Soil testing and
formulated fertilization area rate per unit area on the existing cultivated land (%) is the ratio of soil
testing and formulated fertilization area to the sown area of crops. Micronutrients fertilizer application
area rate per unit area on the existing cultivated land (%) is the ratio of micronutrients fertilizer
application area to the sown area of crops. Biological prevention area rate per unit area on the existing
cultivated land (%) is the ratio of biological prevention area to the sown area of crops. The higher the
index is, the higher the soil environmental quality is.
(6) Environment integration index (%) consists of three measurement indexes. Marsh gas possession
rate (%) is the ratio of the newly-built biomass pools to total rural households. As clean fuels, the higher
marsh gas possession signifies better rural environments. Waste water and gas treatment rate is the
second one.
Non-pollution disposal rate of rural household garbage is third one. A higher rate would
signify a better rural environment pollution control and a favorable condition for the development of
“amphitypy agriculture”.
Provincial pollution-free agricultural production base area is the fourth one.
Its higher index would be more beneficial to the agriculture production of “amphitypy agriculture”.
③
②
③
（
⑤
①
④
）
①
②
①
②
③
②
③
③
①
②
④
197
①
(7) Environmental protection awareness (%). The higher environmental protection awareness farmers,
government and enterprises possess, the more advantages the construction of “amphitypy agriculture”
will enjoy.
2.1.4 Indicators of Policy Guarantee
(1) The supporting vigor of national agricultural policy (%), that is, the ratio of the expenditure of local
finance to support rural production and agricultural causes to the GDP. This indicator reflects the
country’s greater supporting vigor upon "Three-Agricultural" problems as well as a greater intensity to
put “amphitypy agriculture” into practice. (2) The supporting vigor of agricultural credit (%), that is, the
sum of agricultural loans and township enterprises loans of the whole province, and then divided by the
total amount of loans. This indicator reflects the availability for the farmers to obtain financial support
so as to achieve “amphitypy agriculture” development, also indirectly reflects the financial support for
agriculture. (3) The degree of opening up to the outside world (%), that is, the ratio of the provincial
direct foreign funds investment into the first industry to the total value of agricultural output, as long as
the current exchange rate is chosen. (4) The cooperation level (%). The coordination capability upon
agricultural policy as well as cross-regional environmental protection cooperation of governments at all
levels. (5) Public reaction degree (%). The efficiency of handling the public’s visit because of
agricultural environment problem and their response and support of “amphitypy agriculture” application;
(6) The efficiency rate of policy guarantees (%). The policy, system, and law guarantee degree to
implement “amphitypy agriculture”.
2.2 The Definition of Weight
Based on the core connotation of “amphitypy agriculture”, resource utilization and environment
protection are two core factors, and the supporting capability of economy, society, and science and
technology as well as the policy are the two cornerstones and guarantee elements. Therefore, according
to the consultative result of the experts, we will conduct the weight contribution between the core
connotation of “amphitypy agriculture” and each indicator according to its relative importance to
“amphitypy agriculture”. The comprehensive evaluation system of “amphitypy agriculture” is 100%,
among which, the index of resource utilization and the index of environment protection take 30%
respectively, the index of economy, society, and science and technology supporting capability and index
of policy guarantee take 20% respectively. Moreover, according to the same principle, the weight
distribution must be conducted at the secondary level indexes and the third level indexes (See Table 1).
2.3 The Definition of Expected Values
The definition of expected values is for the construction of the index system. Before defining the
expected values, the expected values of the similar indexes in the evaluation system such as amphitypy
society, modern agriculture, sustainable agriculture, and circulative agriculture, and the current standards
of the relevant indexes in China’s agriculture developed regions as well as in the developed countries
such as Japan, Korea and USA have to be considered.
2.4 The Calculation of Indictors
2.4.1 The Calculation of the Evaluation Number of the Third Level Index
To calculate the evaluation number of the third level index, we use the following formula.
n
xi j =
∑
i , j , s =1
pi js k i j s
While xij stands for the ij evaluation index of the third level. pijs stands for the ij index in the area that has
the s evaluation index. kijs stands for the ij one that has the s weight value in the area. n stands for the
number in the area.
2.4.2 The Calculation of the Evaluation Number of the Second Level Index
198
To calculate the evaluation number of the second level index, we use the following formula.
n
zi =
∑x
t
ij ij
i , j =1
While zi stands for the i evaluation index in the second level. xij stands for the i index that has j
evaluation in the area. tij stands for the i index that has j weight value in the area. n stands for the number
in the area.
2.4.3 The Calculation of General Index of Amphitypy Agriculture Society
We use the following formula to calculate the general index.
n
c i = ∑ z i mi
i =1
While ci stands for the i genral index in the evaluation of amphitypy society. zi stands for the i index. ti
stands for the i index weight value in the area. n stands for the number in the area.
The general index of “amphitypy agriculture society” could be used to evaluate the construction and
development of amphitypy society in a region or a country. The higher the general index is, the better
development the amphitypy society in the region enjoys; vice versa. Furthermore, we could conduct
stage division according to the principle. (1) Supposing the general index of an amphitypy society is
under 50%, we think the amphitypy society is mainly at its primitive stage. (2) If the general index of an
amphitypy society is above or equal to 50% and meanwhile under 70%, we think that the amphitypy
society is at its start – up stage. (3) If the general index of an amphitypy society is above or equal to
70% and meanwhile under 90%, we think that the amphitypy society is at its moderate stage. (4)
Supposing the general index of an amphitypy society is above or equal to 90%, we think the amphitypy
society is at its high-level stage.
3 The Application of “Resource-Conserving and Environmentally Friendly
Agriculture” Evaluation System
This paper takes the district of Changsha, Zhuzhou, Xiangtan in Hunan Province for example, and
attempts to study the “amphitypy agriculture” in this area with the evaluation system above.
The data basically come from Agricultural Statistics Yearbook 2008 of Hunan Province and Statistic
Yearbook 2008 of Hunan Province, and the ideal value data come from The Agriculture and Rural Area
Development Project of Hunan Province and The Development Report 2008 of Amphitypy Society in
Hunan Province. In addition, based on the former researches and experts’ advice, this paper adjusts
some ideal data.
Table 1 reveals the observed value and expected value of the “amphitypy agriculture” evaluation system
in the district of Changsha, Zhuzhou, and Xiangtan in 2008. According to the calculation formula
mentioned above, the scores of the four secondary indicators are as follows. The score for the supporting
capacity of economy, society and science and technology is 72.47%, the score for indicator of resources
consumption 62.50%, the score for indicator of environmental protection 66.56%, the score for indicator
of policy guarantee 55.52%. And the total score of the “amphitypy agriculture” evaluation system in the
district of Changsha, Zhuzhou, and Xiangtan is 64.32%. Therefore, the agriculture of the city
agglomeration is generally in its primitive stage. However, the development of every aspect is in
imbalance. Although there are many advantages for this area to achieve “amphitypy agriculture”, there
still exist lots of constraints, for instance, insufficient policy attachment and inadequate investment, etc.
199
Table 1 The Contrast of the Observed Value and Expected Value of the “Amphitypy Agriculture” Evaluation
System in the District of Changsha, Zhuzhou, and Xiangtan
The
Real
Expected
First-Level Second-Level
Third-Level Indexes
Unit
Character
Values
Values
(1)/(2)
Indexes
Indexes
of Index
(1)
(2)
Per Capita Agriculture
68.60
GDP in Rural Areas
Yuan
Positive
3430.1
5000
%
(x11)/15%
Indicators of
the
Supporting
Capacity of
Economy,
Society and
Science and
Technology
(z1)
20%
General
Index
Indicators of
Resources
Consumption
Efficiency
(z2)
30%
Indicators of
Environmenta
l Protection
Efficiency
(z3)
30%
Per Capita Net Income in
Rural Areas (x12)/20%
Yuan
Positive
5627.9
8000
70.35
%
%
Positive
5.54
9.5
58.32
%
Year
Positive
10.67
12
88.92
%
%
Positive
51.30
80
64.13
%
%
Positive
70
90
77.78
%
%
Positive
66．85
100
66.85
%
%
Positive
75
100
75%
%
Positive
51.02
100
51.02
%
Energy-Conserving Index
(x24)/25%
%
Positive
57.12
100
57.12
%
The Forest-Coverage Rate
(x31)/10%
%
Positive
55.86
60
93.10
%
%
Positive
45.23
100
45.23
%
%
Positive
13.18%
20%
65.90
%
%
Positive
79.24
100
79.24
%
The Indicator for the
Adjustment Range of
Industrial
Structure
(x13)/10%
Education Year for the
Agricultural Labor Per
Capita (x14)/20%
The Contribution Rate for
Agriculture Science and
Technology
Progress
(x15)/20%
Processing
Rate
of
Agricultural
Products
(x16)/15%
Water-Conserving
(x21)/25%
Index
Land-Conserving
(x22)/25%
Index
Labor-Conserving
(x23)/25%
Index
The
Soil
Erosion
Conservation
Rate
(x32)/15%
Environmental Protection
Investment rate (x33)/15%
The Utilization Intensity of
Fertilizers, Chemicals and
Agricultural
Film
(x34)/20%
200
Soil
Environmental
Quality Index (x35)/20%
%
Positive
68.12
100
68.12
%
Environment Integration
Index (x36)/10%
%
Positive
51.3
100
51.3%
Positive
60%
100%
60%
Positive
14.31%
30%
47.70
%
Positive
11.01%
30%
36.70
%
Positive
4.57%
10%
45.70
%
Positive
70%
100%
70%
Positive
80%
100%
80%
Positive
70%
100%
70%
Environmental Protection
%
Awareness (x37)/10%
The Supporting Vigor of
National
Agricultural
%
Policy (x41)/20%
The Supporting Vigor of
Agricultural
Credit
%
(x42)/20%
Indicators of
The Degree of Opening up
Policy
to the outside World
%
Guarantee
(x43)/20%
(z4)
The Cooperation Level
20%
%
(x44)/10%
Public Reaction Degree
%
(x45)/15%
The Efficiency Rate of
policy
Guarantees
%
(x46)/15%
Data sources: Agricultural Statistics Yearbook 2008 of Hunan Province.
4. Conclusion
The evaluation system of “resource-conserving and environmentally friendly agriculture” should give an
overall expression to the integration of the economic development and environmental protection. The
evaluation system constructed in this paper bears close relation with social development assessment,
advocates the win-win between economy, resources and environment on the basis of environmental
protection, achieves the minimum loading capacity of social and economic activities upon the
environment and controls the loading capacity under the level of resources supply capability and
environmental self-purification capacity, as well as emphasizes the harmony between man and nature,
man and society, and man and man.
It is worth noticing that it is very difficult for this research to definite the evaluation index weight of
“resource-conserving and environmentally friendly agriculture”, and so far there isn’t any convincing
and effective resolution. On the basis of previous researches, this paper had a beneficial attempt upon
this point. However, how to better evaluate “resource-conserving and environmentally friendly
agriculture” waits for further improvement in the subsequent studies.
Author in brief:
LIU Zhixiong (1975-), Associate Professor, Business School of China University of Political Science
and Law, Beijing 102249.
Mainly engaged in Industrial Organization. E-mail: [email protected].
Acknowledgements:
This paper is sponsored by National Social Science Fund (09CJY068, “An Research on China
Agriculture Security: A perspective of Industry”)
201
References
[1]. Liu Maosong. A Research on the Resource-conserving and Amicable Environment-Typed Socity,
Hunan Social Sciences, 2008(5):5 8 (In Chinese)
[2]. Peng Lianyi, Lu Zhongwei. A Study on the Construction of the Evaluation Index System upon
Sustainable Development and Ecological Environment, The Journal of Quantitative & Technical
Economics, 2003(12):87 90 (In Chinese)
[3]. Wen Hua, Jian Cuihong. Establishment of Evaluation Index System of Metropolis Modrn
Agriculture and Its Diagnosis in Beijing, Research of Agricultural Modernization, 2008(3):155
158 (In Chinese)
[4]. Xu Yijun, Ren Murong. A Study on the Construction of the Evaluation Index System upon
Contemporary Agriculture in Hunan Province, Journal of Hunan Agricultural University (Social
Sciences), 2008(8):38 44 (In Chinese)
[5]. Yuan Zhiming, A Study on the Measuring Method of the Evaluation Index upon the Amicable
Environment-Typed Socity, Science Research Management, 2008(7):175 179 (In Chinese)
[6]. Zen Xianwen, Zhao Man. The Research on the Construction of the Evaluation Index System upon
the amphitypy socity. Pioneering with Science and Technology Monthly, 2008(6):73
75(In Chinese)
[7]. Zhao Minghua, Li Guixiang. Study of Building Indicators Index for Resource-conserving Society
Evaluation, Resource Development and Market, 2007,23(8):706 708 (In Chinese)
[8]. Zhou Yasha, Zhu Mande. A Study on the Construction of the Evaluation Index System upon
Sustainable Agriculture, Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2007(4):30 34 (In Chinese)
～
～
～
～
～
～
202
～
～