Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
To support environmental management and differentiated green transformation in industrial parks, this study develops an evaluation framework that assesses eco-industrial development performance and identifies park-specific strengths and weaknesses. The framework contains 39 indicators across economic development, ecological environment, material circulation, resource potential, technological innovation, and policy and management. Weights are derived using the Attribute Hierarchical Model (AHM) and coefficient of variation method, integrated via the minimum-deviation principle, and applied through multi-level grey evaluation to four Chinese parks. Findings show that policy and management is weighted highest, followed by economic development and ecological environment; overall performance ranks Tianjin, Suzhou, Dalian, and Fushun. Critically, similar aggregate performance masks distinct weaknesses in environmental governance, resource circulation, technological innovation, and resource conditions. The framework therefore enables diagnosis of differentiated management priorities and supports park-specific pathways toward eco-industrial development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: