| Literature DB >> 36176972 |
Zhike Yu1.
Abstract
Ecological civilization construction is an important field of global ecological environment governance, and biodiversity is an important foundation of ecological civilization construction. In the process of building international discourse power of ecological civilization, governments, enterprises, and individuals should attach great importance to ecological environmental protection. Especially in the context of the new era, the promotion of international discourse power of ecological civilization and the governance of ecological and environmental problems must be in the process of further consolidating the foundation of ecological economy, paying particular attention to the management of enterprise ecological and environmental costs. Therefore, from the perspective of practical research, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process is used to comprehensively evaluate enterprise environmental cost management. Through research, the importance of enterprise environmental cost management and the help to ecological environment management are proved, and on this basis, ecological environment management countermeasures are put forward.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36176972 PMCID: PMC9514933 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3367200
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
Figure 1The ecological environment under the international discourse power from the perspective of ecological civilization.
Overview of pollution emission and its increase and decrease in China.
| National waste water | Industrial waste water | Industrial sulfur dioxide | Industrial nitrogen oxide | Industrial smoke and dust | Industrial solid waste | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total emissions (tons) | Sequential growth (%) | Total emissions (tons) | Sequential growth (%) | Total emissions (tons) | Sequential growth (%) | Total emissions (tons) | Sequential growth (%) | Total emissions (tons) | Sequential growth (%) | Total emissions (tons) | Sequential growth (%) | |
| 2004 | 482.4 | 4.9 | 221.8 | 4.5 | 1891.4 | 5.6 | 1791.3 | -4.1 | 12 | 20.2 | ||
| 2005 | 524.5 | 8.7 | 241.2 | 10.0 | 2168.2 | 14.6 | 1860.1 | 3.8 | 13.4 | 11.7 | ||
| 2006 | 536.8 | 3.2 | 321.2 | 1.2 | 2337.6 | 3.2 | 1236.8 | -10.1 | 15.2 | 13.5 | ||
| 2007 | 556.8 | 3.5 | 246.3 | 2.7 | 2140 | -4.4 | 1361.3 | 11.0 | 1698.2 | -12.1 | 16.7 | 15.4 |
| 2008 | 576.5 | 2.7 | 241.7 | -2.0 | 1991.0 | -6.9 | 1250.5 | -0.9 | 1526.2 | -14.6 | 10.9 | 8.0 |
| 2009 | 590.2 | 2.8 | 234.8 | -3.2 | 1865.9 | -6.3 | 1284.8 | 2.7 | 1280 | -10.2 | 20.4 | 7.4 |
| 2010 | 617.3 | 4.7 | 237.5 | -1.2 | 1685.4 | -0.1 | 1463.1 | 14.2 | 1051.9 | -6.7 | 24.1 | 18.1 |
| 2011 | 659.3 | 6.8 | 232.5 | -3.1 | 2017.2 | 8.2 | 1789.2 | 18.0 | 1100.8 | 4.7 | 32.3 | 34.0 |
| 2012 | 687.1 | 3.6 | 221.6 | -4.0 | 1911.7 | -5.2 | 1685.1 | -4.1 | 1029.3 | -6.5 | 32.8 | -0.3 |
| 2013 | 698.5 | 1.5 | 206.6 | -4.0 | 1835.2 | -4.0 | 1516.5 | -6.8 | 1094.6 | 6.3 | 32.6 | -0.6 |
| 2014 | 716.8 | 3.0 | 201.3 | -2.0 | 1750.4 | -5.2 | 1401.8 | -9.1 | 1546.1 | 33.0 | 20.1 | 0.7 |
Figure 2Interannual comparison of national wastewater and industrial wastewater discharge.
Figure 3Interannual variation of main pollutants in exhaust gas.
Figure 4Interannual variation of industrial solid waste output.
Figure 5Annual changes in environmental investment pollution control and pollution reduction.
Figure 6Evaluation model of enterprise environmental cost management from the perspective of ecological civilization.
Significance scale of fuzzy judgment matrix and its meaning.
| The serial number | Importance level |
|
|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| 1 |
| 2 | The | 3 |
| 3 |
| 5 |
| 4 | The | 7 |
| 5 | The | 8 |
| 6 | The | 1/3 |
| 7 | The | 1/5 |
| 8 |
| 1/7 |
| 9 | Element | 1/9 |
| 10 | Comparison of the importance of elements | 2, 4, 6, 8, 1/2, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8 |
Average random consistency index.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.45 | 0.90 | 1.20 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 1.42 | 1.44 |
Judgment matrix and weight comparison—environmental cost management.
|
|
|
|
| The weight(Wi) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.2463 |
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.2849 |
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.2463 |
|
| 1/2 | 1 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.1750 |
Note: Consistency test : λmax = 4.0606, CI = 0.0202, RI = 0.9, CR = 0.0224 < 0.1, meet the requirements.
Judgment matrix and weight comparison—environmental benefit index.
|
|
|
|
| The weight(W1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0.4950 |
|
| 1/3 | 1 | 1/2 | 2 | 0.1328 |
|
| 1/3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0.1996 |
|
| 1/3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0.1835 |
Note: Consistency test : λmax = 4.0606, CI = 0.0202, RI = 0.9, CR = 0.0224 < 0.1, meet the requirements.
Judgment matrix and weight comparison—resource benefit index.
|
|
|
| The weight(W2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 1/2 | 3 | 0.4950 |
|
| 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 0.4126 |
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.3276 |
Note: Consistency test : λmax = 4.0606, CI = 0.0202, RI = 0.9, CR = 0.0224 < 0.1, meet the requirements.
Judgment matrix and weight comparison—economic benefit index.
|
|
|
|
| The weight(W3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0.4950 |
|
| 1/2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0.2314 |
|
| 1/3 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 0.1484 |
|
| 1/2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0.2354 |
Note: Consistency test : λmax = 4.0606, CI = 0.0202, RI = 0.9, CR = 0.0224 < 0.1, meet the requirements.
Judgment matrix and weight comparison—social benefit index.
|
|
| The weight(W4 | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 2 | 0.6667 |
|
| 1/2 | 2 | 03232 |
Note: Consistency test:λmax =4.0606, CI =0.0202, RI =0.9, CR =0.0224<0.1, meet the requirements.
Weight comparison of primary and secondary indicators on environmental cost management evaluation.
| The main indicators | Time indicators | The weight(W) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental cost assessment management | Environmental benefit index | Ex ante environmental cost | 0.4950 |
| Carbon trading costs/benefits | 0.1450 | ||
| Treatment rate of pollutants and wastes | 0.9968 | ||
| Postcontamination treatment | 0.1560 | ||
| Resource efficiency indicator | Conservation of hydropower resources | 0.2599 | |
| Comprehensive utilization of materials | 0.4128 | ||
| Waste reuse | 0.3276 | ||
| Economic benefit index | Return on capital for environmental investment | 0.4258 | |
| Environmental cost input ratio | 0.2312 | ||
| Environmental loss cost rate | 0.1484 | ||
| Environmental restoration cost rate | 0.1945 | ||
| Social benefit index | Corporate environmental image | 0.6667 | |
| Product environmental image | 0.2323 |
Comprehensive evaluation results of environmental cost management and main indicators.
| Project | Environmental cost management | Environmental benefits | Resource efficiency | Economic benefits | Social benefits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive evaluation value | 76.9125 | 75.7588 | 78.7588 | 75.9982 | 78.6333 |