Evaluation method for low-efficiency sea use

Abstract

The invention discloses a method for evaluating low-efficiency sea, which evaluates and analyzes the low-efficiency sea by adopting a scientifically constructed evaluation index system, and is beneficial to identifying the low-efficiency sea, accelerating the implementation and exit of the low-efficiency sea and promoting the efficient development of marine economy. Therefore, decision support can be provided for policy formulators, and scientific basis can be provided for management and optimal configuration of marine resources. In addition, the method can also be applied to multiple fields of marine environment monitoring, marine economic analysis and the like, and has a wide application prospect.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The invention relates to the technical field of sea use planning, and in particular to an evaluation method for inefficient sea use. Background Art

[0002] At present, China's economy has shifted from a high-speed growth stage to a high-quality development stage, in which the marine economy has achieved both quantitative and qualitative growth. China's marine GDP has increased from 5 trillion yuan in 2012 to 9.9 trillion yuan in 2023, accounting for about 8% of GDP. The position of the marine economy in my country's economic development pattern is very important. However, while the marine economy is developing rapidly, my country's marine economy still has problems related to inefficient use of the sea, including but not limited to low ecological benefits, single sea use functions, and scattered sea use layout. These problems not only affect the sustainable use of marine resources, but also restrict the high-quality development of the marine economy.

[0003] In order to respond to the national policy requirements on the protection and rational use of marine resources, it is necessary to develop scientific evaluation methods to identify and improve the problem of inefficient use of the sea. This will help achieve the economical and intensive use of marine resources, in line with the national marine strategy and sustainable development goals.

[0004] However, there is currently no technology to evaluate inefficient use of the sea and provide more comprehensive and objective evaluation results for inefficient use of the sea. Summary of the invention

[0005] The purpose of the present invention is to solve the above-mentioned technical problems and provide an evaluation method for inefficient use of the sea. The method adopts a scientifically constructed evaluation index system to evaluate and analyze the inefficient use of the sea, which is helpful to identify the inefficient use of the sea, accelerate the implementation of the withdrawal of inefficient use of the sea, and promote the efficient development of the marine economy.

[0006] In order to solve the above problems, the present invention is implemented according to the following technical solutions:

[0007] The present invention provides a method for evaluating inefficient sea use, and the method for evaluating inefficient sea use comprises the following steps:

[0008] S100. Determine the types of low-efficiency sea use by referring to the relevant definition standards for low-efficiency land use and the economical and intensive use of sea areas;

[0009] S200. With reference to the types of inefficient sea use, an evaluation index system for inefficient sea use is constructed from multiple dimensions, wherein the multiple dimensions include marine economic benefits, marine ecological benefits, marine social benefits, consistency of marine spatial planning, and marine functional complexity.

[0010] S300, determining a value assignment hierarchy table for each indicator in the inefficient sea use evaluation indicator system;

[0011] S400, constructing a hierarchical analysis model for evaluating inefficient sea use based on the inefficient sea use evaluation index system through the hierarchical analysis method;

[0012] S500, based on the hierarchical analysis model, the weights of the evaluation indicators of low-efficiency sea use are determined through the Delphi method;

[0013] S600, calculating a comprehensive evaluation score of low-efficiency sea use based on the value assignment hierarchy table, the hierarchical analysis model and the weights of the low-efficiency sea use evaluation indicators to obtain a low-efficiency sea use evaluation result;

[0014] S700. According to the inefficient sea use evaluation result, a project with a comprehensive inefficient sea use evaluation score lower than 60 points is determined as an inefficient sea use project.

[0015] Preferably, in step S100, the inefficient sea use types include prohibited and eliminated industries stipulated by national industrial policies, industries that do not meet management and control requirements, sea use industries that do not meet sustainable development and environmental protection requirements, and decentralized sea use projects that are not fully utilized and have single functions.

[0016] Preferably, in step S200, the indicators of marine economic benefits include marine labor productivity and investment intensity; the indicators of marine ecological benefits include the amount of wastewater discharged from direct sea pollution sources and the amount of industrial solid waste discharged; the indicators of marine social benefits include employment density and per capita income; the indicators of marine spatial planning consistency include functional zoning compliance, marine ecological protection red line compliance and important marine control line compliance; the indicators of marine functional complexity include sea use compatibility.

[0017] Preferably, in step S300, the method for determining the value assignment hierarchy table of each indicator in the inefficient sea use evaluation index system includes: combining statistical yearbook data, marine spatial planning and marine functional zoning management and control requirements to determine the value assignment hierarchy table of each indicator in the inefficient sea use evaluation index system.

[0018] Preferably, in step S400, the hierarchical analysis model includes: a first layer, which is a target layer, and the target layer is a comprehensive evaluation of inefficient sea use; a second layer, which is a criterion layer, and the quasi-layer includes marine economic benefits, marine ecological benefits, marine social benefits, marine spatial planning consistency, and marine functional complexity; a third layer, which is an indicator layer, and the indicator layer includes marine labor productivity, investment intensity, wastewater discharge from direct sea pollution sources, industrial solid waste discharge, employment density, per capita income, functional zoning compliance, marine ecological protection red line compliance, important marine control line compliance, and sea use compatibility.

[0019] Preferably, in step S500, the method for determining the weight of the low-efficiency sea use evaluation index by the Delphi method based on the hierarchical analysis model includes: S510, using Santy's 1-9 scale to score the relative importance between each two factors in the same layer of the hierarchical analysis model, and constructing a pairwise comparison matrix Among them, a ij represents the comparison result of the i-th factor relative to the j-th factor; S520, based on the values ​​of each row vector in the pairwise comparison matrix A, according to the formula The weight W of the evaluation index of low-efficiency sea use is calculated i , according to the formula Obtain a characteristic vector W of the low-efficiency sea use evaluation index; S530, perform a consistency check on the pairwise comparison matrix A.

[0020] Preferably, in step S530, the step of performing consistency check on the pairwise comparison matrix A includes: S531, according to the formula Calculate the maximum eigenvalue λ max ; S532, according to the formula Calculate the consistency index CI of the pairwise comparison matrix A; S533, obtain the random consistency index RI of the pairwise comparison matrix A, wherein the RI is obtained according to the average random consistency index value table; S534, according to the formula The consistency ratio CR of the pairwise comparison matrix A is calculated; S535, when the CR<0.1, the pairwise comparison matrix A passes the consistency test.

[0021] Preferably, in step S600, based on the value assignment hierarchy table, the hierarchical analysis model and the weight of the low-efficiency sea use evaluation index, the method for obtaining the low-efficiency sea use evaluation result comprises: calculating the low-efficiency sea use comprehensive evaluation score Xi by a multi-objective linear weighted function method, wherein the X i is the comprehensive evaluation score of the i-th project, F j is the weight of the jth single indicator, S j is the value assigned to the jth indicator, n is the number of items in the evaluation indicator layer under a certain evaluation criterion layer, m is the number of indicators in the evaluation criterion layer, E m is the weight value of the evaluation criterion layer indicator corresponding to the jth indicator.

[0022] Preferably, S710, based on the evaluation results of the inefficient use of the sea, the benefits of the sea-use industry are divided into excellent, good, average, poor and very poor by using the grid method and K-means statistical clustering method; wherein, when the benefits of the sea-use industry are excellent, X i ≥80; when the benefits of the marine industry are good, 60≤Xi <80; when the benefits of the marine industry are normal, 40≤X i <60; when the efficiency of the marine industry is poor, 20≤X i <40; when the benefits of the marine industry are very poor, X i ≤20; S720, the comprehensive evaluation score of the low-efficiency sea use is X i Projects with a score below 60 are identified as low-efficiency sea use projects.

[0023] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects:

[0024] The present invention provides an evaluation method for inefficient use of the sea, which uses a scientifically constructed evaluation index system to evaluate and analyze inefficient use of the sea, which helps to identify inefficient use of the sea, accelerate the implementation of the withdrawal of inefficient use of the sea, and promote the efficient development of the marine economy. It can not only provide decision-making support for policy makers, but also provide a scientific basis for the management and optimal allocation of marine resources. In addition, the method can also be applied to multiple fields such as marine environmental monitoring and marine economic analysis, and has broad application prospects. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0025] The specific embodiments of the present invention are further described in detail below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein:

[0026] Figure 1 It is a technical structure diagram of the present invention;

[0027] Figure 2 It is a structural diagram of the hierarchical analysis model of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0028] In order to enable those skilled in the art to better understand the scheme of the present invention, the technical scheme in the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below in conjunction with the drawings in the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without creative work should fall within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0029] The terms used in this application are only for the purpose of describing specific embodiments and are not intended to limit this application. Unless otherwise defined, the technical terms or scientific terms used in this specification should be understood by people with ordinary skills in the field to which this application belongs. The words "first", "second" and similar words used in this specification and claims do not indicate any order, quantity or importance, but are only used to distinguish different technical features.

[0030] The preferred embodiments of the present invention are described below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. It should be understood that the preferred embodiments described herein are only used to illustrate and explain the present invention, and are not used to limit the present invention.

[0031] Figure 1 It is a technical structure diagram of the present invention, Figure 2 It is a structural diagram of the hierarchical analysis model of the present invention.

[0032] like Figure 1-2 As shown, the evaluation method of inefficient sea use described in the present invention comprises the following steps:

[0033] S100. Determine the types of inefficient sea use by referring to the relevant definition standards for inefficient land use and the situation of efficient and intensive use of sea areas.

[0034] In this embodiment, the types of inefficient sea use include prohibited and eliminated industries stipulated by national industrial policies, industries that do not meet management and control requirements, sea-using industries that do not meet sustainable development and environmental protection requirements, and decentralized sea-using projects that are not fully utilized and have single functions.

[0035] It should be noted that determining the types of inefficient sea use is the basis for constructing an evaluation index system, which helps to ensure the scientific nature, pertinence and effectiveness of the evaluation method. The specific reasons include: (1) Clarifying the evaluation objectives: Determining the types of inefficient sea use helps to clarify the objectives and scope of the evaluation method. This helps to identify which sea use activities or projects need to be evaluated, as well as the key characteristics of these activities or projects; (2) Policy orientation: The definition criteria for inefficient sea use are usually closely related to national policies and regulations. By referring to these standards, it can be ensured that the evaluation method is consistent with the current policy orientation and laws and regulations; (3) Classification evaluation: Different types of inefficient sea use may require different evaluation methods and indicators. By predetermining the types of inefficient sea use, the evaluation index system can be designed more specifically to achieve classification evaluation. (4) Optimal resource allocation: Understanding different types of inefficient use of the sea helps identify irrationalities in resource allocation, thus providing a basis for optimizing marine resource allocation; (5) Improving evaluation efficiency: Pre-classification allows for more targeted data and information collection, reduces unnecessary workload, and improves the efficiency of evaluation work; (6) Formulating improvement measures: After determining the types of inefficient use of the sea, more targeted improvement measures and policies can be formulated to promote the rational use of marine resources and the sustainable development of the marine economy; (7) Applicability of data and information: Different types of inefficient use of the sea may require different data and information for evaluation. Determining the type helps collect and use the most relevant data and ensure the accuracy and reliability of the evaluation results.

[0036] S200. With reference to the types of inefficient sea use, an evaluation index system for inefficient sea use is constructed from multiple dimensions.

[0037] Specifically, the multiple dimensions include marine economic benefits, marine ecological benefits, marine social benefits, consistency of marine spatial planning and integration of marine functions.

[0038] In this embodiment, the indicators of marine economic benefits include marine labor productivity and investment intensity; the indicators of marine ecological benefits include the amount of wastewater discharged from direct discharge sources into the sea and the amount of industrial solid waste discharged; the indicators of marine social benefits include employment density and per capita income; the indicators of marine spatial planning consistency include functional zoning compliance, marine ecological protection red line compliance and important marine control line compliance; the indicators of marine functional complexity include sea use compatibility.

[0039] It should be noted that the detailed indicators in the five dimensions of marine economic benefits, marine ecological benefits, marine social benefits, consistency of marine spatial planning and marine functional complexity can be summarized from policy documents such as the central government, relevant ministries and commissions, marine spatial planning, and marine functional zoning.

[0040] It can be understood that marine labor productivity refers to the gross economic output of the project sea area / number of employees in the project, and investment intensity is the ratio of the total fixed asset investment of the project to the total sea area used by the project. Employment density is the ratio of the average annual number of employees to the total sea area used by the project, and per capita income is the total income of the sea-using project industry and the total number of people engaged in the sea-using project industry. Functional zoning compliance is to judge whether the project construction is in line with the latest marine functional zoning, marine ecological protection red line compliance is to judge whether the project construction is in line with the latest marine ecological protection red line control requirements, and important marine control line compliance is to judge whether the project construction is in line with the latest important marine control line control requirements. Sea use compatibility means that various types of sea use functional areas can be compatible with each other.

[0041] S300: Determine a value assignment hierarchy table for each indicator in the inefficient sea use evaluation indicator system.

[0042] It should be noted that the value hierarchy table is used to convert qualitative judgments into quantitative scores for more accurate evaluation and comparison. The establishment of the value hierarchy table is a dynamic process that needs to be continuously updated and optimized based on new data and information to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the evaluation results.

[0043] Specifically, based on the statistical yearbook data, marine spatial planning and the management and control requirements of marine functional zoning, a hierarchical table of value assignments for each indicator in the inefficient sea use evaluation index system is determined.

[0044] Specifically, a numerical value is assigned to each evaluation threshold of each indicator based on the collected statistical yearbook data, marine spatial planning, and marine functional zoning control requirements. These values ​​can be interval values ​​or specific values. Furthermore, in the value assignment hierarchy table, a hierarchical relationship between indicators, evaluation levels, and values ​​is established to ensure the logic and consistency of the evaluation system. Furthermore, according to the importance of the indicators, corresponding weights are assigned. Furthermore, the value assignment hierarchy table is verified to ensure its rationality and applicability. If necessary, adjustments are made based on feedback.

[0045] The assignment hierarchy table of this embodiment is shown in the following table.

[0046]

[0047]

[0048] In the above assignment hierarchy table, At refers to the total assets of industrial enterprises above designated size in the study area / industrial and mining land area, and Aj refers to the average number of employees of industrial enterprises above designated size in the study area / industrial and mining land area.

[0049] S400. Based on the evaluation index system of inefficient sea use, a hierarchical analysis model for inefficient sea use evaluation is constructed through the analytic hierarchy process.

[0050] In this embodiment, the hierarchical analysis model includes a first layer, which is a target layer, and the target layer is a comprehensive evaluation of inefficient sea use; a second layer, which is a criterion layer, and the quasi-layer includes marine economic benefits, marine ecological benefits, marine social benefits, marine spatial planning consistency, and marine functional complexity; a third layer, which is an indicator layer, and the indicator layer includes marine labor productivity, investment intensity, wastewater discharge from direct sea pollution sources, industrial solid waste discharge, employment density, per capita income, functional zoning compliance, marine ecological protection red line compliance, important marine control line compliance, and sea use compatibility.

[0051] S500, based on the hierarchical analysis model, the weights of the evaluation indicators of low-efficiency sea use are determined through the Delphi method.

[0052] Specifically, S510, using Santy's 1-9 scale to score the relative importance between each two factors in the same layer of the hierarchical analysis model, and constructing a pairwise comparison matrix Among them, a ij It represents the comparison result of the i-th factor relative to the j-th factor.

[0053] It should be noted that Santy's 1-9 scale expresses the comparative relationship between different factors through a series of numerical values, and is usually used for subjective judgment in the decision-making process. Specifically, Santy's 1-9 scale is as follows: 1: Two factors are equally important or have the same priority. 2: One factor is slightly more important or has priority than the other. 3: One factor is significantly more important or has priority than the other. 4: One factor is more important or has a higher priority than the other. 5: One factor is more important or has a higher priority than the other. 6: One factor is very more important or has a higher priority than the other. 7: One factor is very, very more important or has a higher priority than the other. 8: One factor is very, very, very more important or has a higher priority than the other. 9: One factor is extremely important or has a higher priority than the other.

[0054] S520, based on the values ​​of each row vector in the pairwise comparison matrix A, according to the formula Calculate the weight of the low-efficiency sea use evaluation index W i , according to the formula The characteristic vector W of the low-efficiency sea use evaluation index is obtained.

[0055] S530: Perform a consistency check on the pairwise comparison matrix A.

[0056] It should be noted that the consistency of the pairwise comparison matrix is ​​very important. If the consistency of the judgment matrix is ​​poor, the weights calculated by the matrix may be unreliable, affecting the quality of the final decision. When performing a consistency test on the pairwise comparison matrix, by calculating CI, RI and CR, the consistency level of experts or decision makers when making pairwise comparisons can be tested to ensure the rationality of the evaluation system. If the CR value is greater than 0.1 (the threshold recommended by Saaty), the pairwise comparison matrix fails the consistency test, and the judgment of the pairwise comparison needs to be reconsidered and adjusted to improve consistency. Through consistency testing, decision makers can increase their confidence in the evaluation results and ensure the scientificity and fairness of the evaluation process. In the evaluation process involving multiple experts, consistency testing helps to discover and resolve differences in expert opinions and promote consensus.

[0057] Specifically, the steps of performing consistency check on the pairwise comparison matrix A include: S531, according to the formula Calculate the maximum eigenvalue λ max .

[0058] S532, according to the formula The consistency index CI of the pairwise comparison matrix A is calculated.

[0059] It should be noted that the consistency index is an indicator to measure the consistency level of the judgment matrix. It is calculated by calculating the maximum eigenvalue (λ max ) is obtained. Formula In the above example, n is the order of the judgment matrix, λ max is the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix.

[0060] S533. Obtain a random consistency index RI of the pairwise comparison matrix A, wherein RI is obtained according to an average random consistency index value table.

[0061] It should be noted that the random consistency index is an average consistency index calculated based on a large number of randomly generated judgment matrices. It reflects the consistency level of the judgment matrix under random conditions. In this embodiment, RI is obtained according to the average random consistency index value table. The average random consistency index value table is calculated by a large number of randomly generated judgment matrices to calculate the consistency index of each matrix. The consistency indexes of these random matrices are averaged to obtain the average RI values ​​of matrices of different sizes, and they are made into a table for quick search and use in practical applications. The average random consistency index value table of this embodiment is shown in the following table.

[0062] Matrix order n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 RI 0 0 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.54 1.56

[0063] S534, according to the formula The consistency ratio CR of the pairwise comparison matrix A is calculated.

[0064] It should be noted that the consistency ratio is the ratio of the consistency index to the random consistency index, which is used to determine whether the consistency of the judgment matrix is ​​acceptable.

[0065] S535. When CR<0.1, the pairwise comparison matrix A passes the consistency test, which means that the weights calculated by the pairwise comparison matrix A are reliable and can be used for the final low-efficiency sea use evaluation decision.

[0066] S600: Based on the value assignment hierarchy table, the hierarchical analysis model and the weights of the low-efficiency sea use evaluation indicators, a comprehensive evaluation score for low-efficiency sea use is calculated to obtain a low-efficiency sea use evaluation result.

[0067] In this embodiment, the comprehensive evaluation score Xi of low-efficiency sea use is calculated by a multi-objective linear weighted function method, where: X i is the comprehensive evaluation score of the i-th project, F j is the weight of the jth single indicator, S j is the value assigned to the jth indicator, n is the number of items in the evaluation indicator layer under a certain evaluation criterion layer, m is the number of indicators in the evaluation criterion layer, E m is the weight value of the evaluation criterion layer indicator corresponding to the jth indicator.

[0068] It should be noted that the multi-objective linear weighted function method provides an effective, systematic and comprehensive method for the evaluation of low-efficiency sea use by transforming complex multi-criteria problems into a single quantitative problem. The advantages of calculating the comprehensive evaluation score of low-efficiency sea use through the multi-objective linear weighted function method include: (1) Comprehensive consideration of multiple factors: This method allows multiple evaluation indicators, such as economic benefits, ecological benefits, social benefits, etc., to be considered simultaneously, providing a comprehensive perspective for the evaluation of low-efficiency sea use. (2) Weights reflect relative importance: By assigning weights to each indicator, the relative importance of different indicators in the evaluation process can be reflected, ensuring that the evaluation results are more in line with the needs of actual decision-making. (3) Simplified decision-making process: Combining multiple evaluation indicators into a single score simplifies the decision-making process, allowing decision makers to more intuitively compare the efficiency of different sea use projects. (3) Flexibility and adaptability: The allocation of weights can be adjusted according to different policy objectives and actual conditions, which improves the flexibility and adaptability of the method. (4) Easy to understand and apply: The calculation process of the linear weighted method is relatively simple, easy to understand and apply, and helps to improve the transparency and operability of the evaluation process. (5) Quantitative evaluation: Converting qualitative evaluation criteria into quantitative scores makes the evaluation results more objective and comparable. (6) Consistency and systematicity: Through consistent calculation methods, the systematicness and consistency of the evaluation process are ensured, which helps to improve the reliability of the evaluation results. (7) Convenient for subsequent analysis: The comprehensive evaluation score obtained can be used for subsequent statistical analysis, trend forecasting and policy making. (8) Promoting optimal allocation of resources: By identifying inefficient sea use projects, it helps to guide the optimal allocation of resources and improve the efficiency and benefits of sea area use. (9) Supporting sustainable development: The comprehensive evaluation score helps to identify and improve sea use activities that do not meet the requirements of sustainable development and promote the sustainable use of marine resources.

[0069] S700. Based on the evaluation results of inefficient sea use, projects with a comprehensive evaluation score of inefficient sea use below 60 points will be identified as inefficient sea use projects.

[0070] It should be noted that the combined use of the grid method and K-means statistical clustering method can provide a scientific, systematic and dynamic analysis framework for the evaluation of low-efficiency sea use, which helps to improve the accuracy and practicality of the evaluation.

[0071] Specifically, S710, based on the evaluation results of inefficient sea use, the benefits of the sea use industry are divided into excellent, good, average, poor and very poor through the grid method and K-means statistical clustering method; among them, when the benefits of the sea use industry are excellent, X i ≥80; when the benefits of the marine industry are good, 60≤X i <80; when the benefits of the marine industry are average, 40≤X i <60; when the benefits of marine industry are poor, 20≤Xi <40; when the benefits of marine industry are very poor, X i ≤20. The details are shown in the following table.

[0072] Comprehensive score <![CDATA[X i ≥80]]> <![CDATA[60≤X i <80]]> <![CDATA[40≤X i <60]]> <![CDATA[20≤X i <40]]> <![CDATA[X i ≤20]]> Grading excellent good generally Poor Very bad

[0073] Specifically, S720, the comprehensive evaluation score of inefficient sea use is X i Projects with a score below 60 are determined to be low-efficiency sea use projects. Therefore, through the evaluation method of low-efficiency sea use described in the present invention,

[0074] The above description is only a preferred embodiment of the present invention and does not limit the present invention in any form. Therefore, any modification, equivalent change and modification made to the above embodiment according to the technical essence of the present invention without departing from the technical solution of the present invention shall still fall within the scope of the technical solution of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating inefficient sea use, characterized in that: The evaluation method for inefficient sea use comprises the following steps: S100. Determine the types of low-efficiency sea use by referring to the relevant definition standards for low-efficiency land use and the economical and intensive use of sea areas; S200. With reference to the types of inefficient sea use, an evaluation index system for inefficient sea use is constructed from multiple dimensions, wherein the multiple dimensions include marine economic benefits, marine ecological benefits, marine social benefits, consistency of marine spatial planning, and marine functional complexity. S300, determining a value assignment hierarchy table for each indicator in the inefficient sea use evaluation indicator system; S400, constructing a hierarchical analysis model for evaluating inefficient sea use based on the inefficient sea use evaluation index system through the hierarchical analysis method; S500, based on the analytic hierarchy model, determining the weight of the low-efficiency sea use evaluation index through the Delphi method; S600, calculating a comprehensive evaluation score of low-efficiency sea use based on the value assignment hierarchy table, the hierarchical analysis model and the weights of the low-efficiency sea use evaluation indicators to obtain a low-efficiency sea use evaluation result; S700. According to the inefficient sea use evaluation result, a project with a comprehensive inefficient sea use evaluation score lower than 60 points is determined as an inefficient sea use project.

2. The method for evaluating inefficient sea use according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S100, the inefficient sea use types include prohibited and eliminated industries stipulated by national industrial policies, industries that do not meet management and control requirements, sea use industries that do not meet sustainable development and environmental protection requirements, and decentralized sea use projects that are not fully utilized and have single functions.

3. The method for evaluating inefficient sea use according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S200, the indicators of marine economic benefits include marine labor productivity and investment intensity; the indicators of marine ecological benefits include the amount of wastewater discharged from direct discharge sources into the sea and the amount of industrial solid waste discharged; the indicators of marine social benefits include employment density and per capita income; the indicators of marine spatial planning consistency include functional zoning compliance, marine ecological protection red line compliance and important marine control line compliance; the indicators of marine functional complexity include sea use compatibility.

4. The method for evaluating inefficient sea use according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S300, the method of determining the value assignment hierarchy table of each indicator in the inefficient sea use evaluation index system includes: In combination with statistical yearbook data, marine spatial planning and marine functional zoning management and control requirements, a hierarchical table of value assignments for each indicator in the inefficient sea use evaluation index system is determined.

5. The method for evaluating inefficient sea use according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S400, the hierarchical analysis model includes: The first layer is the target layer, and the target layer is the comprehensive evaluation of low-efficiency sea use; The second layer is the criteria layer, which includes marine economic benefits, marine ecological benefits, marine social benefits, marine spatial planning consistency and marine functional complexity; The third layer is the indicator layer, which includes marine labor productivity, investment intensity, wastewater discharge from direct discharge into the sea, industrial solid waste discharge, employment density, per capita income, functional zoning compliance, compliance with marine ecological protection red lines, compliance with important marine control lines, and sea use compatibility.

6. The method for evaluating inefficient sea use according to claim 5, characterized in that: In step S500, based on the analytic hierarchy model, the method for determining the weight of the low-efficiency sea use evaluation index by the Delphi method includes: S510, using Santy's 1-9 scale to score the relative importance of each two factors in the same layer of the hierarchical analysis model, and construct a pairwise comparison matrix Among them, a ij It represents the comparison result of the i-th factor relative to the j-th factor; S520, based on the values ​​of each row vector in the pairwise comparison matrix A, according to the formula The weight W of the evaluation index of low-efficiency sea use is calculated i , according to the formula Get the characteristic vector W of the low-efficiency sea use evaluation index; S530: Perform a consistency check on the pairwise comparison matrix A.

7. The method for evaluating inefficient sea use according to claim 6, characterized in that: In step S530, the step of performing consistency check on the pairwise comparison matrix A includes: S531, according to the formula Calculate the maximum eigenvalue λ max ; S532, according to the formula Calculate and obtain the consistency index CI of the pairwise comparison matrix A; S533, obtaining a random consistency index RI of the pairwise comparison matrix A, wherein the RI is obtained according to an average random consistency index value table; S534, according to the formula Calculate the consistency ratio CR of the pairwise comparison matrix A; S535. When the CR<0.1, the pairwise comparison matrix A passes the consistency test.

8. The method for evaluating inefficient sea use according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S600, based on the value assignment hierarchy table, the hierarchical analysis model and the weights of the low-efficiency sea use evaluation indicators, the method for calculating the low-efficiency sea use comprehensive evaluation score and obtaining the low-efficiency sea use evaluation result includes: The low-utility sea comprehensive evaluation score Xi is calculated by a multi-objective linear weighted function method, wherein the X i is the comprehensive evaluation score of the i-th project, F j is the weight of the jth single indicator, S j is the value assigned to the jth indicator, n is the number of items in the evaluation indicator layer under a certain evaluation criterion layer, m is the number of indicators in the evaluation criterion layer, E m is the weight value of the evaluation criterion layer indicator corresponding to the jth indicator.

9. The method for evaluating inefficient sea use according to claim 8, characterized in that: S710, based on the evaluation results of the inefficient use of the sea, the benefits of the sea-use industry are divided into excellent, good, average, poor and very poor by using the grid method and K-means statistical clustering method; Among them, when the benefits of the marine industry are excellent, X i ≥80; when the benefits of the marine industry are good, 60≤X i <80; when the benefits of the marine industry are normal, 40≤X i <60; when the efficiency of the marine industry is poor, 20≤X i <40; when the benefits of the marine industry are very poor, X i ≤20; S720, the comprehensive evaluation score of the low-efficiency sea use is X i Projects with a score below 60 are identified as low-efficiency sea use projects.

Images