Method for evaluating dynamic protection effect of important agricultural cultural heritage

Abstract

This invention discloses a method for evaluating the dynamic protection effectiveness of important agricultural cultural heritage, belonging to the field of data processing technology. The method includes the following steps: S1, calculating the ecosystem service index per unit area based on several indicators; S2, calculating the ecological footprint index; S3, calculating the important agricultural cultural heritage protection and development index based on the ecosystem service index per unit area and the ecological footprint index, and determining the evaluation result of the dynamic protection of the heritage. This invention, by constructing a comprehensive index based on objective system variables and with a clear mathematical structure, not only overcomes the main shortcomings of existing subjective evaluation methods, but more importantly, it advances the evaluation of the dynamic protection effectiveness of important agricultural cultural heritage from a subjective management assessment to a quantitative scientific diagnostic tool that reveals the internal relationships of the system, providing more reliable data support and decision-making basis for the scientific protection and sustainable development of heritage sites.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of data processing technology, specifically relating to a method for evaluating the effectiveness of dynamic protection of important agricultural cultural heritage. Background Technology

[0002] To protect and sustainably utilize important traditional agricultural systems, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) launched the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) initiative in 2002. After more than two decades of development, the FAO has identified 104 GIAHS sites across 30 countries and regions, including 25 in China.

[0003] my country's Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs began the work of discovering, protecting and utilizing Important Agricultural Heritage Systems of China (China-NIAHS) in 2012. From 2013 to 2025, a total of 188 Important Agricultural Heritage Systems of China were identified in seven batches (the eighth batch of candidate projects has been announced), covering 31 provincial-level administrative regions (excluding Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan) and 211 county-level administrative regions across the country.

[0004] Over the past two decades, the protection and management of Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (IATS) have become increasingly standardized, with significant progress made in areas such as heritage application and identification, policy and regulation formulation, and exploration of protection approaches. However, as a crucial aspect of heritage management, the measurement and evaluation of the dynamic effectiveness of IATS protection lags far behind other aspects.

[0005] The measurement and evaluation of the effectiveness of dynamic conservation of important agricultural cultural heritage plays a crucial role in improving heritage management. Scientific and effective evaluation can not only protect the heritage itself and maintain its value, but also achieve sustainable development of the heritage site. However, currently, the measurement and evaluation of the effectiveness of dynamic conservation of important agricultural cultural heritage still relies on subjective expert scoring of individual indicators, lacking a scientific, objective, and effective methodology, and also lacking relevant theoretical research to support it.

[0006] Currently, my country only has one technology for evaluating the effectiveness of dynamic protection of globally important agricultural cultural heritage, which involves subjective scoring by experts for each sub-indicator.

[0007] This assessment technique primarily relies on the "Assessment Form for the Protection and Development of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Sites" (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment Form"). The Assessment Form is based on the "Annual Report on the Protection and Development of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Sites" (hereinafter referred to as the "Report Form") submitted by the local government to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, and assesses the dynamic protection effectiveness of important agricultural heritage over a certain period. The Assessment Form consists of five primary indicators, measuring the effectiveness of the heritage site in government management, economic development, ecological protection, cultural inheritance, and social impact, with weights of 0.20, 0.20, 0.20, 0.20, and 0.20 respectively. Each primary indicator consists of four or five secondary indicators and ten tertiary indicators. Each tertiary indicator has a maximum score of 10 points, and each primary indicator has a maximum score of 100 points.

[0008] Experts assign a score ranging from 0 to 10 to each tertiary indicator in the assessment form based on the report form and supporting materials for the assessment year. The scores of each tertiary indicator are summed to obtain the score for the corresponding primary indicator. The scores of each primary indicator are then multiplied by their respective weights and summed to obtain the total assessment score. However, a drawback is that:

[0009] 1. The assessment method is highly subjective, lacks standardization, and has poor repeatability: Existing technology mainly relies on experts to subjectively score the report form. Different experts may have different knowledge backgrounds, experience, and judgment criteria, resulting in large fluctuations in the scoring results for the same material. The assessment process lacks a unified and objective quantitative benchmark, which limits repeatability and comparability.

[0010] 2. The assessment perspective is biased towards management actions and report descriptions, rather than the actual state and results of the system: Existing technology relies primarily on the report forms submitted by the local government where the heritage site is located. This leads to an assessment that depends heavily on "what was reported" and "how it was reported," which may not fully and objectively reflect the true effectiveness of dynamic heritage protection and is easily affected by the quality of report writing.

[0011] 3. Low transparency and verifiability of the assessment process: The public or other researchers find it difficult to independently review or verify the scoring results, reducing the credibility and scientific rigor of the assessment conclusions. Furthermore, because experts may differ from year to year, the assessment results for the same heritage site vary significantly across different years, making it difficult to accurately and objectively quantify the long-term dynamic evolution of conservation effectiveness. Summary of the Invention

[0012] To address the above problems, this invention proposes a method for evaluating the effectiveness of dynamic protection of important agricultural cultural heritage.

[0013] The technical solution of this invention is: a method for evaluating the effectiveness of dynamic protection of important agricultural cultural heritage, comprising the following steps:

[0014] S1. Calculate the ecosystem service index per unit area based on several indicators;

[0015] S2. Calculate the ecological footprint index;

[0016] S3. Calculate the protection and development index of important agricultural cultural heritage based on the ecosystem service index and ecological footprint index per unit area, and determine the assessment results of dynamic protection of heritage.

[0017] Furthermore, S1 includes the following sub-steps:

[0018] S11. Calculate the value of water conservation, soil conservation, carbon sequestration, windbreak and sand fixation, and cultural services.

[0019] S12. Calculate the ecosystem service index per unit area based on water conservation value, soil conservation value, carbon sequestration value, windbreak and sand fixation value, and cultural service value.

[0020] Furthermore, in S11, the water conservation value ES wc The expression is:

[0021] ;

[0022] ;

[0023] Among them, Q wc For the amount of water conservation of heritage sites, R wc Price per unit capacity of the reservoir, A i Let P be the area of ​​the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site. i For rainfall, R i ET is the surface runoff. i Evaporation rate;

[0024] In S11, the soil conservation value ES sc The expression is:

[0025] ;

[0026] ;

[0027] Among them, Q sc The amount of soil retained for heritage sites, ρ is the soil bulk density, and R is the soil density. sc The price of dredging projects for reservoirs, r i Let k be the rainfall erosivity factor for the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site. i For soil erodibility factors of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site, l i Let s be the slope length factor of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site.i Let c be the slope factor of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site. i The vegetation cover factor of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site;

[0028] In S11, the carbon sequestration value (ES) cs The expression is:

[0029] ;

[0030] ;

[0031] Among them, Q cs Carbon sequestration for heritage, R wc B represents the international average price of carbon dioxide. i The biomass of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site;

[0032] In S11, the value of windbreak and sand fixation is ES wb The expression is:

[0033] ;

[0034] ;

[0035] Among them, Q wb R represents the amount of windbreak and sand fixation for the heritage site, h represents the thickness of the sand cover due to soil desertification, and R represents the amount of sand. wb For unit desertification control project cost or unit vegetation restoration cost, wf i e represents the climate erosion factor of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site. i For soil erosion factors of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site, scf i For soil crust factors of type i ecosystem within the heritage site, srf i c represents the surface roughness factor of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site. i The vegetation cover factor of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site;

[0036] In S11, the cultural service value ES tc The expression is:

[0037] ;

[0038] Among them, C n This represents the actual expenditure for the nth type of expense.

[0039] Furthermore, in S12, the expression for the Ecosystem Services Index (ESVI) per unit area is:

[0040] ;

[0041] Among them, ES jThe value of the ecosystem service for the j-th type, where A is the area of ​​the heritage site and j is the type of ecosystem service.

[0042] Furthermore, S2 includes the following sub-steps:

[0043] S21. Calculate per capita ecological footprint and per capita resource ecological carrying capacity;

[0044] S22. Calculate the ecological footprint index based on per capita ecological footprint and per capita resource ecological carrying capacity.

[0045] Furthermore, in S21, the expression for the per capita ecological footprint ef is:

[0046] ;

[0047] Where, r j C is the equilibrium factor for land use of type j. i Let gP be the annual per capita consumption of the i-th type of consumption item. i Let lP be the global average annual output per unit area for the i-th type of consumption item. i YF represents the national average output per unit area for the i-th type of consumption item. i For yield factor;

[0048] In S21, the expression for per capita resource and ecological carrying capacity bc is:

[0049] ;

[0050] Among them, ny i Let be the total annual output of the region for the i-th type of consumption item.

[0051] Furthermore, in S22, the expression for the Ecological Footprint Index (EFI) is:

[0052] ;

[0053] Where bc represents per capita resource and ecological carrying capacity, and ef represents per capita ecological footprint.

[0054] Furthermore, S3 includes the following sub-steps:

[0055] S31. Normalize the ecosystem service index per unit area, the ecological footprint index, and the GDP per capita.

[0056] S32. Calculate the important agricultural cultural heritage protection and development index based on the normalized ecosystem service index per unit area, ecological footprint index, and per capita GDP.

[0057] S33. Determine the assessment results of dynamic protection of heritage based on the important agricultural cultural heritage protection and development index.

[0058] Furthermore, in S32, a radar chart is constructed using the normalized ecosystem service index per unit area, ecological footprint index, and GDP per capita as three coordinate axes. The area of ​​the radar chart is calculated and used as the basis for calculating the Important Agricultural Heritage Conservation and Development Index (IAHPDI), which is expressed as follows:

[0059] ;

[0060] in, The per capita GDP of important agricultural cultural heritage after normalization To serve the normalized ecosystem per unit area, This is the normalized ecological footprint index.

[0061] The beneficial effects of this invention are as follows: By constructing a comprehensive index based on objective system variables and with a clear mathematical structure, this invention not only overcomes the main defects of existing subjective evaluation methods, but more importantly, it advances the evaluation of the dynamic protection effectiveness of important agricultural cultural heritage from a subjective management assessment to a quantitative scientific diagnostic tool that reveals the internal relationships of the system, providing more reliable data support and decision-making basis for the scientific protection and sustainable development of heritage sites. Attached Figure Description

[0062] Figure 1 A flowchart for evaluating the effectiveness of dynamic protection of important agricultural cultural heritage. Detailed Implementation

[0063] The embodiments of the present invention will be further described below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0064] like Figure 1 As shown, this invention provides a method for evaluating the effectiveness of dynamic protection of important agricultural cultural heritage, comprising the following steps:

[0065] S1. Calculate the ecosystem service index per unit area based on several indicators;

[0066] S2. Calculate the ecological footprint index;

[0067] S3. Calculate the protection and development index of important agricultural cultural heritage based on the ecosystem service index and ecological footprint index per unit area, and determine the assessment results of dynamic protection of heritage.

[0068] This invention aims to provide a more scientific, objective, and verifiable method for evaluating the dynamic effectiveness of the protection of important agricultural cultural heritage, specifically addressing the following technical issues:

[0069] 1. Addressing the issues of strong subjectivity and insufficient standardization in the evaluation process: Providing a method for evaluating the dynamic protection effectiveness of important agricultural cultural heritage based on objective statistical data and model calculation results, reducing reliance on subjective human judgment, and improving the standardization, repeatability, and comparability of the evaluation.

[0070] 2. Addressing the issue of assessment perspectives deviating from the true state of the system: Providing an assessment method that directly measures the core state variables (resource endowment, ecological pressure, economic output) of the socio-economic-natural complex system where the heritage site is located, so that the assessment conclusions can more directly reflect the real impact and results of dynamic conservation practices on the heritage, rather than relying solely on management behavior reports.

[0071] 3. Addressing the issues of opaque evaluation processes and unverifiable results: Providing a dynamic evaluation method for the effectiveness of important agricultural cultural heritage protection with a clear calculation process, well-defined data sources, traceable results, and independent verification; constructing an index for the protection and development of important agricultural cultural heritage; enhancing the scientific rigor and credibility of the evaluation work; and supporting continuous trend evaluation of protection effectiveness.

[0072] Dynamic conservation of important agricultural cultural heritage with the goal of sustainable development is a systematic project. First, the resource endowment of important agricultural cultural heritage provides strong support for its sustainable development. This does not mean that heritage with poor resource endowments cannot achieve sustainable development, but it also does not deny that heritage with good resource endowments has broader development potential. Second, evaluating the effectiveness of dynamic conservation of important agricultural cultural heritage cannot ignore the resource and ecological consumption during the process; the less pressure dynamic conservation places on resources and the ecology, the better its effectiveness. Finally, dynamic conservation of important agricultural cultural heritage should and must also contribute to economic growth and improve people's living standards.

[0073] Therefore, this invention selects ecosystem services per unit area (ES per unit area) to characterize the resource endowment of the heritage complex system. A higher ES per unit area indicates a better resource endowment, providing a more solid foundation for the sustainable use of the heritage. The Ecological Footprint Index (EFI) is selected to characterize the occupancy of the heritage's ecological carrying capacity during dynamic conservation processes. A higher EFI indicates a higher surplus in the heritage's ecological carrying capacity, providing broader potential for sustainable use. GDP per capita is selected to characterize the economic growth of the heritage. Furthermore, based on these three indicators, an Important Agricultural Cultural Heritage Protection and Development Index is constructed to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of dynamic heritage conservation from a systemic perspective.

[0074] In this embodiment of the invention, S1 includes the following sub-steps:

[0075] S11. Calculate the value of water conservation, soil conservation, carbon sequestration, windbreak and sand fixation, and cultural services.

[0076] S12. Calculate the ecosystem service index per unit area based on water conservation value, soil conservation value, carbon sequestration value, windbreak and sand fixation value, and cultural service value.

[0077] In this embodiment of the invention, in S11, the water conservation value ES wc The expression for (yuan / a) is:

[0078] ;

[0079] ;

[0080] Among them, Q wc The amount of water conservation for heritage sites (m) 3 / a), R wc Price per unit capacity of reservoir (yuan / m³) 3 A i The area (m) of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site 2 ), P i For rainfall, R i ET is the surface runoff (mm / a). i Evapotranspiration (mm / a);

[0081] Water conservation quantity (Q) wc The water balance method is used for calculation.

[0082] In S11, the soil conservation value (ES) sc (Yuan / a) is calculated using the alternative cost method. Soil conservation value ES sc The expression is:

[0083] ;

[0084] ;

[0085] Among them, Q sc ρ represents the amount of soil retained for heritage sites (t / a), and ρ represents the soil bulk density (t / m³). 3 ), R sc Price of dredging project for reservoir (yuan / m) 3 ), r i Rainfall erosivity factor for the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site [MJ·mm / (hm)] 2 ·h·a)],k i For the soil erodibility factor [t·h / (MJ·mm)] of the i-th type ecosystem within the heritage site, l iS is the slope length factor (dimensionless) of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site. i Let c be the slope factor (dimensionless) of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site. i , where is the vegetation cover factor (dimensionless) of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site.

[0086] Soil retention quantity (Q) sc The data uses the amount of soil erosion reduced by the various ecosystems within the heritage site.

[0087] 24% represents the proportion of soil erosion, loss, and sediment deposition.

[0088] In S11, the carbon sequestration value (ES) cs The expression for (yuan / a) is:

[0089] ;

[0090] ;

[0091] Among them, Q cs Carbon sequestration for heritage (t / a), R wc The international average price of carbon dioxide (RMB / t), B i , where is the biomass (t / a) of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site, and 1.63 is the coefficient for C to CO2 conversion;

[0092] In S11, the value of windbreak and sand fixation (ES) wb (Yuan / a) is calculated using the substitution cost method. The value of windbreak and sand fixation (ES) wb The expression is:

[0093] ;

[0094] ;

[0095] Among them, Q wb R represents the amount of windbreak and sand fixation for heritage sites (t / a), h represents the thickness of sand cover over sandy soil (m), and R represents the amount of sand cover over sandy soil. wb Cost per unit of desertification control project or cost per unit of vegetation restoration (yuan / m²) 2 ), wf i e represents the climate erosion factor (kg / m) of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site. i For the soil erosion factor (dimensionless) of the i-th type ecosystem within the heritage site, scf i For the soil crust factor (dimensionless) of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site, srf i c is the surface roughness factor (dimensionless) of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site. i , where is the vegetation cover factor (dimensionless) of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site.

[0096] Quantity of windbreak and sand fixation (Q) wb The data used is based on the reduction in wind erosion by various ecosystems within the heritage site.

[0097] In S11, the value of cultural services (ES) tc (Yuan / a) is accounted for using the expense method. Cultural service value ES tc The expression is:

[0098] ;

[0099] Among them, C n This represents the actual expenditure for the nth type of expense.

[0100] The actual expenses include round-trip transportation costs, entrance fees, accommodation costs, and additional food and beverage expenses and time spent during the trip.

[0101] In this embodiment of the invention, in S12, the expression for the Ecosystem Service Index (ESVI) per unit area is:

[0102] ;

[0103] Among them, ES j The value of serving the j-th ecosystem (yuan / m) 2 / a), where A is the area of ​​the heritage site (m²). 2 ), j represents the type of ecosystem service (j=5).

[0104] In this embodiment of the invention, S2 includes the following sub-steps:

[0105] S21. Calculate per capita ecological footprint and per capita resource ecological carrying capacity;

[0106] S22. Calculate the ecological footprint index based on per capita ecological footprint and per capita resource ecological carrying capacity.

[0107] The Ecological Footprint Index (EFI) is a dimensionless index representing the difference between the ecological carrying capacity and the ecological footprint of a heritage site relative to its carrying capacity.

[0108] In this embodiment of the invention, in S21, the expression for the per capita ecological footprint ef is:

[0109] ;

[0110] Where, r j C is the equilibrium factor for land use of type j. i Let gP be the annual per capita consumption of the i-th type of consumption item. i Let lP be the global average annual output per unit area for the i-th type of consumption item. i YF represents the national average output per unit area for the i-th type of consumption item.i For yield factor;

[0111] The yield factor is gP i and lP i The ratio of .

[0112] In S21, the expression for per capita resource and ecological carrying capacity bc is:

[0113] ;

[0114] Among them, ny i Let be the total annual output of the region for the i-th type of consumption item.

[0115] In this embodiment of the invention, in S22, the expression for the Ecological Footprint Index (EFI) is:

[0116] ;

[0117] Where bc represents the per capita resource and ecological carrying capacity (hm). 2 ), ef represents the per capita ecological footprint (hm). 2 ).

[0118] In this embodiment of the invention, S3 includes the following sub-steps:

[0119] S31. Normalize the ecosystem service index per unit area, the ecological footprint index, and the GDP per capita.

[0120] S32. Calculate the important agricultural cultural heritage protection and development index based on the normalized ecosystem service index per unit area, ecological footprint index, and per capita GDP.

[0121] S33. Determine the assessment results of dynamic protection of heritage based on the important agricultural cultural heritage protection and development index.

[0122] Based on the linear logical relationship between resource endowment, resource and ecological carrying capacity occupation, and economic growth represented by three indicators—ecosystem services per unit area, ecological footprint index, and GDP per capita—an index for the protection and development of important agricultural cultural heritage is constructed.

[0123] In this embodiment of the invention, in S32, a radar chart is constructed using the normalized ecosystem service index per unit area, the ecological footprint index, and per capita GDP as three coordinate axes. The area of ​​the radar chart is calculated as the Important Agricultural Heritage Conservation and Development Index (IAHPDI), and its expression is as follows:

[0124] ;

[0125] in, The per capita GDP of important agricultural cultural heritage after normalization To serve the normalized ecosystem per unit area, This is the normalized ecological footprint index.

[0126] Ecosystem services, ecological footprint index, and GDP per capita are each weighted at 1. The IAHPDI is less than or equal to 1. The higher the IAHPDI, the better the dynamic conservation of the heritage site; conversely, the lower the IAHPDI, the worse the dynamic conservation.

[0127] Those skilled in the art will recognize that the embodiments described herein are intended to help the reader understand the principles of the invention, and should be understood that the scope of protection of the invention is not limited to such specific statements and embodiments. Those skilled in the art can make various other specific modifications and combinations based on the technical teachings disclosed in this invention without departing from the spirit of the invention, and these modifications and combinations are still within the scope of protection of this invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the effectiveness of dynamic protection of important agricultural cultural heritage, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: S1. Calculate the ecosystem service index per unit area based on several indicators; S2. Calculate the ecological footprint index; S3. Calculate the protection and development index of important agricultural cultural heritage based on the ecosystem service index and ecological footprint index per unit area, and determine the assessment results of dynamic protection of heritage.

2. The method for evaluating the effectiveness of dynamic protection of important agricultural cultural heritage according to claim 1, characterized in that, S1 includes the following sub-steps: S11. Calculate the value of water conservation, soil conservation, carbon sequestration, windbreak and sand fixation, and cultural services. S12. Calculate the ecosystem service index per unit area based on water conservation value, soil conservation value, carbon sequestration value, windbreak and sand fixation value, and cultural service value.

3. The method for evaluating the effectiveness of dynamic protection of important agricultural cultural heritage according to claim 2, characterized in that, In the S11, the water conservation value ES of the water source wc is expressed as: ； ； wherein Q wc is the amount of water source conservation, R wc is the unit capacity price of the reservoir, A i is the area of the i-th type of ecosystem in the heritage, P i is the rainfall, R i is the surface runoff, ET i is the evapotranspiration; In the S11, the soil retention value ES sc is expressed by the following expression. ； ； where Q sc is the amount of soil conserved, p is the soil bulk density, R sc is the unit price of reservoir dredging, r i is the rainfall erosivity factor for the i-th ecosystem within the property, k i is the soil erodibility factor for the i-th ecosystem within the property, l i is the slope length factor for the i-th ecosystem within the property, s i is the slope gradient factor for the i-th ecosystem within the property, c i is the vegetation cover factor for the i-th ecosystem within the property; In S11, the carbon sequestration value ES cs The expression is: ； ； Among them, Q cs Carbon sequestration for heritage, R wc B represents the international average price of carbon dioxide. i The biomass of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site; In S11, the windbreak and sand-fixing value ES wb The expression is: ； ； Among them, Q wb R represents the amount of windbreak and sand fixation for the heritage site, h represents the thickness of the sand cover due to soil desertification, and R represents the amount of sand. wb For unit desertification control project cost or unit vegetation restoration cost, wf i e represents the climate erosion factor of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site. i For soil erosion factors of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site, scf i For soil crust factors of type i ecosystem within the heritage site, srf i c represents the surface roughness factor of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site. i The vegetation cover factor of the i-th type of ecosystem within the heritage site; In S11, the cultural service value ES tc The expression is: ； Among them, C n This represents the actual expenditure for the nth type of expense.

4. The method for evaluating the effectiveness of dynamic protection of important agricultural cultural heritage according to claim 2, characterized in that, In S12, the expression for the Ecosystem Service Index (ESVI) per unit area is: ； Among them, ES j The value of the ecosystem service for the j-th type, where A is the area of ​​the heritage site and j is the type of ecosystem service.

5. The method for evaluating the effectiveness of dynamic protection of important agricultural cultural heritage according to claim 1, characterized in that, S2 includes the following sub-steps: S21. Calculate per capita ecological footprint and per capita resource ecological carrying capacity; S22. Calculate the ecological footprint index based on per capita ecological footprint and per capita resource ecological carrying capacity.

6. The method for evaluating the effectiveness of dynamic protection of important agricultural cultural heritage according to claim 5, characterized in that, In S21, the expression for per capita ecological footprint ef is: ； Where, r j C is the equilibrium factor for land use of type j. i Let gP be the annual per capita consumption of the i-th type of consumption item. i Let lP be the global average annual output per unit area for the i-th type of consumption item. i YF represents the national average output per unit area for the i-th type of consumption item. i For yield factor; In S21, the expression for per capita resource and ecological carrying capacity bc is: ； Among them, ny i Let be the total annual output of the region for the i-th type of consumption item.

7. The method for evaluating the effectiveness of dynamic protection of important agricultural cultural heritage according to claim 5, characterized in that, In S22, the expression for the Ecological Footprint Index (EFI) is: ； Where bc represents per capita resource and ecological carrying capacity, and ef represents per capita ecological footprint.

8. The method for evaluating the effectiveness of dynamic protection of important agricultural cultural heritage according to claim 1, characterized in that, S3 includes the following sub-steps: S31. Normalize the ecosystem service index per unit area, the ecological footprint index, and the GDP per capita. S32. Calculate the important agricultural cultural heritage protection and development index based on the normalized ecosystem service index per unit area, ecological footprint index, and per capita GDP. S33. Determine the assessment results of dynamic protection of heritage based on the important agricultural cultural heritage protection and development index.

9. The method for evaluating the effectiveness of dynamic protection of important agricultural cultural heritage according to claim 8, characterized in that, In step S32, a radar chart is constructed using the normalized ecosystem service index per unit area, ecological footprint index, and GDP per capita as three coordinate axes. The area of ​​the radar chart is calculated and used to calculate the Important Agricultural Heritage Conservation and Development Index (IAHPDI), which is expressed as follows: ； in, The per capita GDP of important agricultural cultural heritage after normalization To serve the normalized ecosystem per unit area, This is the normalized ecological footprint index.

Images