Table 2.

Indicator weight values and their rankings calculated by the CDFA and LTDM.

Specific indicators	indicator	LTDM weight	CDFA weight
Financial Institutions’ Deposit-Loan Ratio	X1	0.1468(14)	0.0644(5)
Public Finance Revenue-Expenditure Ratio	X2	0.1648(9)	0.0401(12)
Agricultural Output Growth	X3	0.1905(7)	0.0287(16)
Mean Nighttime Light Intensity	X4	0.1223(16)	0.0318(15)
Consumption Rate	X5	0.2111(5)	0.0477(8)
Per Capita Retail Sales of Consumer Goods	X6	0.2595(4)	0.0717(4)
Industrial Structure Advancement Index	X7	0.1602(10)	0.0255(18)
PM₂.₅ Index	X8	0.1599(11)	0.0438(10)
CO₂ Emissions	X9	0.1526(13)	0.0353(14)
Chemical Fertilizer Usage per Unit of Cultivated Area	X10	0.1577(12)	0.0412(11)
Pesticide Usage per Unit of Cultivated Area	X11	0.1014(19)	0.0729(3)
Urbanization Rate	X12	0.1781(8)	0.0482(7)
Urban-Rural Income Coordination Index	X13	0.1289(15)	0.0286(17)
Physicians per 1000 People	X14	0.195(6)	0.0458(9)
Hospital beds per 1000 People	X15	0.5106(1)	0.0381(13)
Social Welfare Recipients per 10,000 People	X16	0.3609(3)	0.021(19)
Social Welfare Beds per 1000 People	X17	0.4192(2)	0.0634(6)
Economic Association Intensity	X18	0.1211(17)	0.1145(2)
County Association Intensity	X19	0.1039(18)	0.1371(1)

The numbers in parentheses indicate the descending rank order of each indicator’s weight value in the corresponding method. Unlike conventional methods constrained by a linear sum of 1 (∑w_i=1), the LTDM weights represent an eigenvector governed by the Euclidean norm constraint (); therefore, their simple mathematical sum naturally exceeds 1.