| Literature DB >> 36060877 |
Xiaohua Wang1, Caimin Wang2, Zhenli Jia3.
Abstract
Performance appraisal of well-facilitated farmland projects has positive significance for promoting the development of modern agriculture in rural areas and carrying out rural revitalization. Based on the AHP-object metatopological model, a well-facilitated farmland project performance appraisal system is proposed to analyze the county performance of well-facilitated farmland construction. In this study, Fangcheng County, Henan Province, is selected as the research sample area and evaluated by applying the established index system. The results show that the overall performance grade of the well-facilitated farmland project in Fangcheng County is at an excellent level with both excellent and good rates reaching more than 90%, the output is slightly lower with excellent and good rates reaching 73%, and the benefit is the worst with excellent and good rates at 53%. These indicate that the construction effect of the well-facilitated farmland project in Fangcheng County is at a good level, but the benefits are not as satisfactory as expected. In the overall appraisal, excellent accounts for 48.1%, good accounts for 26.9%, average accounts for 16.3%, and poor accounts for 8.7%. Fangcheng County has achieved a good performance level in the construction of a well-facilitated farmland project in 2019, with almost full completion of project objectives and compliance with implementation standards. This study provides a system of county performance appraisal methods for well-facilitated farmland as well as its practical application in county-level units.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36060877 PMCID: PMC9436570 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5117986
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
Performance appraisal index system of well-facilitated farmland project construction.
| Goal | Criteria | Evaluation factor | Project |
|---|---|---|---|
| Well-facilitated farmland project construction performance | Decision | Project establishment | Degree of project necessity (points) |
| Degree of procedural compliance (points) | |||
| Performance appraisal | Degree of fitness for performance objectives (points) | ||
| Degree of project necessity (points) | |||
| Capital inputs | Capital availability rate (%) | ||
| Unit area investment amount (yuan/hm−2) | |||
| Process | Construction specifications | Task completion rate (%) | |
| The soundness of management system (points) | |||
| Project quality | Clarity of quality standards (points) | ||
| Effectiveness of control measures (points) | |||
| Financial monitoring | Deviation rate of fund expenditure (%) | ||
| Normality of expenditure (points) | |||
| Output | Construction effectiveness | Completion rate of well-facilitated farmland (%) | |
| Project quality | Road accessibility rate (%) | ||
| Economic benefits | Irrigation coverage rate (%) | ||
| Ecological benefits | Land leveling rate (%) | ||
| Social benefits | Acceptance pass rate (%) | ||
| Benefit | Construction effectiveness | Increase in grain production per mu (kg·hm−2) | |
| Project quality | Increase in annual income per capita (yuan·hm−2) | ||
| Economic benefits | Water-saving rate of the project (%) | ||
| Ecological benefits | Degree of ecological improvement (points) | ||
| Social benefits | Public satisfaction (%) | ||
| Beneficiaries' compliance rate (%) |
The weights of each index of performance appraisal of well-facilitated farmland project construction.
| Goal | Criteria | Evaluation factor | Project | Weight (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Well-facilitated farmland project construction performance | Decision (10.8%) | Project establishment (15.4%) | Degree of project necessity (points) | 0.9 |
| Degree of procedural compliance (points) | 0.7 | |||
| Performance appraisal (33.5%) | Degree of fitness for performance objectives (points) | 2.1 | ||
| Degree of project necessity (points) | 1.5 | |||
| Capital inputs (51.1%) | Capital availability rate (%) | 2.2 | ||
| Unit area investment amount (yuan/hm−2) | 3.3 | |||
| Process (18.7%) | Construction specifications (44.6%) | Task completion rate (%) | 3.2 | |
| The soundness of management system (points) | 5.1 | |||
| Project quality (32.9%) | Clarity of quality standards (points) | 2.0 | ||
| Effectiveness of control measures (points) | 4.2 | |||
| Financial monitoring (22.5%) | Deviation rate of fund expenditure (%) | 2.9 | ||
| Normality of expenditure (points) | 1.3 | |||
| Output (29.3%) | Construction effectiveness (75.2%) | Completion rate of well-facilitated farmland (%) | 8.6 | |
| Road accessibility rate (%) | 3.9 | |||
| Irrigation coverage rate (%) | 6.2 | |||
| Land leveling rate (%) | 3.3 | |||
| Project quality (24.8%) | Acceptance pass rate (%) | 7.3 | ||
| Benefit (41.2%) | Economic benefits (46.3%) | Increase in grain production per mu (kg·hm−2) | 7.9 | |
| Increase in annual income per capita (yuan·hm−2) | 11.2 | |||
| Ecological benefits (21.6%) | Water-saving rate of the project (%) | 5.5 | ||
| Degree of ecological improvement (points) | 3.4 | |||
| Social benefits (32.1%) | Public satisfaction (%) | 9.9 | ||
| Beneficiaries' compliance rate (%) | 3.3 |
The range of values of the classical domain of construction performance of well-facilitated farmland projects.
| Indicators | The range of values | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent (N1) | Good (N2) | Fair (N3) | Poor (N4) | |
| Degree of project necessity (points) | (95, 100) | (90, 95) | (85, 90) | (80, 85) |
| Degree of procedural compliance (points) | (95, 100) | (90, 95) | (85, 90) | (80, 85) |
| Degree of fitness for performance objectives (points) | (95, 100) | (90, 95) | (85, 90) | (80, 85) |
| Degree of project necessity (points) | (95, 100) | (90, 95) | (85, 90) | (80, 85) |
| Capital availability rate (%) | (95, 100) | (90, 95) | (85, 90) | (80, 85) |
| Unit area investment amount (yuan/hm-2) | (1, 2) | (2, 3) | (3, 4) | (4, 5) |
| Task completion rate (%) | (90, 100) | (80, 90) | (70, 80) | (60, 70) |
| The soundness of management system (points) | (90, 100) | (80, 90) | (70, 80) | (60, 70) |
| Clarity of quality standards (points) | (90, 100) | (80, 90) | (70, 80) | (60, 70) |
| Effectiveness of control measures (points) | (90, 100) | (80, 90) | (70, 80) | (60, 70) |
| Deviation rate of fund expenditure (%) | (1, 10) | (10, 15) | (15, 30) | (30, 60) |
| Normality of expenditure (points) | (90, 100) | (80, 90) | (70, 80) | (60, 70) |
| Completion rate of well-facilitated farmland (%) | (90, 100) | (80, 90) | (70, 80) | (60, 70) |
| Road accessibility rate (%) | (95, 100) | (90, 95) | (85, 90) | (80, 85) |
| Irrigation coverage rate (%) | (85, 100) | (75, 85) | (65, 75) | (40, 65) |
| Land leveling rate (%) | (85, 100) | (75, 85) | (65, 75) | (40, 65) |
| Acceptance pass rate (%) | (95, 100) | (90, 95) | (85, 90) | (80, 85) |
| Increase in grain production per mu (kg·hm−2) | (100, 150) | (50, 100) | (20, 50) | (0, 20) |
| Increase in annual income per capita (yuan·hm−2) | (1.5, 2) | (1, 1.5) | (0.5, 1) | (0.1, 0.5) |
| Water-saving rate of the project (%) | (80, 100) | (60, 80) | (40, 60) | (10, 40) |
| Degree of ecological improvement (points) | (95, 100) | (85, 95) | (75, 85) | (50, 75) |
| Public satisfaction (%) | (97, 100) | (92, 97) | (87, 92) | (80, 87) |
| Beneficiaries' compliance rate (%) | (95, 100) | (85, 95) | (75, 85) | (50, 75) |
Figure 1Heatmap of the performance characteristic value of high-standard farmland projects in 5 areas of Fangcheng County in 2019.
Calculation of the correlation degree of well-facilitated farmland projects in five areas of Fangcheng County in 2019.
| Areas | Correlation degree | Levels | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Liangcheng area | −0.26 | −0.27 | −0.31 | −0.37 | Excellent |
| Qinggang area | −0.27 | −0.31 | −0.22 | −0.42 | Fair |
| Zhaozhuang area | −0.26 | −0.22 | −0.30 | −0.48 | Good |
| Caotun area | −0.49 | −0.26 | −0.47 | −0.40 | Good |
| Bodian area | −0.11 | −0.21 | −0.36 | −0.55 | Excellent |
Figure 2Evaluation grade of each indicator in Fangcheng County.
The proportion of project grades of performance indicators of well-facilitated farmland projects in Fangcheng County.
| Indicators | The proportion of project grades (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | Obstacle factor | |
|
| 95.0 | 5.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 85.0 | 15.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 75.5 | 24.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 62.5 | 22.5 | 15.0 | 0 | 15.0 |
|
| 75.0 | 25.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 87.5 | 12.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 100.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 35.0 | 10.0 | 30.0 | 25.0 | 55.0 |
|
| 71.5 | 22.5 | 6.0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 82.5 | 17.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 75.0 | 25.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 75.0 | 25.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 85.0 | 15.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 25.0 | 15.0 | 34.5 | 25.5 | 60.0 |
|
| 75.0 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 0 | 12.5 |
|
| 35.5 | 30.0 | 24.5 | 10.0 | 34.5 |
|
| 60.5 | 22.5 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 17.0 |
|
| 20.5 | 29.5 | 25 | 25 | 50 |
|
| 0.00 | 37.5 | 21.0 | 21.0 | 42.0 |
|
| 80.0 | 10.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 10.0 |
|
| 50.0 | 21.5 | 13.8 | 14.7 | 28.5 |
|
| 0.00 | 37.5 | 25.0 | 37.5 | 62.5 |
|
| 50.0 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 25.0 |
Figure 3Comparison of evaluation results of “process logic” in Fangcheng County.
Figure 4Overall performance rating of well-facilitated farmland project in Fangcheng County in 2019.