Acceso abierto

Study on Synergistic Promotion of Party Building Leading Rural Ecological Construction and Social Governance Modernization under the Perspective of Common Wealth

, ,  y   
24 mar 2025

Cite
Descargar portada

Figure 1.

Social and ecological interaction
Social and ecological interaction

Figure 2.

The modernization of social governance ability
The modernization of social governance ability

Figure 3.

Modernization of ecological governance capability
Modernization of ecological governance capability

Figure 4.

The process of modernization of collaborative governance
The process of modernization of collaborative governance

Figure 5.

Correlation analysis
Correlation analysis

The basic situation of the investigators is counted

Question Options Number Proportion
Age Under 30 112 9.33%
31-50 232 19.33%
51-65 548 45.67%
Over 60 308 25.67%
Political appearance Party member 352 29.33%
League member 98 8.17%
Masses 714 59.50%
Democrats 36 3.00%
Major occupational identity Party cadres of the town committee 130 10.83%
Village cadre 211 17.58%
The head of the rural social organization 76 6.33%
The head of the rural economic organization 75 6.25%
Farm man 612 51.00%
Migrant workers 40 3.33%
Self-employed 56 4.67%

The modernization of rural government governance ability

Index code Index name Index meaning Index standard Index weight
SOGC Social governance capability 0.5
SOGC1 Endowment coverage Old-age protection =100% 0.42
SOGC2 Coverage coverage Health care =100% 0.28
SOGC3 Per capita housing area Housing capability ≥30m2 0.19
SOGC4 Urban population registration unemployment Employment promotion ≤3% 0.11
EGGC Ecological governance capability 0.5
EGGC1 Environmental spending is the GDP ratio Support for environmental protection ≥2.5% 0.54
EGGC2 Urban sewage treatment rate Environmental governance ability =100% 0.33
EGGC3 Forest coverage Ecological capacity ≥40% 0.17

Degree of implementation

% A B C D E F G H
SOGC 95.61 96.33 87.24 91.84 90.05 90.32 87.73 92.14
SOGC1 95.09 97.63 94.12 98.25 95.37 95.48 93.25 95.91
SOGC2 98.77 97.85 85.76 98.26 98.13 97.24 97.07 90.73
SOGC3 100 90.8 77.78 77.45 74.58 68.18 67.89 94.39
SOGC4 79.22 100 86.39 83.24 77.85 86.38 77.95 78.93
EGGC 58.73 60.25 23.58 53.95 34.15 50.36 66.58 72.24
EGGC1 71.45 100 30.2 70.82 28.54 65.98 100 75.26
EGGC2 56.47 14.28 16.92 31.89 51.97 20.03 18.25 86.73
EGGC3 30.54 25.53 16.78 43.32 22.35 52.87 50.26 40.36
Collaborative governance 57.12 50.22 50.30 49.17 51.95 50.34 49.28 50.45

Rural grassroots party organizations and party members play a role

Question Options N Proportion
The party members actively visit the villagers Not visit 184 15.3%
Not very often 131 10.9%
Occasionally visit 360 30%
Frequent visits 526 43.8%
How does the village party branch wave in major matters It’s a good solution 640 53.3%
Better solution 409 34.1%
Unsolvable 151 12.6%
How does the village party branch drive the development of village level industry Very good 298 24.8%
Better 481 40.1%
General 407 33.9%
Worse 14 1.2%

The village clean action quantitative index statistics

Time span Clean up the amount of waste in rural life (tons) Clean up the amount of silt in the village (ton) The quantity of waste of agricultural waste such as livestock and livestock manure (tons) Clean up the number of old billboards (frequency) Clean up the number of village ponds (frequency)
1-2 moon 1442 25 60 160 20
1-3 moon 2564 60 163 211 27
1-4 moon 3154 63 184 275 36
1-5 moon 3328 74 216 382 47
1-10 moon 5890 86 314 525 89