A Case Study of Grassroots Water Conservancy Services Evaluation and Obstacle Factors Diagnosis Based on Gray Correlation-TOPSIS Model in Hunan Province, China
<p>The geographical location of Hunan Province.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Standard deviation and coefficient of variations in index layer.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Result of closer degree of each city in Hunan Province.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>The first level of close degree of criterion layer of grassroots water service in Hunan Province.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>The second level of close degree of criterion layer of grassroots water service in Hunan Province.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>The third level of close degree of criterion layer of grassroots water service in Hunan Province.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>The frequency of main obstacle factors of each city in Hunan Province.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Relationship between per capita GDP and closer degree of grassroots water services in Hunan Province.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Selection of Indicators
2.2. Determination of Weight
2.2.1. Calculation of Subjective Weight by Using Analytic Hierarchy Process
2.2.2. Calculation of Objective Weight by Using the Entropy Weight Method
2.2.3. Comprehensive Weighting Method
2.3. Determination of Evaluation Model
2.3.1. Build Decision Matrix
2.3.2. Standardize Decision Matrix
2.3.3. Construct Weighted Decision Matrix
2.3.4. Calculate the Euclidean Distance from Each Scheme to the Positive and Negative Ideal Solutions
2.3.5. Calculate the Grey Correlation Coefficient of All Schemes with Positive and Negative Ideal Solutions
2.3.6. Dimensionless Treatment of Euclidean Distance and Grey Correlation Coefficient
2.3.7. Calculate the Distance between Each Scheme and the Ideal Scheme
2.3.8. Calculate the Comprehensive Closeness
2.4. Barrier Factor Model
3. Instance Validation
3.1. Research Area
3.2. Data Sources
4. Results
4.1. Construction of Grassroots Water Conservancy Service Evaluation in Hunan Province
4.2. Evaluation of Water Conservancy Service Level in Hunan Province
5. Discussion
5.1. Analysis of Evaluation Results
Criterion Level Analysis
5.2. Analysis of Obstacle Factors
6. Conclusions
- The grey correlation TOPSIS evaluation model can be effectively used for the evaluation of grassroots water conservancy services in Hunan Province. In recent years, increased attention has been paid to the construction and thinking of grassroots water conservancy, but the evaluation index system—specifically for grassroots water conservancy—has not been studied. This study compares the construction process of the index system related to water conservancy modernization and highlights the government-leading nature of grassroots water conservancy in Hunan Province.
- The subjective and objective comprehensive weighting method is used to determine the weight of evaluation indicators. This approach not only considers the subjective information of evaluation experts but also reflects the objective information of each indicator. Among them, service capability evaluation > management level evaluation > public policy evaluation > personnel quality evaluation > organization establishment evaluation. Service capability evaluation has the highest weight, 0.3453, which indicates that service capability has the greatest impact on the whole system.
- The gray correlation TOPSIS method is used to evaluate the model, and the comprehensive closeness Q value is used to quantify the water conservancy service capacity level at the grassroots level in Hunan Province. The service capacity is classified into three levels: Changsha, Changde and Xiangtan are the first-level service capabilities; Yueyang, Zhuzhou, Yiyang, Yongzhou, Huaihua, Xiangxi and Hengyang are the second-level service capabilities; and Shaoyang, Chenzhou, Zhangjiajie and Loudi are the third-level service capabilities.
- By fitting the comprehensive closeness and GDP data of cities and prefectures, the results show that there is considerable convergence between the grassroots water conservancy service level in Hunan Province and the local economic level; the more developed the economy is, the higher the basic water conservancy service level is. The realization of the supply function of grassroots water conservancy services and the improvement in public service capacity cannot be separated from the strong financial support of governments at all levels. Improving the institutional construction and personnel funding guarantees are internal requirements for improving the grassroots water conservancy service capacity and ensuring the effective supply of various public water conservancy services, but they are also key to improving the level of grassroots water conservancy services.
- According to obstacle factor analysis, the service capacity, capital investment, talent construction and other factors of most cities and prefectures in Hunan Province are the key aspects restricting the development of grassroots water conservancy in Hunan Province. In the future development of grassroots water conservancy, cities and prefectures should establish a dynamic management system for obstacle factors, improve service capacity, increase capital investment, speed up talent development, reduce their obstacle level, and help rural revitalization.
- The construction of the Hunan Province grassroots water conservancy services evaluation index system can effectively improve this province’s development of grassroots water resources. This is conducive to promoting the efficiency of grassroots water management in Hunan Province and also lays a solid theoretical foundation for Hunan Province to effectively and efficiently carry out its work by providing a guarantee for the sound operation of water resources in the grassroots sector.
- The results of this study will be crucial in the discussion of how to improve the grassroots water service capacity in the future. In addition, the model of this study will be applied to other regions of China in subsequent studies to verify the generality of the model.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Narayanamoorthy, A. Development and composition of irrigation in India: Temporal trends and regional patterns. Irrig. Drain. 2011, 60, 431–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oda, T.; Moriwaki, K.; Tanigaki, K. Irrigation ponds in the past, present and future: A case study of the Higashi Harima Regio, Hyogo Prefecture, Japan. J. Hydro-Environ. Res. 2018, 11, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mutlu, S. Political economy of water regulation and the environment in Turkey. In The Political Economy of Regulation in Turkey; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 215–245. [Google Scholar]
- Cai, X.; McKinney, D.C.; Rosegrant, M.W. Sustainability analysis for irrigation water management in the Aral Sea region. Agric. Syst. 2003, 76, 1043–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gray, L. Changes in water quality and macroinvertebrate communities resulting from urban stormflows in the Provo River, Utah, USA. Hydrobiologia 2004, 518, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magee, D. Moving the river? China’s south–north water transfer project. In Engineering Earth; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 1499–1514. [Google Scholar]
- Pawlak, Z.; Sowinski, R. Rough set approach to multi-attribute decision analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1994, 72, 443–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, H.; Ruan, J. Investment risks assessment on high-tech projects based on analytic hierarchy process and BP neural network. J. Netw. 2010, 5, 393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juliang, J.; Yiming, W.; Jing, D. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model based on improved analytic hierarchy process. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2004, 3, 65–70. [Google Scholar]
- Pontil, M.; Rifkin, R.; Evgeniou, T. From Regression to Classification in Support Vector Machines. 2000. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2642057_From_Regression_to_Classification_in_Support_Vector_Machines (accessed on 8 November 2022).
- Lu, S.; Shang, Y.; Li, Y. A research on the application of fuzzy iteration clustering in the water conservancy project. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 151, 356–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Q.; Fang, G. Evaluation index system for positive operation of water conservancy projects. Water Sci. Eng. 2009, 2, 110–117. [Google Scholar]
- Yuanfeng, Q.; Ge, M.; Shenglong, L. Evaluation index system for rural water conservancy modernization in China. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2016, 32, 171–178. [Google Scholar]
- Ge, M.; Yuanfeng, Q.; Shenglong, L. Empirical study of index system for rural water conservancy modernization in Hubei province. Eng. J. Wuhan Univ. 2016, 49, 855–859. [Google Scholar]
- Xianfeng, H.; Zhanzhi, L.; Guohua, F. Evaluation and application of water conservancy modernization index system based on a cloud model. Adv. Sci. Technol. Water Resour. 2017, 37, 54–61. [Google Scholar]
- Jiahong, Z.; Lijun, L.; Yifan, C. Research on Water Conservancy Modernization Based on Multi-index Comprehensive Evaluation. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 233, 03040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, C.L.; Yoon, K.S. Multiple Attribute Decision Making; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1981; pp. 29–56. [Google Scholar]
- Rafiei-Sardooi, E.; Azareh, A.; Choubin, B.; Mosavi, A.H.; Clague, J.J. Evaluating urban flood risk using hybrid method of TOPSIS and machine learning. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 66, 102614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X. TOPSIS model with entropy weight for eco geological environmental carrying capacity assessment. Microprocess. Microsyst. 2021, 82, 103805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, M.-F.; Tzeng, G.-H. Combining grey relation and TOPSIS concepts for selecting an expatriate host country. Math. Comput. Model. 2004, 40, 1473–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tripathy, S.; Tripathy, D.K. Multi-attribute optimization of machining process parameters in powder mixed electro-discharge machining using TOPSIS and grey relational analysis. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2016, 19, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, D.; Qi, X.; Fu, Q.; Li, M.; Zhu, W.; Zhang, L.; Faiz, M.A.; Khan, M.I.; Li, T.; Cui, S. A resilience evaluation method for a combined regional agricultural water and soil resource system based on Weighted Mahalanobis distance and a Gray-TOPSIS model. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 667–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.; Dai, R.; Yang, Y.; Li, F.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, X. Integrated evaluation of resource and environmental carrying capacity during the transformation of resource-exhausted cities based on Euclidean distance and a Gray-TOPSIS model: A case study of Jiaozuo City. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 142, 109282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, W.; Zhouquan, Z.; Yonghu, W. A novel hybrid MCDM model combining the SAW, TOPSIS and GRA methods based on experimental design. Inf. Sci. 2016, 345, 27–45. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, H.; Wang, S.; Hao, X. An Improved Analytic Hierarchy Process Method for the evaluation of agricultural water management in irrigation districts of north China. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 1, 324–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ran, L.; Tan, X.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, K.; Chen, X.; Zhang, Y.; Li, M.; Zhang, Y. The application of subjective and objective method in the evaluation of healthy cities: A case study in Central China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 65, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Cheng, J.; Jin, J. Projection pursuit model for comprehensive evaluation of agricultural irrigation water quality. Trans. CSAE 2006, 2, 15–18. [Google Scholar]
Goal Layer | Criterion Layer | Index Layer | Index Type | Index Calculation Method | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grassroots water services in Hunan Province | A Organizational establishment evaluation | A1 Reform level of water conservancy management organization | Quantitative indicator | Forward | The proportion of administrative or public institution reform with staffing and financial arrangements |
A2 Proportion of comprehensive agricultural service centers | Quantitative indicator | Forward | Proportion of public institutions set up at the lowest level to directly serve “agriculture, rural areas and farmers” | ||
B Personnel quality evaluation | B1 Age structure of personnel | Quantitative indicator | Forward | Proportion of water conservancy workers under the age of 45 | |
B2 Education degree | Quantitative indicator | Forward | Proportion of personnel with professional education in total population of water conservancy | ||
B3 Proportion related to professional water conservancy | Quantitative indicator | Forward | Number of people related to water conservancy accounts for the proportion of people with professional education | ||
B4 Professional title level | Quantitative indicator | Forward | Proportion of personnel with professional titles in total staff of water conservancy | ||
C Management level evaluation | C1 Arrangement of personnel funds | Quantitative indicator | Forward | Sum of full appropriation and difference appropriation | |
C2 Arrangement of Maintenance fund | Quantitative indicator | Forward | Arrangement of funds for maintenance and repair of water conservancy projects, and maintenance of machines, roads, buildings and other good conditions | ||
C3 Proportion of fixed office space | Quantitative indicator | Forward | Proportion of fixed office space in all management station buildings | ||
C4 Proportion of flood control warehouse | Quantitative indicator | Forward | Proportion of the number of flood control and drought relief warehouses in all management station buildings | ||
C5 Level of performance appraisal method | Qualitative indicators | Forward | Reflection | ||
D Public policy evaluation | D1 Supporting conditions of policies and regulations | Qualitative indicators | Forward | Score values of questionnaires | |
D2 Construction level of technology promotion system | Qualitative indicators | Forward | Score values of questionnaires | ||
D3 Degree of government support | Qualitative indicators | Forward | Score values of questionnaires | ||
D4 Level of publicity and education | Qualitative indicators | Forward | Score values of questionnaires | ||
D5 Sound level of incentive mechanism | Qualitative indicators | Forward | Score values of questionnaires | ||
D6 Planned water use level | Qualitative indicators | Forward | Score values of questionnaires | ||
E Service capability evaluation | E1 Control capacity of water and soil loss | Quantitative indicator | Forward | Comprehensive control area of water and soil loss | |
E2 River course regulation capacity | Quantitative indicator | Forward | Length of river reach reaching the standard | ||
E3 Water saving capacity of irrigation | Quantitative indicator | Forward | Areas of water-saving irrigation | ||
E4 Urban and rural water supply capacity | Quantitative indicator | Forward | Annual water supply designed for engineering design of urban and rural water supply | ||
E5 Embankment compliance capacity | Quantitative indicator | Forward | Length of qualified embankment | ||
E6 Effective utilization coefficient of irrigation water | Quantitative indicator | Forward | Ratio of water available for crops to total water used for irrigation | ||
E7 Water consumption per CNY 10000 of GDP | Quantitative indicator | Reverse | Ratio of annual water consumption to annual GDP |
Index Layer | Average | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | |
---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | Reform level of water conservancy management organization | 4.71 | 0.21 | 4.48% |
A2 | Proportion of comprehensive agricultural service centers | 4.42 | 0.47 | 10.55% |
B1 | Age structure of personnel | 4.39 | 0.46 | 10.50% |
B2 | Degree of education | 4.08 | 0.56 | 13.76% |
B3 | Proportion related to professional water conservancy | 4.61 | 0.30 | 6.50% |
B4 | Level of professional title | 4.08 | 0.51 | 12.43% |
C1 | Arrangement of personnel funds | 4.68 | 0.22 | 4.74% |
C2 | Arrangement of Maintenance fund | 4.68 | 0.22 | 4.74% |
C3 | Proportion of fixed office space | 4.37 | 0.40 | 9.18% |
C4 | Proportion of flood control warehouse | 4.45 | 0.36 | 8.14% |
C5 | Level of performance appraisal method | 4.74 | 0.20 | 4.20% |
D1 | Supporting conditions of policies and regulations | 4.61 | 0.25 | 5.33% |
D2 | Construction level of technology promotion system | 4.42 | 0.41 | 9.33% |
D3 | Degree of government support | 4.61 | 0.25 | 5.33% |
D4 | Level of publicity and education | 4.47 | 0.36 | 8.14% |
D5 | Sound level of incentive mechanism | 4.61 | 0.30 | 6.50% |
D6 | Planned water use level | 4.32 | 0.44 | 10.15% |
E1 | Control capacity of water and soil loss | 4.42 | 0.36 | 8.11% |
E2 | River course regulation capacity | 4.63 | 0.29 | 6.33% |
E3 | Water saving capacity of irrigation | 4.61 | 0.25 | 5.33% |
E4 | Urban and rural water supply capacity | 4.58 | 0.30 | 6.65% |
E5 | Embankment compliance capacity | 4.68 | 0.22 | 4.74% |
E6 | Effective utilization coefficient of irrigation water | 4.53 | 0.26 | 5.66% |
E7 | Water consumption per CNY 10,000 of GDP | 4.34 | 0.39 | 9.06% |
Criterion Layer | Combined Weights | Index Layer | Entropy Method Weights | Analytic Hierarchy Process Weights | Combined Weights |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 0.0728 | A1 | 0.0589 | 0.0190 | 0.0390 |
A2 | 0.0406 | 0.0270 | 0.0338 | ||
B | 0.1699 | B1 | 0.0418 | 0.0320 | 0.0369 |
B2 | 0.0374 | 0.0480 | 0.0427 | ||
B3 | 0.0857 | 0.0430 | 0.0644 | ||
B4 | 0.0279 | 0.0240 | 0.0260 | ||
C | 0.2267 | C1 | 0.0964 | 0.0600 | 0.0782 |
C2 | 0.0728 | 0.0420 | 0.0574 | ||
C3 | 0.0225 | 0.0120 | 0.0173 | ||
C4 | 0.0460 | 0.0150 | 0.0305 | ||
C5 | 0.0507 | 0.0360 | 0.0434 | ||
D | 0.1854 | D1 | 0.0163 | 0.0220 | 0.0192 |
D2 | 0.0237 | 0.0350 | 0.0294 | ||
D3 | 0.0270 | 0.0390 | 0.0330 | ||
D4 | 0.0106 | 0.0390 | 0.0248 | ||
D5 | 0.0271 | 0.0680 | 0.0476 | ||
D6 | 0.0131 | 0.0500 | 0.0316 | ||
E | 0.3453 | E1 | 0.0766 | 0.0300 | 0.0533 |
E2 | 0.0377 | 0.0460 | 0.0419 | ||
E3 | 0.0408 | 0.0730 | 0.0569 | ||
E4 | 0.0547 | 0.1030 | 0.0789 | ||
E5 | 0.0415 | 0.0750 | 0.0583 | ||
E6 | 0.0312 | 0.0250 | 0.0281 | ||
E7 | 0.0190 | 0.0370 | 0.0280 |
Positive Ideal Solution | Negative Ideal Solution | Closeness Degree | Order by Closeness Degree | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Xiangtan | 0.3637 | 1.0000 | 0.6679 | 1 |
Hengyang | 0.5894 | 0.5313 | 0.4834 | 5 |
Shaoyang | 0.6158 | 0.6889 | 0.5131 | 3 |
Yueyang | 0.6781 | 0.3759 | 0.4038 | 10 |
Changde | 0.7233 | 0.4297 | 0.3982 | 11 |
Zhangjiajie | 0.5457 | 0.5496 | 0.4885 | 4 |
Yiyang | 0.4618 | 0.7639 | 0.5454 | 2 |
Chenzhou | 0.9398 | 0.3229 | 0.3537 | 13 |
Yongzhou | 0.6325 | 0.5855 | 0.4529 | 6 |
Huaihua | 0.6997 | 0.3245 | 0.3859 | 12 |
Loudi | 0.6052 | 0.4305 | 0.4299 | 7 |
Xiangxi | 0.7614 | 0.4409 | 0.4080 | 8 |
Xiangtan | 1.0000 | 0.1557 | 0.2752 | 14 |
Hengyang | 0.7652 | 0.5156 | 0.4063 | 9 |
Institutional Establishment | Personnel Quality | Management Level | Public Policy | Service Capability | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Changsha | 0.6439 | 0.5213 | 0.7004 | 0.8301 | 0.6402 |
Zhuzhou | 0.6943 | 0.3326 | 0.4687 | 0.6828 | 0.4059 |
Xiangtan | 0.8189 | 0.3447 | 0.3493 | 0.6775 | 0.5080 |
Hengyang | 0.5425 | 0.5247 | 0.4289 | 0.3506 | 0.3439 |
Shaoyang | 0.8406 | 0.3663 | 0.3885 | 0.2152 | 0.4891 |
Yueyang | 0.3749 | 0.2969 | 0.5984 | 0.6394 | 0.4826 |
Changde | 0.1429 | 0.4134 | 0.7206 | 0.5084 | 0.5367 |
Zhangjiajie | 0.8571 | 0.2489 | 0.4444 | 0.3031 | 0.3900 |
Yiyang | 0.7565 | 0.6147 | 0.5841 | 0.1798 | 0.3848 |
Chenzhou | 0.6664 | 0.2008 | 0.4349 | 0.2752 | 0.4923 |
Yongzhou | 0.8143 | 0.4863 | 0.6132 | 0.2076 | 0.3926 |
Huaihua | 0.8237 | 0.5634 | 0.3795 | 0.2108 | 0.4404 |
Loudi | 0.3083 | 0.2587 | 0.4127 | 0.2842 | 0.2601 |
Xiangxi | 0.4427 | 0.7917 | 0.3219 | 0.1911 | 0.4631 |
Hunan Province | 0.6234 | 0.4260 | 0.4890 | 0.3968 | 0.4450 |
Factor 1 | Obstacle Degree | Factor 2 | Obstacle Degree | Factor 3 | Obstacle Degree | Factor 4 | Obstacle Degree | Factor 5 | Obstacle Degree | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Changsha | E4 | 22.20% | B3 | 16.37% | C1 | 15.88% | E1 | 9.72% | E5 | 8.24% |
Zhuzhou | E4 | 14.00% | C1 | 12.60% | E5 | 12.60% | B1 | 7.13% | E1 | 7.12% |
Xiangtan | C1 | 13.50% | E5 | 11.44% | E3 | 10.48% | E1 | 10.47% | B3 | 9.06% |
Hengyang | E4 | 11.23% | C1 | 10.89% | E3 | 8.68% | E5 | 7.59% | D5 | 6.51% |
Shaoyang | E4 | 11.46% | C1 | 9.55% | E5 | 8.93% | C2 | 6.89% | D5 | 6.73% |
Yueyang | E4 | 14.12% | E3 | 8.49% | B2 | 7.61% | E1 | 7.48% | B3 | 6.98% |
Changde | E4 | 13.32% | E3 | 8.81% | A1 | 8.05% | A2 | 6.99% | B2 | 6.93% |
Zhangjiajie | E4 | 11.86% | C1 | 11.76% | B3 | 9.56% | C2 | 8.63% | E3 | 8.56% |
Yiyang | E4 | 13.32% | E3 | 8.63% | D5 | 7.35% | E2 | 7.27% | E1 | 7.21% |
Chenzhou | E4 | 11.29% | C1 | 10.50% | B3 | 8.92% | B2 | 6.89% | C2 | 6.44% |
Yongzhou | E4 | 11.94% | C2 | 8.17% | E3 | 7.89% | E5 | 7.14% | D5 | 6.76% |
Huaihua | E4 | 12.31% | C1 | 11.39% | C2 | 7.87% | E5 | 7.87% | D5 | 7.78% |
Loudi | E4 | 9.66% | C1 | 8.97% | B3 | 8.53% | E5 | 7.66% | E3 | 7.03% |
Xiangxi | C1 | 11.73% | E4 | 10.11% | E5 | 8.25% | E3 | 8.04% | C2 | 7.97% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, J.; Tang, Z.; Deng, B.; Liu, S.; Xiang, Y. A Case Study of Grassroots Water Conservancy Services Evaluation and Obstacle Factors Diagnosis Based on Gray Correlation-TOPSIS Model in Hunan Province, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 174. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010174
Zhang J, Tang Z, Deng B, Liu S, Xiang Y. A Case Study of Grassroots Water Conservancy Services Evaluation and Obstacle Factors Diagnosis Based on Gray Correlation-TOPSIS Model in Hunan Province, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(1):174. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010174
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Jie, Zihao Tang, Bin Deng, Siyan Liu, and Yifei Xiang. 2023. "A Case Study of Grassroots Water Conservancy Services Evaluation and Obstacle Factors Diagnosis Based on Gray Correlation-TOPSIS Model in Hunan Province, China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 1: 174. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010174