Fairness evaluation of collaborative governance of food safety in Jilin Province based on AHP-FCE model: multi-dimensional difference analysis and policy implications research.

Abstract

The distribution of food safety risks and their associated health impacts constitute a significant societal cause of health inequalities. As a major agricultural and food production base in China, Jilin Province has seen limited research on the fairness of collaborative food safety governance from a health equity perspective, despite its critical necessity. This study integrates the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) with Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE) to establish an evaluation framework. Following a "structure-process-outcome" analytical approach and the DPSIR model, a multidimensional indicator system was constructed. Comprehensive data from multiple sources-including policy documents, regulatory enforcement records, sampling inspection data, and questionnaire surveys-were synthesized with expert consultation results from 33 specialists to conduct a quantitative assessment of the fairness in Jilin Province's collaborative food safety governance. Results indicate that the comprehensive score for local collaborative food safety governance is 3.63/5, reflecting an overall upper-middle level. However, significant urban-rural and socio-economic disparities in governance fairness were identified. Key findings include: (1) Distinct urban-rural and regional gradients in governance resource allocation (e.g., regulatory density, testing coverage) and significant differences in public information awareness, participation convenience, and satisfaction. (2) Multi-dimensional performance is uneven-government regulatory capacity scored highest (4.0), corporate responsibility implementation lowest (3.0), while third-party testing and public participation both scored 3.5, indicating insufficient depth of social force involvement. (3) Structural equity and process equity are key determinants of outcome equity, with groups possessing higher socioeconomic capital demonstrating stronger capacity to benefit from the governance system. (4) The overall coordination of the governance