Author Contributions
Conceptualization, Y.G. and J.C.; methodology, Y.G.; software, J.S.; validation, Y.G. and J.S.; formal analysis, Y.G. and J.S.; investigation, Y.X. and J.G.; resources, Y.G.; data curation, J.S.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.G.; writing—review and editing, J.C.; visualization, J.S.; supervision, J.C.; project administration, Y.G.; funding acquisition, Y.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Figure 1.
Spatial location analysis of the Zhengzhou Metropolitan Area (left): Henan Province is located in the People’s Republic of China; (middle): Location of the Central Plains Urban Cluster in central China; (right): Location of the Zhengzhou Metropolitan Area within the Central Plains Urban Cluster).
Figure 1.
Spatial location analysis of the Zhengzhou Metropolitan Area (left): Henan Province is located in the People’s Republic of China; (middle): Location of the Central Plains Urban Cluster in central China; (right): Location of the Zhengzhou Metropolitan Area within the Central Plains Urban Cluster).
Figure 2.
Theoretical Scope of Urban Food Resilience.
Figure 2.
Theoretical Scope of Urban Food Resilience.
Figure 3.
Changes in the scale of agricultural land in the metropolitan area.
Figure 3.
Changes in the scale of agricultural land in the metropolitan area.
Figure 4.
Data on agricultural land area from 2000 to 2020.
Figure 4.
Data on agricultural land area from 2000 to 2020.
Figure 5.
Data on urban construction land area from 2000 to 2020.
Figure 5.
Data on urban construction land area from 2000 to 2020.
Figure 6.
Data on urban construction land trends in the metropolitan area.
Figure 6.
Data on urban construction land trends in the metropolitan area.
Figure 7.
Changes in the scale of woodland and grassland in the metropolitan area.
Figure 7.
Changes in the scale of woodland and grassland in the metropolitan area.
Figure 8.
Data on woodland and grassland use and trends in the metropolitan area.
Figure 8.
Data on woodland and grassland use and trends in the metropolitan area.
Figure 9.
Changes in the water area scale in the metropolitan area.
Figure 9.
Changes in the water area scale in the metropolitan area.
Figure 10.
Data on water area and trends in the metropolitan area.
Figure 10.
Data on water area and trends in the metropolitan area.
Figure 11.
Development of highways and railways.
Figure 11.
Development of highways and railways.
Figure 12.
Data on highway and railway mileage.
Figure 12.
Data on highway and railway mileage.
Figure 13.
Coverage density of transportation hubs and stations.
Figure 13.
Coverage density of transportation hubs and stations.
Figure 14.
Data on transportation hubs and stations.
Figure 14.
Data on transportation hubs and stations.
Figure 15.
Coverage density of malls and supermarkets.
Figure 15.
Coverage density of malls and supermarkets.
Figure 16.
Data on malls and supermarkets.
Figure 16.
Data on malls and supermarkets.
Figure 17.
Statistics on total population, ageing ratio, consumption proportion, and proportion of imported foods in the metropolitan area.
Figure 17.
Statistics on total population, ageing ratio, consumption proportion, and proportion of imported foods in the metropolitan area.
Figure 18.
Trend of Comprehensive Evaluation of Food Resilience in the Zhengzhou Metropolitan Area.
Figure 18.
Trend of Comprehensive Evaluation of Food Resilience in the Zhengzhou Metropolitan Area.
Figure 19.
Statistical Data on Logistics Facilities, Proportion of Agricultural Automation, Ratio of Community Food Distribution, and Policy Responses.
Figure 19.
Statistical Data on Logistics Facilities, Proportion of Agricultural Automation, Ratio of Community Food Distribution, and Policy Responses.
Figure 20.
Data on Planning Measures for Responding to Extreme Weather Events.
Figure 20.
Data on Planning Measures for Responding to Extreme Weather Events.
Table 1.
Evaluation Indicators.
Table 1.
Evaluation Indicators.
Objective Layer | Criterion Layer | Indicator Layer |
---|
Metropolitan Food Resilience Evaluation System | Food Supply Chain Management B1 | Storage Capacity C1 |
Actual Storage Amount C2 |
Controlled Atmosphere Grain Storage Capacity C3 |
Low Temperature Near-Low Temperature Grain Storage Capacity C4 |
Time Required from Food Production to Sale (in days) C5 |
Loss Rate: Percentage of food loss or damage during production, storage, transportation, and sale C6 |
Economic and Affordability B2 | Food Price Index C7 |
Number of People Employed in Agriculture C8 |
Average Annual Income of Agricultural Population C9 |
Food Consumption and Demand B3 | Annual Per Capita Food Consumption (in kilograms) C10 |
Variety of Food Types Consumed C11 |
Daily Caloric Intake Per Capita (in grams or milligrams) C12 |
Proportion of Food Purchases by Channel C13 |
Household Reserves of Specific Foods C14 |
Emergency Preparedness and Management B4 | Proportion of Emergency Grain Reserves C15 |
Emergency Logistics Network Response Time: Average transportation time from food reserve locations to demand sites C16 |
Disaster Recovery Time: Time required to restore normal operations when supply chain disruptions or bottlenecks occur C17 |
Number of Emergency Training and Simulation Drills: Number of emergency response trainings and practical simulation drills conducted for relevant personnel C18 |
Number of Community Food Distribution Centers: Number of community centers or other facilities capable of distributing food in emergency situations C19 |
Coordination and Cooperation Mechanisms with Neighboring Areas: Number of coordination mechanisms during food resilience crises with other cities or regions C20 |
Social Participation and Governance B5 | Public Participation Level: Number of public involvement activities in food resilience policymaking or project implementation C21 |
Participation Level of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Community Organizations C22 |
Establishment Score of Feedback and Complaint Channels: Number of channels available for the public to provide feedback or raise issues regarding food resilience C23 |
Number of Social Governance Innovation Projects: Number of social governance innovation projects related to food resilience implemented C24 |
Number of Media Reports on Food Resilience Issues C25 |
Table 2.
Food Resilience Evaluation Grading.
Table 2.
Food Resilience Evaluation Grading.
Level | Interval | Status | Indicator Characteristics |
---|
1 | [0, 0.30] | Very Poor | Societal activities are stagnant, and the condition of food resilience is extremely poor. |
2 | [0.30, 0.60] | Poor | Societal activities are slow, and food resilience is significantly damaged. |
3 | [0.60, 0.80] | Moderate | Societal activities are normal, and food resilience is noticeably affected. |
4 | [0.80, 1] | Good | Societal activities are active, and food resilience is minimally impacted. |
Table 3.
Pairwise Judgment Matrix.
Table 3.
Pairwise Judgment Matrix.
ak | B1 | B2 | B3 | … | Bn |
---|
B1 | b11 | b12 | b13 | … | b1n |
B2 | b21 | b22 | b23 | … | b2n |
B3 | b31 | b32 | b33 | … | b3n |
… | … | … | … | … | … |
Bn | bn1 | bn2 | bn3 | … | bnn |
Table 4.
Scale and Meaning Table for Judgment Matrix Method.
Table 4.
Scale and Meaning Table for Judgment Matrix Method.
Scale Value | Meaning |
---|
1 | Indicators Bi and Bj are equally important |
3 | Indicator Bi is more important than Bj, conversely 1/3 |
5 | Indicator Bi is significantly more important than Bj, conversely 1/5 |
7 | Indicator Bi is very important compared to Bj, conversely 1/7 |
9 | Indicator Bi is extremely important compared to Bj, conversely 1/9 |
2, 4, 6, 8 | Intermediate values between the above indicators |
Table 5.
Judgment Matrix and Weights for Goal Layer A.
Table 5.
Judgment Matrix and Weights for Goal Layer A.
A | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | B5 | Weight |
---|
B1 | 1 | 2 | 1.667 | 1.667 | 1.429 | 29.04% |
B2 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1.25 | 15.03% |
B3 | 0.6 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 14.86% |
B4 | 0.6 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 26.20% |
B5 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 14.87% |
Table 6.
Judgment Matrix and Weights for Food Supply Chain Management B1.
Table 6.
Judgment Matrix and Weights for Food Supply Chain Management B1.
B1 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | Weight |
---|
C1 | 1 | 0.2 | 2 | 2 | 0.2 | 1 | 9.86% |
C2 | 5 | 1 | 2.857 | 2.857 | 3.03 | 3.333 | 36.07% |
C3 | 0.5 | 0.35 | 1 | 1 | 0.25 | 0.2 | 6.27% |
C4 | 0.5 | 0.35 | 1 | 1 | 0.25 | 0.2 | 6.27% |
C5 | 5 | 0.33 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 22.38% |
C6 | 1 | 0.3 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 19.15% |
Table 7.
Judgment Matrix and Weights for Economic and Affordability B2.
Table 7.
Judgment Matrix and Weights for Economic and Affordability B2.
B2 | C7 | C8 | C9 | Weight |
---|
C7 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 49.98% |
C8 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.111 | 25.89% |
C9 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1 | 24.13% |
Table 8.
Judgment Matrix and Weights for Food Consumption and Demand B3.
Table 8.
Judgment Matrix and Weights for Food Consumption and Demand B3.
B3 | C10 | C11 | C12 | C13 | C14 | Weight |
---|
C10 | 1 | 1.111 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1.111 | 22.48% |
C11 | 0.9 | 1 | 1.429 | 1.667 | 2 | 26.37% |
C12 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 1 | 1.25 | 1 | 18.19% |
C13 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1 | 1 | 16.14% |
C14 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16.81% |
Table 9.
Judgment Matrix and Weights for Emergency Preparedness and Management B4.
Table 9.
Judgment Matrix and Weights for Emergency Preparedness and Management B4.
B4 | C15 | C16 | C17 | C18 | C19 | C20 | Weight |
---|
C15 | 1 | 2 | 2.222 | 1.429 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 22.46% |
C16 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.333 | 1.25 | 1 | 0.667 | 11.35% |
C17 | 0.45 | 3 | 1 | 1.25 | 2 | 0.667 | 18.55% |
C18 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 10.73% |
C19 | 0.4 | 1 | 0.5 | 2 | 1 | 0.833 | 13.52% |
C20 | 2 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 1.2 | 1 | 23.40% |
Table 10.
Judgment Matrix and Weights for Social Participation and Governance B5.
Table 10.
Judgment Matrix and Weights for Social Participation and Governance B5.
B5 | C21 | C22 | C23 | C24 | C25 | Weight |
---|
C21 | 1 | 0.909 | 0.769 | 1.429 | 2 | 22.16% |
C22 | 1.1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1.25 | 1.429 | 19.23% |
C23 | 1.3 | 2 | 1 | 1.667 | 2 | 29.62% |
C24 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 1 | 1 | 15.41% |
C25 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 13.57% |
Table 11.
Comprehensive Evaluation Indicator Weights for the Metropolitan Area’s Food Resilience System.
Table 11.
Comprehensive Evaluation Indicator Weights for the Metropolitan Area’s Food Resilience System.
Goal Layer | Criterion Layer | Indicator Layer | Weight | Total Weight |
---|
Metropolitan Area Food Resilience Evaluation System A | B1 Food Supply Chain Management (0.2904) | C1 Storage Capacity | 0.0986 | 0.0286 |
C2 Actual Storage Quantity | 0.3607 | 0.1048 |
C3 Controlled Atmosphere Grain Storage Capacity | 0.0627 | 0.0182 |
C4 Low and Near-Low Temperature Grain Storage Capacity | 0.0627 | 0.0182 |
C5 Time Required from Food Production to Sale | 0.2238 | 0.0650 |
C6 Loss Rate | 0.1915 | 0.0556 |
B2 Economic and Affordability (0.1503) | C7 Food Price Index | 0.4998 | 0.0751 |
C8 Number of Agricultural Employees | 0.2589 | 0.0389 |
C9 Average Annual Income of Agricultural Population | 0.2413 | 0.0363 |
B3 Food Consumption and Demand (0.1486) | C10 Annual Per Capita Food Consumption | 0.2248 | 0.0334 |
C11 Number of Food Types Consumed | 0.2637 | 0.0392 |
C12 Daily Caloric Intake Per Capita | 0.1819 | 0.0270 |
C13 Proportion of Food Purchasing Channels | 0.1614 | 0.0240 |
C14 Family Specific Food Reserves | 0.1681 | 0.0250 |
B4 Emergency Preparedness and Management (0.2620) | C15 Proportion of Emergency Grain Reserves | 0.2246 | 0.0588 |
C16 Emergency Logistics Network Response Time | 0.1135 | 0.0297 |
C17 Post-Disaster Recovery Time | 0.1855 | 0.0486 |
C18 Number of Emergency Training and Simulation Drills | 0.1073 | 0.0281 |
C19 Number of Community Food Distribution Centers in Built-up Areas | 0.1352 | 0.0355 |
C20 Coordination and Cooperation Mechanisms with Neighboring Areas | 0.2340 | 0.0613 |
B5 Social Participation and Governance (0.1487) | C21 Public Participation Level | 0.2216 | 0.0330 |
C22 Participation of NGOs and Community Organizations | 0.1923 | 0.0286 |
C23 Establishment Rating of Feedback and Demand Channels | 0.2962 | 0.0440 |
C24 Number of Social Governance Innovation Projects | 0.1541 | 0.0229 |
C25 Number of Media Reports on Food Resilience Issues | 0.1357 | 0.0202 |
Table 12.
Comprehensive Evaluation Values and Grades of Food Resilience in the Zhengzhou Metropolitan Area by Year.
Table 12.
Comprehensive Evaluation Values and Grades of Food Resilience in the Zhengzhou Metropolitan Area by Year.
Year | Food Supply Chain Management | Economic and Affordability | Food Consumption and Demand | Emergency Preparedness and Management | Social Participation and Governance | Total Weight | Benefit Level |
---|
2018 | 0.1206 | 0.0389 | 0.0240 | 0.0877 | 0.0669 | 0.3381 | Poor |
2019 | 0.1368 | 0.0866 | 0.0340 | 0.0851 | 0.0787 | 0.4213 | Poor |
2020 | 0.1511 | 0.0778 | 0.0327 | 0.1681 | 0.0731 | 0.5028 | Poor |
2021 | 0.1516 | 0.0910 | 0.1047 | 0.1640 | 0.0754 | 0.5867 | Poor |
2022 | 0.1698 | 0.1114 | 0.1366 | 0.1837 | 0.0871 | | Moderate |