Realizing Resilient Food Systems

Author(s): MEAGAN E. SCHIPANSKI, GRAHAM K. MACDONALD, STEVEN ROSENZWEIG,

M. JAHI CHAPPELL, ELENA M. BENNETT, RACHEL BEZNER KERR, JENNIFER BLESH,
TIMOTHY CREWS, LAURIE DRINKWATER, JONATHAN G. LUNDGREN and CASSANDRA
SCHNARR
Source: BioScience , Vol. 66, No. 7 (July 2016), pp. 600-610
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological
Sciences

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/90007632

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/90007632?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Institute of Biological Sciences and Oxford University Press are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to BioScience

This content downloaded from

14.139.121.101 on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 11:35:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Forum

Realizing Resilient Food Systems

MEAGAN E. SCHIPANSKI, GRAHAM K. MACDONALD, STEVEN ROSENZWEIG, M. JAHI CHAPPELL, ELENA M. BENNETT,
RACHEL BEZNER KERR, JENNIFER BLESH, TIMOTHY CREWS, LAURIE DRINKWATER, JONATHAN G. LUNDGREN,
AND CASSANDRA SCHNARR

Food systems are under increasing pressure to produce sufficient food for the global population, decrease the environmental impacts of
production, and buffer against complex global change. Food security also remains elusive for many populations worldwide. Greater emphasis on
food system resilience could reduce these vulnerabilities. We outline integrated strategies that together could foster food system resilience across
scales, including (a) integrating gender equity and social justice into food security research and initiatives, (b) increasing the use of ecological
processes rather than external inputs for crop production, (c) fostering regionalized food distribution networks and waste reduction, and (d)
linking human nutrition and agricultural production policies. Enhancing social–ecological links and fostering adaptive capacity are essential
to cope with short-term volatility and longer-term global change pressures. Finally, we highlight regional case studies that have enhanced food
system resilience for vulnerable populations. Efforts in these areas could have dramatic impacts on global food system resilience.

Keywords: agroecology, global change, food security, human nutrition, social–ecological systems

E xtensive public and private investment in  

agricultural research and development has focused on
increasing yields of key commodity crops in response to
scales, including sudden shocks (e.g., catastrophic weather
events), intermittent shocks (e.g., price volatility), and grad-
ual pressures (e.g., climate change and shifting human diets).
predicted increases in energy-dense diets as well as market Individuals and communities can simultaneously experience
dynamics and industry consolidation (Fuglie et  al. 2012). multiple shocks or stressors operating at different scales.
Agriculture now produces more than enough calories to Social–ecological resilience research has increasingly
meet basic dietary needs worldwide (figure 1a); however, addressed adaptive capacity, or the ability of a system to
one out of eight people do not have access to sufficient self-organize and adapt in the face of disturbance (Carpenter
food. Despite increases in global crop production, the et al. 2001). Social justice and inequalities can influence the
number of undernourished people in the least developed ability of actors within a system to self-organize through
countries has not declined (figure 1b); food-price volatility distribution of rights and access to resources (Chappell and
persists and is consistently higher in least-developed than in LaValle 2011). Therefore, although food systems can be
developed countries (figure 1c). Agriculture is also widely resilient but inequitable, we argue that increasing equality
recognized as a key driver of global environmental change, via engaged participation by all actors increases adaptive
which could ultimately undermine agricultural productiv- capacity, supporting a transformation to a more resilient and
ity (Steffen et al. 2015). Simultaneously, growing social and equitable situation (Ensor et  al. 2015). Here, we integrate
economic inequalities contribute to the coexisting chal- these concepts to emphasize the attributes and strategies
lenges of malnutrition and overconsumption (Dixon et  al. required for food systems to learn and adapt to stressors
2007). Systemic and transformative solutions are needed to while simultaneously enhancing equity and social justice.
address the intertwined global challenges of shifts toward We present a critical analysis of key food system vulner-
resource-intensive diets, limited energy and water resources, abilities, as well as strategies that could enhance resilience,
decreasing crop diversity, diet-related health problems, and improve individual and community well-being, and enhance
persistent undernutrition. environmental quality. These vulnerabilities and strategies
Applying resilience thinking to agriculture could help represent “wedges” that influence food system resilience
reduce food system vulnerabilities. We define social–eco- across production, distribution, and consumption compo-
logical resilience as the capacity of food systems, including nents. Key strategies for transformation to more resilient
the actors within them (e.g., individuals, communities, food systems include the following: (a) addressing issues
farmers, and consumers), to cope with interacting and of gender equity and social justice that shape access to all
cumulative forces that undermine food access and equity food system components, (b) adopting integrated agro-
(box 1). Sources of vulnerability operate at multiple time ecological approaches to produce more food with reduced

BioScience 66: 600–610. © The Author(s) 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights
reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
doi:10.1093/biosci/biw052 Advance Access publication 4 May 2016

600 BioScience • July 2016 / Vol. 66 No. 7 http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org

This content downloaded from
14.139.121.101 on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 11:35:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Forum

Figure 1. Recent trends in (a) per-capita food availability (1990–2011), (b) the number of undernourished people
(1990–2014), and (c) the domestic food price volatility index (2000–2014) for the world, developed, and least developed
countries (UN Classification). These trends emphasize how increasing food availability with more production or via
imported production have not alleviated malnutrition in least developed countries. In addition, food price volatility
remains a pressure on food security despite vast increases in food production. Abbreviation: kcal, kilocalories.
Source: FAOSTAT Database.

Box 1. Food systems and resilience.

Food systems: A food system is the network of activities ­connecting

people to their food. Food systems operate at multiple spatial scales
and include production, distribution, and consumption components
connected through complex social, ecological, and economic rela-
tionships (figure 2).
Accessibility: Accessibility is often defined as the physical and eco-
nomic ability to acquire food. We expand this definition to include
the concept of agency: the ability of people to influence sociopolitical
systems, including access to wealth and resources.
Resilience: Resilience is the capacity of a system to withstand
shocks and external pressures while maintaining its basic structure,
processes, and functions. Resilient systems have buffering capacity,
which enhances their ability to adapt to changes, learn from past
mistakes, and recover from disturbances.
Food system resilience: We define resilient food systems as the capac-
ity of people to produce and access nutritious and culturally accept- Figure 2. Links across food system components are often
able food over time and space in the face of disturbance and change. regulated by accessibility.

environmental impacts, (c) supporting more regionally Vulnerability in accessibility: Gender and other
organized food systems, and (d) embedding access to healthy inequities
and culturally relevant foods within production policies. We Predicted increases in global food demand have become
highlight case studies focused on smallholder farmers and a justification for intensifying production practices often
poor urban consumers, which represent approaches that without addressing the systemic causes of food insecurity.
have integrated production, distribution, and consumption Several interventions that are often more important drivers
activities with measurable benefits for human health and of food accessibility than total food production could ease
well-being. We propose that such approaches—considered global food demand, including increasing social justice and
together as an integrated set of transformational wedges— equity (Chappell and LaValle 2011), reducing food waste,
could leverage local and regional food system resilience to and shifting diets (West et  al. 2014). There is a large body
promote or reinforce resilience at larger scales. of work demonstrating that improving gender equity and

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org July 2016 / Vol. 66 No. 7 • BioScience 601

This content downloaded from
14.139.121.101 on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 11:35:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Forum

(a) Despite strong evidence of the impor-

tance of equity and justice in addressing
food system resilience, we find that less
than 6% of food security publications
over the past 25 years included the topics
of gender, equity, or justice (figure 3a).
Although the proportion of food secu-
rity studies integrating gender, equity, or
justice topics has increased slightly over
time, integrated studies remain scarce in
the agricultural literature and are more
common in the social sciences, health,
and nutrition literature (figure 3b).
Medical sciences often included gender
as a biological category rather than as a
social factor, which contributed to the
high proportion of medical science stud-
ies including gender, equity, and justice.
A more diverse portfolio of research that
addresses sociopolitical factors, espe-
(b) cially gender inequities, is needed to
identify actions that can enhance food
system resilience.

Strategy for fostering accessibility:

Equal access to capital and
productive resources
An equity-based approach to improv-
ing food system resilience suggests the
prioritization of communities that are
most disadvantaged in terms of access to
resources (Haddad et  al. 2015). Policies
and programs targeting disadvantaged
populations, such as the urban poor
and smallholder populations, can be
more cost effective than nontargeted
approaches in achieving measurable
Figure 3. Publications between 1990–2015 on the topic of “food security” human well-being outcomes (Carrera
or “food system∗” and those that also included topics of “gender or ∗equity et  al. 2012). Because of women’s large
or ∗justice” in the title, abstract, or keywords as (a) the number of records role globally in food production and
annually and the percentage of the total that included gender, equity, or household nutrition activities, strategies
justice (inset) and (b) the sum of all records by disciplinary category and that address gender inequities are likely
the percentage within each category that included gender, equity, or justice. to increase both food security and food
Source: Thomson Reuters Web of Science. system resilience, including the ability of
communities and households to adapt to
change. Box 2 presents a case study from
women’s access to education has cascading benefits for fam- India as an example of how improving women’s access to
ily nutrition and child development. For example, recent land and resources has improved multiple aspects of food
analyses revealed that improving access to safe water and access and human health. Boxes 3 and 4 provide further
sanitation and increasing women’s education and empower- examples of food system strategies in Malawi and Brazil,
ment were equal or more important drivers of reducing child respectively, that have successfully integrated issues of gen-
undernutrition than food supply quantity and quality across der, equity, or justice with production and distribution strat-
116 countries over the past 40 years (Smith LC and Haddad egies. The Malawi case study, in particular, illustrates how
2015). In addition, inequity and injustice increase vulner- collaborative partnerships between agricultural scientists
ability to civil unrest, which is a key driver of famines and and communities can inform research questions and gener-
food shortages (Cederman et al. 2011). ate integrated solutions.

602 BioScience • July 2016 / Vol. 66 No. 7 http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org

This content downloaded from
14.139.121.101 on Fri, 06 Auon Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Forum

Box 2. Collectives address gender inequities in India’s agricultural sector.

Despite economic and agricultural productivity growth, India continues to experience severe malnutrition. About half of all workers in
India are employed in agriculture, with 80% of farms less than two hectares in size. However, gender disparities undermine potential
improvements in well-being from India’s growing economy. Women occupy a large and growing role in agricultural production, but
the productivity of women-run farms is hampered by unequal access to resources (e.g., land, credit, inputs, and technical support).
These inequities arise from poverty and distributional inefficiencies but also reflect systemic gender discrimination within male-
dominated agricultural extension services and land inheritance. An emerging approach to address gender inequity is the formation
of all-women farming groups. These “bottom-up” collectives have numerous potential benefits, including greater leverage against
exploitative contracts, skill and labor pooling, as well as shared capital investments (Agarwal 2010). Collectives are often initially sup-
ported by NGOs, such as the Deccan Development Society (DDS), which assists small women’s groups in Andhra Pradesh to purchase
or lease land, with a goal of enhancing food security through organic farming and diversifying cropping systems. Co-benefits observed
in collectives across India included enhanced farm productivity, greater control over profits, improved family diets, positive health and
education outcomes, and reduced caste or gender discrimination (Agarwal and Herring 2013).
Greater inclusivity of women translated to food system change beyond smallholder farms (Agarwal and Herring 2013). For example,
DDS and women’s groups have established community grain bins to buffer against production disruptions, improve distribution sys-
tems, and target accessibility for the poorest members (Agarwal 2010). Although initially a small-scale effort, the DDS illustrates how
empowerment of vulnerable populations can promote well-being and more equitable food systems at larger scales, particularly when
connected to existing larger-scale women’s initiatives. Other organizations have begun replicating similar strategies throughout India,
sometimes in conjunction with larger efforts in poverty reduction and food security, but the empowerment of women has been pivotal
(Agarwal 2010).

Production system vulnerability: Intensification and global food crisis of 2007–2008 and US droughts in 2012 each
homogenization contributed to grain price fluctuations (Headey 2011). This
Diversification can mitigate vulnerability to variability (e.g., vulnerability is currently moderated in wealthy economies
in climate, resource availability, or markets) and increase through governmental policies and market mechanisms,
resilience in systems ranging from financial systems to natu- although many people in more wealthy countries still experi-
ral ecosystems (Folke et al. 2004). However, global agricul- ence food insecurity. In the United States, this vulnerability
tural systems have experienced immense homogenization has largely been targeted through crop insurance subsidies
and specialization over the past 50 years (e.g., Khoury et al. for a small number of commodity crops.
2014). As production systems intensify, the consolidation
and concentration of sources of seed, technology, fertilizers, Production system strategy: Fostering resilience
and pesticides increase the dominance of a small number through agroecology
of commodity grain crops with a narrowing genetic base Increasing the use of ecological processes—in place of
(Pingali and Traxler 2002, Khoury et al. 2014). chemical-based inputs—has repeatedly been promoted
This specialization and intensification has improved as a strategy for sustainably feeding the growing global
yields—but at large costs for environmental quality and population (Godfray and Garnett 2014, Ponisio et al. 2015).
resilience (Bennett et al. 2014). Over the past 50 years, global Agroecological approaches seek to ensure long-term pro-
agricultural production increased by 47%, supported by ductivity through the restoration of biodiversity and the
5.6-fold and 2.5-fold increases in nitrogen and phosphorus full array of ecosystem functions that support food pro-
fertilizer inputs and contributing to over 400 marine hypoxic duction and human well-being (i.e., clean water, nutrient
zones worldwide (Diaz and Rosenberg 2008, Foley et  al. cycling, and climate regulation). For example, increased
2011). Simplified systems with low genetic and taxonomic biodiversity in space and time has benefits for nutrient
diversity are also vulnerable to pest and disease outbreaks as retention or recycling and builds soil organic matter res-
evidenced by the rapid rise of herbicide resistant crops over ervoirs (Drinkwater and Snapp 2007, Kremen and Miles
the past 40 years due to singular reliance on herbicides in pest 2012), with benefits for resilience to drought and fertilizer
management (Mortensen et al. 2012). Simplified production dependency (Gardner and Drinkwater 2009). Crop diver-
systems can be more vulnerable to climate variability because sity and enhanced landscape diversity through diverse field
of dependence on the success of one or two crops (Schlenker border plantings can increase multitrophic pest regulation,
and Lobell 2010). Reliance on fossil fuel–based inputs and reducing reliance on external pesticide inputs (Lundgren
the geographic concentration of production centers could and Fergen 2011).
also compound farmer and consumer vulnerability to global Furthermore, the presence of certain plant functional
food price volatility (Elser et  al. 2014). For example, the groups can have disproportionate impacts on ecosystem

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org July 2016 / Vol. 66 No. 7 • BioScience 603

This content downloaded from
14.139.121.101 on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 11:35:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Forum

Box 3. Integrating agroecology and human health in Malawi.

Malawian agricultural investment has largely focused on modernization to stimulate production and rural development. Ranging
from 8% to 16% of the national budget, the Farm Input Subsidy Programme aims to help farmers achieve food self-sufficiency and
raise incomes by improving access to agricultural inputs, but there is continued debate about the program’s costs and benefits (Jayne
et al. 2015). Although maize-production gains have been attributed to the program since its establishment in 2005, hunger and child
malnutrition remain major problems nationally, and poor farm households do not benefit as much as better-off households (Jayne
et al. 2015). Also, the focus on inorganic chemical fertilizer only serves to mask the underlying issue of declining soil fertility, which
jeopardizes long-term yield productivity.
Although national food policy in Malawi struggles to address major malnutrition problems, a participatory research effort in
Ekwendeni, Mzimba District, has shown the potential benefits of integrating agroecological farming practices with broader social
issues. The Soils, Food, and Healthy Community Project (SFHC) began as a pilot project in which farmers tested the efficacy of inter-
cropped legumes as a chemical fertilizer alternative. Farmer research teams taught and mentored other farmers, and over several years
grew to a network of 8,000 farmers using this method (Msachi et al. 2009). Legume crops helped improve soil fertility, increased maize
yields in rotation, increased soil cover and also became an important dietary component for farm families (Snapp et al. 2010). However,
farmers and academic researchers identified issues related to gender and other social inequities, child feeding practices, and HIV/AIDS
that serve as barriers to broader improvements in family health and income. By integrating agricultural and social solutions, using
community educational strategies, SFHC was able to address underlying issues that hindered the effectiveness of the agroecological
system. For example, gender equality and good farming practices were promoted by encouraging men to share in traditionally female
activities, such as legume residue management and food preparation. The result has been a network of thousands of farmers who have
improved soil fertility, community cooperation, reduced dependence on external inputs, and reduced child malnutrition (Bezner Kerr
et al. 2010). SFHC initiated a new Malawi Farmer to Farmer Agroecology project in partnership with university researchers to scale
out to northern and central Malawi with 6000 households using these same approaches.

function. For instance, shifting from annual crops to peren- The conversation about how to feed a growing popula-
nial crops has the potential to substantially improve ecosys- tion, therefore, needs to integrate agroecological produc-
tem functions. Compared with perennials, annuals rely on tion approaches with the simultaneous transformation of
regular disturbance, are less competitive with weeds, and distribution, consumption, and accessibility food system
usually have a limited capacity to take up water and nutri- components.
ents. Restoring perennials to agricultural landscapes, either
in crop rotations or in field borders, could confer resilience Distribution system vulnerability: The double-edged
and substantially improve numerous ecosystem functions sword of globalization
(Smith TE et  al. 2014). Ongoing efforts to perennialize Improvements in food self-sufficiency in many countries
major grain crops such as wheat offer even greater potential have been a dual result of increasing domestic production
for building resilience and restoring ecosystem function. as well as increasing crop imports (Porkka et  al. 2012).
Legumes are another example of a plant functional group More than one-fifth of global calorie production is exported
that enhances agroecosystem resilience while also having (MacDonald et  al. 2015). However, there is considerable
co-benefits for human nutrition and the environment (Snapp variation in the dependencies of countries on international
et al. 2010). food imports. Almost one billion people were fundamentally
Agroecological approaches are well suited for improving dependent on imports to meet their basic dietary needs
food security and resilience in farming systems because of because of resource constraints or shortfalls in production
agroecology’s transdisciplinary approach, which includes circa 2000 (Fader et  al. 2013). The expansion of trade has
social science and food justice movements (Levidow et  al. therefore helped to increase food availability in many net-
2014). The case study focused on rural, smallholder pro- importing countries—but potentially at the cost of reduced
ducers in Malawi shows links among equity, human health, resilience through reliance on foreign sources of food over
and nutrition in smallholder production systems (box 3). which these countries have little to no agency and cannot
A nationwide fertilizer subsidy program, although increas- always afford. The nature of food imports also varies, often
ing overall maize production, failed to address severe food dominated by imports of livestock feeds and, in some cases,
insecurity and child malnutrition in Malawi (Chirwa and increased supplies of less healthy, more processed foods.
Dorward 2013). In contrast, agroecological methods for Furthermore, the degree to which trade has displaced or
improving soil fertility and crop diversification simulta- undercut the incomes and food security of local farmers or
neously addressed ecosystem service provision, gender diverted from investment in increased indigenous produc-
inequality, and child nutrition (box 3). As illustrated in tivity is largely unassessed.
the Malawi example, changing field management practices Globalization poses complex tradeoffs for food system
alone will not address broader socioecological challenges. resilience across scales. Globalization increases distances

604 BioScience • July 2016 / Vol. 66 No. 7 http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org

This content downloaded from
14.139.121.101 on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 11:35:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Forum

between producers and consumers, both geographically and not limiting the potential benefits of international trade to
in terms of access to information (Clapp 2014). Growing meet demands globally, including access to foods not grown
interconnectedness in food systems means that social, eco- domestically.
nomic, and ecological vulnerabilities are also connected Cities represent a unique challenge for building resilient
across increasingly vast distances (Adger et  al. 2008)—but food systems with diversified distributions systems. Urban
often with limited transparency. Some countries outsource centers are often highly dependent on globally traded foods
land use abroad either indirectly or through foreign direct (Ercsey-Ravasz et  al. 2012). Despite positive correlations
investment via large-scale land acquisitions, or land grabs. between urbanization and global individual income growth,
Most new cropland expansion globally can be attributed to urban centers tend to have similar or higher rates of pov-
the production of crops for foreign exports (Kastner et  al. erty, income inequality, and food insecurity as rural areas
2014), especially commodity crops in tropical countries (Satterthwaite et  al. 2010). The urban poor are especially
(DeFries et  al. 2013). These dynamics have potentially vulnerable to global food price volatility, as seen in the food
large consequences for developing countries’ autonomy crisis of 2007–2008. The drivers of food price volatility
vis-à-vis food systems and social equity, including impacts include but are not limited to energy prices, trade policies,
on rural livelihoods (Golay and Biglino 2013). The physi- regional food production shifts, civil unrest, and specula-
cal separation of production and consumption activities tion (Headey 2011). To increase the buffering capacity of
has also displaced environmental impacts of production to urban food systems, models are emerging that strengthen
exporting countries. For example, global trade in livestock links between local and regional food systems in addition
feed has contributed to vast phosphorus surpluses and to maintaining links to global systems. Box 4 illustrates this
degraded water quality in some regions, and the depletion food system resilience strategy focused on the urban poor
of soil phosphorus in other regions, while also reducing the and urban–rural links in Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
capacity for recycling this crucial nonrenewable resource However, the capacity for a country or region to provide
(Schipanski and Bennett 2011). a nutritious, culturally appropriate diet on a national or
regional scale is highly contextualized based on production
Distribution system strategy: Fostering resilience capabilities and the sociopolitical relationships that influ-
through regionalization ence distribution networks. The challenges and opportuni-
Achieving resilience in the food system may require efforts ties for fostering food system links across scales depend on
to counter the concentration of the global production of local context and political will to develop tailored policies,
an increasingly narrow set of crops in key export-oriented such as those developed in Brazil (box 4). Achieving such
agricultural regions (Kastner et  al. 2014) by sourcing food strategies will work against some multinational corporate
from multiple scales of distribution and diverse markets and interests and will require political change and shifts to more
supporting polycentric loci of decisionmaking. Similar to the adaptive governance systems. Similar to the limitations
benefits of diversity in cropping systems for risk manage- of relying solely on field-based agroecological practices,
ment, diversifying distribution networks has the potential diversifying distribution networks is one part of a broader
to improve the stability of food availability when disruptions strategy to achieve more resilient food systems.
occur. Increasing emphasis on local and regional food systems
could foster more rapid innovation and the ability to adapt to Consumption system vulnerability: Homogenization
global-change forces (Ostrom 2010). Regional and local food of energy-dense diets
systems also create social embeddedness between producers Although globalization has played a role in regional food
and consumers, fostering greater attention to social inequities availability, it may also contribute to less healthy diets and
and agroecosystem management (Migliore et al. 2014). overconsumption in some regions. The vertical integration
We propose regionalization as an important intermedi- of production, marketing, and distribution systems has con-
ary between local and globalized production. We define tributed to an increasingly homogenous, calorie-rich, and
regionalization as the clustering of local food production land-intensive global diet (Cassidy et al. 2013, Khoury et al.
and distribution activities to leverage greater access to infra- 2014) and to the simultaneous prevalence of chronic dis-
structure, resources, and/or markets. Such a strategy could eases, including type-2 diabetes, obesity, and some cancers
enhance the food self-sufficiency of a given region by closing alongside hunger (Hawkes and Popkin 2015).
yield gaps (West et al. 2014), promoting regenerative capacity How we define and respond to projected food demands
(Benson and Garmestani 2013), reducing waste, and recy- will shape long-term food system resilience. Food-demand
cling nutrients. Regionalization offers an integrated approach projections have been converted into food-production
to help support smallholder and agrobiodiverse farms and goals used to justify policies that support the simplifica-
focuses on providing regionally adapted, diversified diets tion and intensification of production and distribution
while theoretically increasing the capacity for more closed- systems with implications for food accessibility (Loos et al.
loop resource use. Acknowledgment of the nested nature of 2014). However, demand itself is strongly influenced by
food systems (local, regional, and global) in food and agri- policies and commercial interests. This means that cur-
culture policy could enhance food system resilience while rent projections conflate “wants” influenced by policy

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org July 2016 / Vol. 66 No. 7 • BioScience 605

This content downloaded from
14.139.121.101 on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 11:35:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Forum

Box 4. A regionally nested urban food system in Brazil.

Belo Horizonte is a city of approximately 2.5 million people located in southeastern Brazil. The Secretariat for Nutrition and Food
Security (SMASAN) established food security programs to maximize food availability and accessibility by increasing the city’s reli-
ance on regional food sourcing, which simultaneously served to support regional farmer livelihoods. Linking urban consumers with
regional rural producers stabilized rural household incomes and slowed rural to urban migration while improving food availability
within the city (Rocha and Lessa 2009). SMASAN’s strategies to strengthen rural–urban links focus on delivering high quality food to
the urban poor through farmers markets, subsidized food vendors, a school meal program, and a food bank. These programs include
requirements for sourcing food from regional producers and subsidies to reduce prices. For example, the School Meal Program is
sourced 30% from family farmers (FAO 2014), and mobile food outlets are mandated to sell in low-income areas on the weekends at
approximately 20% to 50% below market price in exchange for the opportunity to sell food in more profitable locations during the
week (Rocha and Lessa 2009). Many of these municipal programs influenced, and were subsequently nested within Brazil’s national
food security program called the Zero Hunger Strategy. These national policies and programs allow for locally tailored solutions and
facilitate access to national and global food markets in addition to the focus on local and regional supplies.
SMASAN also supports urban agriculture programs to supplement local fruit and vegetable supplies. Although the total quantity of
food produced in the city is relatively low, increased vegetable consumption and social networks have been strengthened, and support
for urban agricultural programs has increased substantially (FAO 2014). Support for nutrition assistance (through the distribution of
enriched flour) and nutrition education has also reduced malnutrition. Compared with a decade ago, 75% fewer children are hospital-
ized for malnutrition, and 25% fewer people live in poverty as a result of programs that use 2% of the city’s annual budget (Rocha and
Lessa 2009). Belo Horizonte’s spatially integrated food security programs have therefore achieved substantial progress in alleviating
hunger while bolstering urban and surrounding rural economies.

and commercial interests for resource-intensive diets with focus on public goods and integrate diverse stakeholder
the “needs” of those without effective demand (e.g., those groups operating at multiple scales could inform national
lacking consumer purchasing power and access sufficient policies designed to support diversified production systems
to match the level of their basic food needs; Loos et  al. that provide for nutritious, culturally relevant diets and
2014). From a resilience perspective, the current trajectory could potentially drive a major shift not only in human-
toward more resource-intensive diets that threaten ecologi- health outcomes and the trajectory of consumptive demand
cal resources and human health illustrates the lack of feed- but could also have cascading benefits for natural-resource
back and adaptive capacity within the current food system. use globally.
Sustaining viable, diversified local and regional food
Consumption system strategy: Linking agricultural systems can improve human health. For example, a single-
production to human health goals factor study on human health could conclude that increasing
The growing pressure to increase production represents the diversity of food imports will adequately provide dietary
an important food system vulnerability that can push sys- diversity; however, if the potential benefits of diversified
tems over planetary boundaries of resource use (i.e., land, production systems and reduced dependency on volatile
water, fertilizer; Steffen et al. 2015). Addressing this vul- global markets were included, increasing diversity across
nerability requires the integration of food production and all sectors could contribute to more favorable human and
consumption sectors. We propose that public health goals ecosystem health outcomes. Recent studies support the links
should explicitly inform agricultural policies. Rather than among crop diversity, the nutritional adequacy of diets, and
assuming current consumption trends are immutable, the human health (Jones et al. 2014), suggesting that incentives
development of agrifood policy that supports growing for the production of only a handful of crops may negatively
the food to supply healthy human diets would provide a affect human health and increase chronic disease risk. All
regulating feedback between the production and public three case studies (boxes 2, 3, and 4) provide examples of
health sectors. This health-centered approach focuses strategies that link social and ecological dimensions of food
on the type of food produced, by whom, and for whom, systems across scales with positive human health outcomes.
which allows production gains to translate to human The Brazil example illustrates the potential for proactive
health benefits. public policy to improve consumer access to diverse, cultur-
In the United States, policies supporting human nutri- ally relevant diets. The links among production diversity,
tion programs and policies supporting agricultural pro- dietary diversity, and human health are an important emerg-
duction are contained within a single policy, the US Farm ing area of research.
Bill. However, there is little to no integration across these
two areas with contradictory aspects in the Bill influenced Charting a path toward more resilient food systems
by political and commercial interests at multiple scales. In Currently, dominant approaches to addressing vulnerabili-
contrast, shifts to a more adaptive governance systems that ties in production and distribution components of food

606 BioScience • July 2016 / Vol. 66 No. 7 http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org

This content downloaded from
14.139.121.101 on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 11:35:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Forum

Table 1. A summary of the characteristics of current, brittle food system strategies and the impacts of alternative, more
resilient strategies based on specific case studies from India, Malawi, and Brazil described in boxes 2, 3, and 4.
Country Contemporary brittle system More resilient system strategy
India Status quo Intervention to increase women’s access to resources

≈ low productivity of women-owned farms  equity in access to resources

≈ gender inequality of resource access  gender discrimination

 productivity of women-owned farms

 capacity to invest in distribution infrastructure

 vulnerability to price volatility

 malnutrition

Malawi Subsidization of fertilizers Agroecological intensification coupled with social strategies

 inequity in fertilizer subsidy distribution  gender equity

 synthetic fertilizer use  diversity of crop rotations through legume adoption

 maize yields  soil fertility

≈ soil fertility  dietary diversity

≈ malnutrition  malnutrition

Brazil Status quo of urbanization SMASAN food security programs

≈ rural and urban poverty Government investment (2% of city budget)

≈ dependence on food imports  regional food supply

≈ vulnerability to global price volatility  stability of rural farmer livelihoods

 urban migration

 urban poor food access

 dietary diversity

 malnutrition

The arrows indicate the observed directionality of the effect, and ‘≈’ represents no change.

Figure 4. Conceptual model showing pathways that could shift current food systems (a) toward either a more degraded
state (b) or toward a more social–ecologically sustainable state (c). The resistance of the current system to change can be
shifted by destabilization or transformation “wedges.” Each wedge can exert a specific force on the “business-as-usual”
food system—whether positive and promoting transformational change or negative and leading to a more destabilized
or degraded state. However, some of the wedges may interact with one another and they should be viewed as integrated.

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org July 2016 / Vol. 66 No. 7 • BioScience 607

This content downloaded from
14.139.121.101 on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 11:35:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Forum

systems emphasize regulation, including policies and price a ricochet effect across scales (figure 4). Transformation
support systems, such as crop insurance, trade liberalization, wedges include investments in integrated solutions adapted
and incentive programs. Although some regulatory elements to the local and regional social–ecological contexts of pro-
offer an important safety net, others may reduce the ability duction, distribution, and consumption—coupled with local
of food systems to adapt to disruptions at either short or efforts to increase access to resources by addressing systemic
long timescales (Bennett et  al. 2014). In addition, they do inequities—that could have cross-scale outcomes that vastly
not address underlying drivers of these vulnerabilities—such improve equitable and sustainable food system resilience
as inequity, environmental degradation, the concentration globally. In contrast, destabilization wedges—such as envi-
of global distribution networks, and the homogenization ronmental degradation, the concentration of production
of energy-dense diets—that could further destabilize and and distribution systems, and inequities—have the potential
degrade food systems (figure 4). Resilient systems incorpo- to undermine food system resilience. Linking food system
rate internal feedback mechanisms, maintain redundancy, research with social movements focused on reducing pov-
and promote responsive governance and diversification erty and injustice could help build partnerships needed to
at almost all levels (Cabell and Oelofse 2012). Here, we target successful strategies, fostering more just, sustainable,
developed a vision for resilient food systems that includes and resilient food systems.
the production of a diversity of culturally appropriate food
items using agroecological principles that reduce reliance Acknowledgments
on external inputs rather than the overproduction of crops M. Schipanski and G. MacDonald shared leadership in
primarily for livestock feed, using energy and resource- writing the manuscript. We would like to thank Ricardo
intensive practices. Salvador, David Tilman, and Jonathan Foley for their con-
Addressing gender inequities and social injustice while tributions to the Ignite Session at the Ecological Society of
fostering community-level self-governance could enhance America meeting that inspired this manuscript. Theresa
the adaptive capacity in food systems by prioritizing local Nogeire provided valuable feedback on the manuscript.
solutions as outlined in our case studies. The case studies Funding for M. Schipanski was provided by the USDA NIFA
and strategies described here illustrate how improving food (no. 2012-67012-22889) and the CSU School of Global and
and resource accessibility for the most vulnerable popula- Environmental Sustainability. G. MacDonald was supported
tions could have far-reaching impacts for food security, through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
human well-being, and the environment. Smallholder pro- Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Gordon and Betty
ducers and local consumers in many regions are vulnerable Moore Foundation.
to disturbances such as extreme weather events, land grabs,
and limited access to resources. The examples from Malawi,
Brazil, and India represent innovative strategies that have References cited
Adger WN, Eakin H, Winkels A. 2008. Nested and teleconnected vul-
all had measurable impacts on improving human health nerabilities to environmental change. Frontiers in Ecology and the
through the integration of production, distribution, and Environment 7: 150–157.
consumption activities with improvements in social equity Agarwal B. 2010. Rethinking agricultural production collectivities.
(table 1). Economic and Political Weekly 45: 64–78.
The relative impact and scalability of the successful local Agarwal B, Herring R. 2013. Food security, productivity and gender
inequality. Oxford University Press.
and regional strategies we present is challenging to assess. Bennett E, Carpenter S, Gordon LJ, Ramankutty N, Balvanera P, Campbell
Over the past 25 years, India, Malawi, and Brazil have all B, Cramer W, Foley J, Folke C, Karlberg L. 2014. Toward a more resilient
seen improvements in their global hunger index (GHI), a agriculture. Solutions 5: 65–75.
measure integrating undernourishment and child wasting, Benson MH, Garmestani AS. 2013. A framework for resilience-based
stunting, and mortality (IFPRI 2015). Brazil has made a large governance of social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society
18 (art. 9).
national investment (approximately 2% of national budget; Bezner Kerr R, Berti PR, Shumba L. 2010. Effects of a participatory agri-
FAO 2014) in reducing hunger through policies targeting culture and nutrition education project on child growth in northern
food systems at multiple scales, including support for pro- Malawi. Public Health Nutrition 14: 1466–1472.
grams such as SMASAN in Belo Horizonte. Brazil’s GHI Bezner Kerr R, Lupafya E, Shumba RL, Dakishoni L, Msachi R, Chitaya
score declined by 73% over the past 25 years. In contrast, A, Nkhonjera P, Mkandawire M, Gondwe T, Mawona E. 2016. “Doing
Jenda Deliberately” in a Participatory Agriculture–Nutrition project in
the GHI of Malawi declined by 54% over this same period Malawi. In Njuku J, Parkins J, Kaler, eds. A Transforming Gender and
while investing approximately 10% of the national budget in Food Security in the Global South. Routledge.
fertilizer subsidy programs, and India’s GHI declined by 40% Cabell JF, Oelofse M. 2012. An indicator framework for assessing agroeco-
(IFPRI 2015). system resilience. Ecology and Society 17 (art. 18).
Ultimately, these case studies illustrate how integrating Carpenter S, Walker B, Anderies JM, Abel N. 2001. From metaphor to mea-
surement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4: 765–781.
multiple strategies, or “wedges,” can have a cumulative effect Carrera C, Azrack A, Begkoyian G, Pfaffmann J, Ribaira E, O’Connell T,
on food system resilience that is dependent on local or Doughty P, Aung KM, Prieto L, Rasanathan K. 2012. The comparative
regional context. However, missing any one of these wedges cost-effectiveness of an equity-focused approach to child survival,
at any given scale could undermine resilience and have health, and nutrition: A modelling approach. Lancet 380: 1341–1351.

608 BioScience • July 2016 / Vol. 66 No. 7 http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org

This content downloaded from
14.139.121.101 on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 11:35:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Forum

Cassidy ES, West PC, Gerber JS, Foley JA. 2013. Redefining agricultural without truly addressing major food system reforms? BMC Medicine
yields: From tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environmental 13 (art. 143).
Research Letters 8 (art. 034015). Headey D. 2011. Rethinking the global food crisis: The role of trade shocks.
Cederman L-E, Weidmann NB, Gleditsch KS. 2011. Horizontal inequalities Food Policy 36: 136–146.
and ethnonationalist civil war: A global comparison. American Political [IFPRI] International Food Policy Research Institute. 2015. 2014–2015
Science Review 105: 478–495. Global Food Policy Report. IFPRI. doi:10.2499/9780896295759
Chappell MJ, LaValle LA. 2011. Food security and biodiversity: Can we Jayne TS, Mather D, Mason NM, Ricker-Gilbert J, Crawford EW. 2015.
have both? An agroecological analysis. Agriculture and Human Values Rejoinder to the comment by Andrew Dorward and Ephraim Chirwa
28: 3–26. on Jayne, TS, D. Mather, N. Mason, and J. Ricker-Gilbert. 2013. How
Chirwa E, Dorward A. 2013. Agricultural Input Subsidies: The Recent do fertilizer subsidy program affect total fertilizer use in sub-Saha-
Malawi Experience. Oxford University Press. ran Africa? Crowding out, diversion, and benefit/cost assessments.
Clapp J. 2014. Financialization, distance and global food politics. Journal of Agricultural Economics 46: 745–755.
Peasant Studies 41: 797–814. Jones AD, Shrinivas A, Bezner-Kerr R. 2014. Farm production diversity
DeFries R, Herold M, Verchot L, Macedo MN, Shimabukuro Y. 2013. is associated with greater household dietary diversity in Malawi:
Export-oriented deforestation in Mato Grosso: Harbinger or excep- Findings from nationally representative data. Food Policy 46:
tion for other tropical forests? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal 1–12.
Society B 368 (art. 20120173). Kastner T, Schaffartzik A, Eisenmenger N, Erb K-H, Haberl H, Krausmann
Diaz RJ, Rosenberg R. 2008. Spreading dead zones and consequences for F. 2014. Cropland area embodied in international trade: Contradictory
marine ecosystems. Science 321: 926–929. results from different approaches. Ecological Economics 104:
Dixon J, Omwega AM, Friel S, Burns C, Donati K, Carlisle R. 2007. The 140–144.
health equity dimensions of urban food systems. Journal of Urban Khoury CK, Bjorkman AD, Dempewolf H, Ramirez-Villegas J,
Health 84: 118–129. Guarino L, Jarvis A, Rieseberg LH, Struik PC. 2014. Increasing
Drinkwater LE, Snapp SS. 2007. Nutrients in agroecosystems: homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food
Rethinking the management paradigm. Advances in Agronomy 92: security. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:
163–186. 4001–4006.
Elser JJ, Elser TJ, Carpenter SR, Brock WA. 2014. Regime shift in fertilizer Kremen C, Miles A. 2012. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified
commodities indicates more turbulence ahead for food security. PLOS versus conventional farming systems: Benefits, externalities, and trade-
ONE 9 (art. e93998). offs. Ecology and Society 17 (art. 40).
Ensor JE, Park SE, Hoddy ET, Ratner BD. 2015. A rights-based per- Levidow L, Pimbert M, Vanloqueren G. 2014. Agroecological research:
spective on adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change 31: Conforming—or transforming the dominant agro-food regime?
38–49. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38: 1127–1155.
Ercsey-Ravasz M, Toroczkai Z, Lakner Z, Baranyi J. 2012. Complexity of Loos J, Abson DJ, Chappell MJ, Hanspach J, Mikulcak F, Tichit M, Fischer J.
the international agro-food trade network and its impact on food safety. 2014. Putting meaning back into “sustainable intensification.” Frontiers
PLOS ONE 7 (art. e37810). in Ecology and the Environment 12: 356–361.
Fader M, Gerten D, Krause M, Lucht W, Cramer W. 2013. Spatial decou- Lundgren JG, Fergen JK. 2011. Enhancing predation of a subterranean
pling of agricultural production and consumption: Quantifying depen- insect pest: A conservation benefit of winter vegetation in agroecosys-
dences of countries on food imports due to domestic land and water tems. Applied Soil Ecology 51: 9–16.
constraints. Environmental Research Letters 8 (art. 014046). MacDonald GK, Brauman KA, Sun S, Carlson KM, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS,
[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization. 2014. The State of Food West PC. 2015. Rethinking agricultural trade relationships in an era of
Insecurity in the World 2014: Strengthening the Enabling Environment globalization. BioScience 65: 275–289.
for Food Security and Nutrition. FAO. Migliore G, Schifani G, Guccione GD, Cembalo L. 2014. Food community
Foley JA, et  al. 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478: networks as leverage for social embeddedness. Journal of Agricultural
337–342. and Environmental Ethics 27: 549–567.
Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Scheffer M, Elmqvist T, Gunderson L, Mortensen DA, Egan JF, Maxwell BD, Ryan MR, Smith RG. 2012.
Holling C. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management.
management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics: BioScience 62: 75–84.
557–581. Msachi R, Dakishoni L, Kerr RB, Patel R. 2009. Soils, food and healthy
Fuglie K, Heisey P, King J, Pray CE, Schimmelpfennig D. 2012. The con- communities: Working towards food sovereignty in Malawi. Journal of
tribution of private industry to agricultural innovation. Science 338: Peasant Studies 36: 700–706.
1031–1032. Ostrom E. 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action
Gardner JB, Drinkwater LE. 2009. The fate of nitrogen in grain crop- and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change 20:
ping systems: A meta-analysis of 15N field experiments. Ecological 550–557.
Applications 19: 2167–2184. Pingali PL, Traxler G. 2002. Changing locus of agricultural research: Will
Godfray HCJ, Garnett T. 2014. Food security and sustainable intensifi- the poor benefit from biotechnology and privatization trends? Food
cation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 369 (art. Policy 27: 223–238.
20120273). Ponisio LC, M’Gonigle LK, Mace KC, Palomino J, de Valpine P, Kremen C.
Golay C, Biglino I. 2013. Human rights responses to land grabbing: A right 2015. Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap.
to food perspective. Third World Quarterly 34: 1630–1650. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: 282 (art. 20141396).
Haddad L, Achadi E, Bendech MA, Ahuja A, Bhatia K, Bhutta Z, Blössner Porkka M, Kummu M, Siebert S, Varis O. 2012. From food insufficiency
M, Borghi E, Colecraft E, de Onis M. 2015. The Global Nutrition Report towards trade dependency: A historical analysis of global food avail-
2014: Actions and accountability to accelerate the world’s progress on ability. PLOS ONE 8 (art. e82714).
nutrition. Journal of Nutrition 145: 663–671. Rocha C, Lessa I. 2009. Urban governance for food security: The alternative
Hawkes C, Popkin BM. 2015. Can the sustainable development goals food system in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. International Planning Studies
reduce the burden of nutrition-related non-communicable diseases 14: 389–400.

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org July 2016 / Vol. 66 No. 7 • BioScience 609

This content downloaded from
14.139.121.101 on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 11:35:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Forum

Satterthwaite D, McGranahan G, Tacoli C. 2010. Urbanization and its impli- West PC, Gerber JS, Engstrom PM, Mueller ND, Brauman KA, Carlson
cations for food and farming. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal KM, Cassidy ES, Johnston M, MacDonald GK, Ray DK. 2014. Leverage
Society B 365: 2809–2820. points for improving global food security and the environment. Science
Schipanski ME, Bennett EM. 2011. The influence of agricultural trade and 345: 325–328.
livestock production on the global phosphorus cycle. Ecosystems 15:
256–268. Meagan E. Schipanski (meagan.schipanski@colostate.edu), Steven Rosenzweig,
Schlenker W, Lobell DB. 2010. Robust negative impacts of climate change and Cassandra Schnarr are affiliated with the Department of Soil and Crop
on African agriculture. Environmental Research Letters 5 (art. 014010). Sciences at Colorado State University, in Fort Collins. Graham K. MacDonald
Smith LC, Haddad L. 2015. Reducing child undernutrition: Past driv- is affiliated with the Department of Geography at McGill University, in
Montreal, Quebec, and with the Institute on the Environment at the University
ers and priorities for the post-MDG era. World Development 68:
of Minnesota, in St. Paul. M. Jahi Chappell is with the Institute for Agriculture
180–204.
and Trade Policy, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Elena M. Bennett is affiliated
Smith TE, Kolka RK, Zhou X, Helmers MJ, Cruse RM, Tomer MD.
with the Department of Natural Resource Sciences at McGill University, in
2014. Effects of native perennial vegetation buffer strips on dissolved Ste. Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, and with the McGill School of Environment
organic carbon in surface runoff from an agricultural landscape. at McGill University, in Montreal, Quebec. Rachel Bezner Kerr is with the
Biogeochemistry 120: 121–132. Department of Development Sociology at Cornell University, in Ithaca, New
Snapp SS, Blackie MJ, Gilbert RA, Bezner-Kerr R, Kanyama-Phiri GY. 2010. York. Jennifer Blesh is affiliated with the School of Natural Resources and
Biodiversity can support a greener revolution in Africa. Proceedings of Environment at the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor. Timothy Crews is
the National Academy of Sciences 107: 20840–20845. with The Land Institute, in Salina, Kansas. Laurie Drinkwater is affiliated
Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, with the Department of Horticulture at Cornell University, in Ithaca, New
Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit CA. 2015. Planetary bound- York. Jonathan G. Lundgren is with the North Central Agricultural Research
aries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347 Laboratory of the US Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research
(art. 1259855). Service, in Brookings, South Dakota.

610 BioScience • July 2016 / Vol. 66 No. 7 http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org

This content downloaded from
14.139.121.101 on Fri, 06 Aug 2021 11:35:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms