Next Article in Journal
Belonging to Three Worlds: Somali Adolescent–Parent Relationships in the United States and Implications for Tobacco Prevention
Previous Article in Journal
An Assessment of Temporal and Spatial Dynamics of Regional Water Resources Security in the DPSIR Framework in Jiangxi Province, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Gendered Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Food Behaviors in North Africa: Cases of Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 6
10.3390/ijerph19063652
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Considering Ecosystem Services in Food System Resilience

by
Yevheniia Varyvoda
1,* and
Douglas Taren
2
1
Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85724, USA
2
School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO 80045, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(6), 3652; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063652
Submission received: 31 January 2022 / Revised: 10 March 2022 / Accepted: 16 March 2022 / Published: 19 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Future Challenges for the Food System: Approaches, Solutions, and Policies for Sustainability and Health)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The prevalence and severity of natural hazards pose a serious risk to food systems, undermining their function to provide food security and improved nutrition. The impact of such events is extensive, and the level of damage and recovery significantly depend on ecosystem services, including their own resilience capacity. This paper provides evidence that the role, value, and utilization of local ecosystem services are essential for food system resilience and for food security in parts of the world where high vulnerability and lack of coping capacity exist to combat climate change. Patterns of ecosystem services-based strategies were revealed that can be introduced to cope and adapt to climate-related natural hazards at the smallholder food system level. The study suggests that food system diversification, technological innovations and nature-based practices, and traditional and indigenous knowledge operationalized across the food system components have a potential for sustaining smallholder resilience in the face of natural hazards.

1. Introduction

There is a paucity of research that describes the linkages between ecosystem services, food systems, and food security for small-land owners and fisheries. Furthermore, how food systems can be more resilient has become more important on the list research agenda items in the time of amplitudinous natural hazards. The imminent loss or damage to agriculture, livestock, fishery, and forestry originating from nature is compounded by global and local market distortions, political and social upheavals that constrains the resiliency of food systems, and their ability to deliver safe and sufficient food. At the same time, enhancing food systems can decrease poverty by creating jobs and sustainable livelihoods [1,2,3].
Natural hazards significantly impact the agri-food sector, leading to decreased crop yields and livestock productivity, as well as declines in fisheries and agroforestry in areas already vulnerable to food insecurity. Subsequently, these hazards affect food diversity, the nutrient density of foods, food safety, and food prices [4,5].
The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) determined that the cost of natural disasters, between 2008 and 2018, on the agricultural sector of low and lower-middle income countries was greater than USD 108 billion due to damaged or lost crop and livestock production. This cost was particularly detrimental to the livelihoods of smallholder and subsistence farmers, pastoralists, and fishers [6].
The literature on food systems resilience has generally concentrated on the responses of food systems to climate change [7,8,9,10]; natural hazards [11,12]; socioeconomic crises, e.g., due to the COVID-19 pandemic [13,14,15,16,17,18]; and implications for interventions to build resilience [19,20,21,22]. There is a growing number of studies on food system resilience in rural and marginalized communities and neglected territories that focus on the role of natural resources [23,24,25]. Most of the studies on food systems resilience have focused on the measurement or assessment of livelihood, community resilience [26,27,28,29,30,31], determinants of livelihood resilience [20,32,33], and the linkages between sustainable agricultural practices and resilience [33,34,35]. However, less attention has been given to the functional properties of ecosystem services and their contribution in offsetting the effects of climate-related natural hazards at the smallholder food system level.
There is a growing interest in promoting ecosystem services-based responses to climate-related natural disasters that benefit smallholder farmers [36,37,38]. As an example, forests contribute to resilience through the structural defense against wind and soil erosion, water regulation, and provision of timber and non-timber forest products [39]. Coastal plants, such as mangrove, and salt marshes reduce tidal bore and erosion from storms and inflowing tides, while diminishing the saltwater intrusion and sediment deposition with organic matter [40]. Leading-edge review papers provide comprehensive scientific-based evidence on the potential of ecosystems and their services to contribute globally to disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation [40,41,42,43].
At the local level, smallholder farmers’ ability to utilize ecosystem services in and around farms helps them balance ecological and socioeconomic trade-offs, and thus support local food systems to cope with adversities [39,44]. Many smallholders are already implementing practices that maintain the food system while ensuring the continued provision of ecosystem services on which their household’s food security, income, and well-being depend [45,46,47,48,49]. The implementation of these practices results in a higher capacity of their food system to resist, cope with, and/or recover from extreme events [50,51]. However, syntheses of these experiences are still lacking.
In response, we provide an analysis and descriptive details of case studies as examples of ways in which provisioning, regulation and maintenance, and cultural ecosystem services are being embedded in coping strategies across selected smallholder food systems located mainly in the tropical and subtropical regions. These regions have a significant number of small farms that contribute substantially to the production of most food commodities and experience the highest frequency of natural hazards related to climate change [6,52]. These selected case studies are used to illustrate promising approaches, lessons learned, and remaining challenges on how to increase the resilience of agri-food systems abetting the benefits provided by nature. Thus, the aim of this article is to demonstrate how ecosystem services can affect the food security of smallholder farmers when exposed to climate-related natural hazards by increasing the resiliency of food systems.

2. Materials and Methods

This narrative review is based on published studies in English between 2005 and 2021 given the relatively recent emergence and consolidation of ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘food system resilience’ as a defined research area. The timeframe was determined based on the landmark Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), being a milestone in ecosystem services research, summarizing past ecosystem change and assessing the future of human well-being [53]. The inclusion of this period captures the most recent literature in the research field, reflects current trends in resilience knowledge, and provides useful and applicable sources of some important case studies of food system resilience in the context of natural hazards. All titles and abstracts were screened by one author (Y.V.) against the study PI(E)COS (population, intervention/exposure, comparison, outcome, and study design) criteria to ensure eligibility for inclusion (see Table S1). If it was unclear from the abstract alone whether an article was eligible for inclusion, the full text was reviewed. The bibliographies of the included studies were also screened for additional articles.
The ScienceDirect, Semantic Scholar, and SAGE databases were used as the primary sources to identify publications (see Figure S1). The following syntax was used for this search: TITLE-ABS-KEY ‘food system(s) resilience’ AND TITLE ‘ecosystem services’ AND ‘natural hazards’ or ‘shocks’. Two researchers (Y.V. and D.T.) independently reviewed titles. Abstracts identified from the literature searches and reference list checking were imported to EndNote, and duplicates were removed. The titles and abstracts of all articles retrieved were independently screened for inclusion. In case of disagreement, consensus on which articles to screen full-text was reached by discussion. Next, Y.V. and D.T. independently screened full-text articles for inclusion. Disagreements or uncertainty about eligibility were resolved through discussion based on the study design and analysis methods.
Accordingly, we reviewed the scientific literature on the relationship between ecosystem services and food systems, and identified case studies as examples for how ecosystem services support small-scale subsistence farmers, pastoralist, and fishers with low productivity. Cases include factors related to shocks and stresses triggered by flooding, landslides, windstorms, droughts, extreme temperatures, and wildfires. The selected case studies allow tracking ecosystem services-based initiatives that are deemed to improve the capacity of smallholders to cope with extreme events, thus revealing both the interventions implemented and the outcomes generated.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Ecosystem Services Implications for Food System Resilience

Resilience thinking has its origins in ecology [54]. However, resilience thinking has been increasingly adopted as a generic approach to the behavioral understanding of social-ecological systems, which comprise a nexus of food production, processing, distribution, consumption systems, and ecosystem services [55,56].
Ecosystem services are the ecological characteristics, functions or processes that directly or indirectly contribute to human wellbeing: that is, the benefits that people derive from functioning ecosystems [53,57]. According to Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) [57] provisioning services are the material and energetic outputs from ecosystems from which goods and products are derived. The regulation and maintenance category includes all the ways in which ecosystems can mediate the environment in which people live or depend on in some way, and benefit from them in terms of their health or security, for example. Finally, the cultural services category identified all the non-material characteristics of ecosystems that contribute to mental and intellectual well-being. In the context of ecosystem services, resilience is defined as the capacity of socio-ecological systems to continue providing a desired set of ecosystem service flows in the face of unexpected shocks and ongoing changes [58].
According to Tendall et al. [59], food system resilience is the capacity over time of a food system and its units at multiple levels to provide sufficient, appropriate, and accessible food to all in the face of various and unforeseen disturbances. In this context, “sufficient” means having enough food of nutritional quality; “appropriate” addresses food that is culturally, technically, and nutritionally appropriate; and “accessible” means that the food is physically and economically available to the population. These components represent the FAO dimensions of food security: availability, access, and utilization [60]. Whereas sustainability can be seen as an overall goal and has implications for food security for future generations, resilience is a means to achieve sustainability during change and disturbances [59]. Yet, the concept of food system resilience is less well-studied than food systems sustainability [34,55,61].
Food system resilience is closely related to ecosystem services. As climate disturbances increasingly lead to crop failures from floods, droughts, and disease, they are often exacerbated by an insufficient support for regulating ecosystem services. For example, vegetation cover is one of the factors that determines the risk and intensity of flash floods as it influences the water runoff as a natural process. The ecosystem function in this case is water flow regulation (slowing the passage of surface water). If people derive a benefit from this function, then that ecosystem function is regarded as a service (flash flood prevention and control). The main beneficiaries of this ecosystem service are different lowland communities that profit from a mitigation of flood peaks. The resilience value of this service can be described as the protection of livelihoods and can be defined, for example, by the calculation of post-flood biomass yield increment in terms of crop production.
The general consensus on the characteristics of the resilient social-ecological system include [62,63,64]: good ecological health, heterogeneity in ecological composition, and social livelihoods (diversity of properties, and activities, pathways, and flexibility to nimbly move between these [65]; resource use efficiency [66]; the existence of opportunities, resources, and information for learning; the acquisition of skills and knowledge by society [67]; effective institutions [68]; and social cohesion and the capacity and autonomy for democratic self-organization [69]).
Although all food systems have the same essential attributes, they vary significantly in different regions of the world and hence have different interactions with natural resources. How natural resources underpin all ecosystem activities and how these activities impact natural resources vary considerably from case to case [70,71]. This implies that the availability and variability of ecosystem services can be determinants of food systems resilience. We summarized these key factors into a framework that distinguishes the different aspects of resilience (see Table S2).
Five capacities of resilient food systems to manage climate changes and shocks to the ecosystem are considered essential [72,73]. These include the capacity to (i) anticipate the need for new approaches, (ii) prevent the impact of shocks, (iii) absorb the shocks for maintaining a functioning food system, (iv) adapt to an evolving risk, and (v) transform the current food system to make it sustainable [11]. These capacities for resilience require many of the same qualities of social and natural systems [74]. The definitions of these capacities with examples of delivered ecosystem services are given in Table 1.
The capacity of ecosystem services to contribute to food system resilience under external disturbances [77,78], such as extreme weather conditions, has been previously described and presented in Supplementary Materials (see Table S3).
Determining the valuation of ecosystem services (by amount, type, source, etc.) is essential to scale food system resilience and inform resilience policy. Mafongoya et al. developed indicators to identify and quantify ecosystem services in relation to food system sustainability and resilience, focusing on the group and classes of ecosystem services. [79]. In addition, several multiservice assessment models have been developed to provide accessible, quantitative assessments of ecosystem services (e.g., InVEST [80], LUCI [81], and ARIES [82]). However, while promising, due to limited available data, these models do not comprehensively characterize cultural ecosystem services that support the health and well-being of people having access to them nor reduce their susceptibility to experience harm [83]. It is an evidence-based concept that direct contact with nature supports the mental and physical health of people, including the spiritual experience and sense of place within societies [84,85]. This service provided by ecosystems is particularly important considering the social and health impacts of natural hazards.
The above analyses show that all categories of ecosystem services and their functional properties are relevant for resilience through advancing coping and adaptive capacities. The provisioning services mainly reduce the vulnerability of smallholder farmers by ensuring food and access to safe drinking water, raw materials, and medicinal resources [86,87]. A global study on the economic contribution of wild foods to rural livelihood revealed that 77 percent of households harvest wild food, which represents an important source of income generation and food security [88]. The regulation and maintenance of ecosystem services help to buffer the disaster-related impacts using mechanisms of water purification and waste treatment, air quality maintenance, soil erosion control, flood protection, climate regulation, pest and disease regulation, pollination, and regulation of the frequency and intensity of natural hazards’ flow while enabling the richness of provisioning services [89,90]. Cultural ecosystem services are considered to support the health and well-being of people having access to them and, with this, reduce their susceptibility to experience harm [40,91,92]. As an example, an Indigenous Fijian community revealed a strong sense of belonging and social identity with the land, river, and ocean. The use of ecosystem services is not only vital for maintaining livelihood security but is equally important to the existence of their cultural identity, helping villagers adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change [93].
Despite the comprehensive studies on ecosystem services and their functions in recent years, there remains a lack of practical understanding about the variety of stakeholders, their food system vulnerabilities, and perceptions and preferences over different types of ecosystem services against climate change-induced natural hazards, especially in natural and semi-natural rural areas [94,95,96]. The following section illustrates examples of how resilience interventions are prioritized based on existing agri-food activities and available ecosystem services.

3.2. Empirical Illustrations of Integrating Ecosystem Services to Advance the Smallholder Farmer Food Systems' Resilience

Having a resilient food system enhances the capacity to respond to adverse events [15,97,98]. One of the major strategies to improve the resilience of food systems is to transform current input-intensive, monoculture-dominated cropping systems into temporally, spatially, and functionally diversified agroecosystems [78,98,99,100]. However, this transition must be context dependent [29,101] and may not be transferrable across sectors, since most analysis and assessments have compared resilience in the same country or region with similar natural, institutional, and socioeconomic contexts [102,103] A screening between different types of food systems, ecosystems, and climate-related natural hazards would help in the understanding of the resilience prerequisites and reveal patterns of ecosystem services-based strategies that can be introduced to cope and adapt to climate change. Thus, we explored the influence of the socioeconomic and natural context on the smallholder food system resilience to distinguish types of interventions. To maintain the level of detail of information contained in several case studies and allow for generalizability, the empirical data were analyzed and structured according to several predefined themes within the resilience framework: study location, principal food systems, and related ecosystems services; natural hazards; and the choice of resilience interventions and its subsequent or anticipated effect on the food system/farm/region (see Table S4).
Whereas the case studies outlined in Table S3 differ in their research focus and methodological approaches, there were patterns about the impacts of nature-related shocks and stresses on food systems and implemented resilience strategies. Nature-related extremes considered in these examples ranged from major drought and flood events to devastating storms across the word. These studies identified that the most resilience strategies were formed and applied using local knowledge and experience in addition to formal and informal extension networks [104,105].
The resilience strategies have been classified by authors into three main categories based on patterns that often include similar and overlapping components and have resilience outcomes: (i) promoting food system diversification, (ii) increasing cohesion between technological innovations and nature-based solutions, (iii) utilizing traditional and local/indigenous knowledge. Each category is presented below, along with the interlinkages between available ecosystem services and their implications to resilience strategies.

3.2.1. Promoting Food System Diversification

Relying on a ‘mono’, e.g., monocropping, mono diet, or mono production, is considered risky for many farmers. Any change in the environment—be it drought, erratic rainfall, or a temporary frost—can undermine food system sustainability. Thus, farmers who value resilience often minimize their risks by expanding and diversifying their chains in the food system: adding new crops and products; making use of their farms for non-agricultural activities; making integrations, including integrated aquaculture with polyculture farming of multiple species such as shrimp, mud crab, milkfish, seaweed, and bivalves [106]; and using crop/aquaculture and crop-livestock integration [107,108].
Through an integrated relationship between crop and livestock components, farmers can increase agricultural productivity per unit of land and water beyond the productivity of the individual components [109]. For instance, the precarious nature of rubber is experienced by smallholders around the world, as the interval time of approximately 7 years between planting and harvest can be difficult for smallholders to recover, and climate change is likely to exacerbate the environmental marginalization of these plantations. Therefore, the choice of agricultural enterprise will influence household resilience [110]. Similarly, Davis et al. [111] found that the food security challenges facing coffee farmers can be alleviated by the improved marketing of fruit tree products under shade coffee farming systems to provide multiple co-benefits, including watershed management. These studies support the diversification of management strategies to keep highly managed food systems stable and productive, and to maintain biodiversity.

3.2.2. Increasing Cohesion between Technological Innovations and Nature-Based Solutions

Modern challenges entice farmers to replace their traditional methods of production with more advanced technologies and integrate agricultural practices into ecosystem services. This strategy often requires an adjustment of the farming system at the farm and regional levels. For instance, integrating suitable cereal and legume varieties and livestock breeds with a combination of locally sourced and supplementary inputs can increase overall farm profitability and resilience [109]. Adjusting the seasonal calendar for crop production to avoid heavy rains and floods, using short-duration and tolerant crop varieties, and practicing mixed cropping to reduce the risk of total crop failure with climate-tolerant seeds is another example of how farmers can reduce risk by adapting farm practices.
Nature-based practices (e.g., making different types of terraces, planting nitrogen-fixing crops, planting trees, applying organic fertilizers, etc.) are a method to prevent net losses in crop yield and can be enhanced by the additional biomass produced from wild plants and animals. In Africa, the links between tree cover, access to food, and improved dietary diversity are also becoming increasingly evident [111,112]. Pandey et al. concluded that rainwater harvesting systems also functioned as a climate change adaptation strategy, contributing to resilience [113,114].
Examples are provided below to illustrate the capacity of ecosystem services for enhancing food systems’ resilience, reflecting real-life situations and trends.
Coffee is one of the most important commercial tropical crops in terms of its gross production value and role in livelihoods. Coffee production and quality are expected to be negatively affected by increases in temperature and changes in rainfall patterns. Although reduced coffee production may not threaten food security per se, local food systems depend on this crop. Nature-based solutions can improve coffee’s climate resilience, benefiting coffee farmers whose livelihoods depend on this crop. For example, diverse shade canopies provide nesting and foraging habitats for both bees and birds, increasing richness and abundance. Increasing crop and overall plant diversity within fields and field margins, edges, pathways, and live fences can benefit both bees and birds, since allowing non-crop plant and weed species to grow and flower on farms can provide forage resources to complement the brief and intense flushes of coffee flowers themselves. As an example, birds lowered infestation rates as much as 50% in simplified and intensively managed agroforestry coffee farms, and as much as 58% in sun coffee farms [115]. De Marco and Coelho (2004) estimated that, in Brazil, coffee close to native forests increased production value by USD 1860 ha/year [116]. Managing coffee farms based on wide ecosystem services application could improve the climate resilience of coffee cropping and communities of birds and bees, and therefore help farming families adapt their food systems to the changing environment.
Conservation and restoration are two additional pathways that smallholder farmers can support ecosystem services, hence supporting the resilience of food systems [38]. Conservation involves adopting practices that maintain ecosystem service and restoration for their recovery. Recent evidence has shown that pastoral householders in Northeast Ethiopia are more resilient to drought events than others due to the application of soil and water conservation techniques and access to appropriate irrigation [117]. Farmers in Papua New Guinea employ mulching as a soil management practice to support agri-food system resilience [62]. Similarly, potato farmers in Kenya change seed regimes, rotate crops, and engage in minimum tillage as knowledge-intensive conservation practices [33,118].
The establishment of protected areas can also affect local food systems, and can change how terrestrial and marine natural resources are used and managed with consequences to food system resilience. A case in Aventureiro Brazil (see Table S4) highlighted resilience activities due to tradeoffs among the community geographical location, conservation drivers, and development drivers. Livelihood diversification contributes to food system resilience by promoting lower dependence on natural resources for households and improves financial capital [119]. Even in situations when access to resources is very constrained, small-scale actors with an ability to improvise and hustle natural resources effectively in the short term [120], for instance, the conversion of the tidal flat to cropland, reforestation, and soil conservation practices, planting in shaded areas, etc., can cope with shocks or persistent stresses [121].
A study by Chowdhury et al. [122] on eco-engineered reefs focused on of the development of resilience in coastal regions that are home to nearly 2.5 billion people living within 62 mi of coastlines. These regions are especially vulnerable to habitat loss, sea-level rise, and other climate change effects. Oyster-dominated eco-engineered reefs have been promoted as integral components of engineered habitats, enhancing coastal resilience through the provision of numerous ecological, morphological, and socioeconomic services. Oysters not only serve as a highly valued food source but they also provide many critical ecosystem services, such as a habitat for many recreationally and commercially important fisheries, and water quality enhancement by filtering suspended material (or seston) from the overlying water column. Oysters also support the socioeconomic resilience of coastal communities through the provision of food, physical and mental health, and cultural values. Ecosystems services-based technological solutions have the potential to provide unique and invaluable tools for reducing vulnerability to natural hazards through added complexity, which generates a web of self-supporting and self-regulating interactions.

3.2.3. Utilizing Traditional and Local/Indigenous Knowledge

A growing body of research illustrates that local people have significant resilience and actively observe and adapt to change in a diversity of ways [123,124,125]. An indigenous perspective helps to strengthen resilience capacities by placing greater emphasis on the value of broad local knowledge of the climate, ecology, and hazards, leading to a series of historical adaptations. For example, according to Campbell (2021), coffee farmers have utilized indigenous knowledge systems built on local ontology and cosmovision to sharpen their sensitivity to environmental conditions. They often monitor early warning signals for episodic events especially regarding changes in temperature and rainfall. In many cases, local knowledge is the only tool farmers have to negotiate multiple livelihood stressors [32].
Strong emotional reactions leading to ecological grief have been documented among Inuit because changing ice and weather regimes reduce access to traditional hunting and fishing locations [126], whereas some Inuit communities are transforming from land-based (e.g., caribou) to aquatic-based livelihoods to build resilience [117,124]. Peruvian Quechua-speaking people have confronted the impacts of colonization by creating the Potato Park to protect over 900 varieties of potato, reinvigorating cultural values of reciprocity, kinship, and solidarity that underpin community resilience [127]. The Bedamuni tribe of Papua New Guinea retain traditional knowledge regarding coping strategies to hazards, e.g., El Nino (droughts and fires), earthquakes, floods, pest and disease outbreaks, and strong winds. Tribe representatives cope with food system susceptibility by transplanting rhizomes from existing gardens to creeks, rivers, swamps, or caves during drought, or through the use of famine foods (e.g., bush yams, black palm shoots, insects, “poisonous nuts” and “soft rocks”) and the temporary migration of some villagers to dense forests less affected by drought to collect bush food [128]. Indigenous knowledge serves as guidance and entry points for increasing the resilience of local food systems, particularly of marginalized communities. Adhikari, Hussain, and Rasul (2017) noted the preference of farmers in the Rasuwa district, in the mid-hills of Nepal, for local bean, barley, millet, and maize, rather than commodity crops, because they are more tolerant to water stress and extremely cold conditions [129].
According to an FAO report, the way Indigenous people consider their relationship with the environment and human needs is unique [125]. Their food systems can exceed 250 wild, semi-domesticated, and domesticated plants, fish, and animals used for food and non-food purposes (medicinal remedies, construction materials, fuel, fodder, etc.) [130,131]. Territorial management practices incorporate a broad scope of livelihood activities, such as gathering, hunting, fishing, and farming adjusted to seasonal cycles and natural patterns observed in ecosystems [112,132]. Wind, water, and solar energy stored in firewood or other biomass meets the basic needs for food processing, heating, and cooking. The synergy of traditional practices increases the level of food self-sufficiency in the food systems oscillated from about 55 percent to about 80 percent [125], allowing Indigenous people to adapt and better cope with the impacts of natural hazards.
The preservation of indigenous knowledge of traditional farming is advantageous in maintaining biodiversity [133], enhancing food security [134,135], and protecting natural resources [136].
The examined case studies support the concept that empowering smallholder farmers to understand their local situation, and to identify appropriate adaptive strategies and needs based on ecosystem services, are essential to improving food systems resilience [93]. Food system diversification, technological innovations and nature-based practices, and traditional knowledge are essential prerequisites for increasing the smallholder food systems’ resilience to natural hazards.

4. Conclusions

The results of the narrative review offer a deeper understanding of the functional properties of ecosystem services and their contribution in coping with the effects of climate-related natural hazards at the smallholder food system level.
This paper extends the previous work by Carpenter et al., [137], Dipierri and Zikos [138], and Ostrom [139,140] by explicitly linking the role of ecosystem services to food security and ultimately the nutritional status of individuals and communities. Historically, the MEA and other works have focused on the how they relate to well-being without specific reference to food security [137]. We have extended their work to provide examples of how natural resources can also support smallholders without human interference, which allows ecosystem services support the adaptation and mitigation to climate change-induced natural hazards. This does not negate the fact that policies and the design principles articulated by Ostrom [140] do not ultimately impact the relationship between ecosystem services, food systems, and food security [138]. Other researchers have long investigated how and why managing ecosystem services may significantly contribute to resilient and sustainable food systems to the impacts of natural hazards. This paper contributes to the existing literature in two ways. First, we synthesized the functional properties of ecosystem services and their contribution in offsetting the effects of climate-related natural hazards from the smallholder food system perspective. Second, the study reveals ecosystem services-based strategies that can be utilized across different types of traditional smallholder food systems to cope and adapt with natural hazards. By combining the theoretical approaches with case examples, this paper contributes to a better understanding of what functional properties of ecosystems have the capacity to make food systems more resilient.
Empirical illustrations have revealed the significant barriers that smallholders withstand to maintain their livelihoods and food systems under natural hazards. The deteriorating quality of the natural resource base, reliance on rain-fed farming, abandonment of traditional varieties of crops for non-nutritive cash crops, nature conservation initiatives restricting access to wild food sources, declining productivity, low value-added activities, lack of infrastructure, and service provision are some of the most acute.
In these conditions, people put into action their shared knowledge about local nature and activated ecosystem services. The empirical illustrations suggest that smallholder farmers have a higher resilience capacity and maintain their food systems by ecosystem services utilization.
The proposed ecosystem services-based interventions provide advancement for smallholder farmers who use traditional and local/indigenous knowledge to promote food system diversification to increase cohesion between technological innovations and nature-based solutions. These activities are frequently used to increase food security and improve livelihood opportunities irrespective of the external shocks and stresses.
These findings highlight the importance that ecosystem services have on supporting and regulating food system resilience in relation to environmental and socioeconomic conditions. In the long term, additional studies must be conducted to expand ‘win-win’ ‘mutually beneficial’ solutions that support the resilience of both food systems and ecosystem services. More importantly, we emphasize that no single set of ecosystem services-based interventions can be followed in the design of food system resilience management across the world. Rather, there is a need to consider homegrown and unique characteristics of nature in conjunction with food system patterns to co-design resilient frameworks suited for local communities. An ecosystem services approach can be used for the ex-post analysis of food system dynamics and responses to challenges, and for the ex-ante assessment and creation of resilience-enhancing strategies and attributes of food systems [141].
These results underscore the potential that ecosystem services must enhance the resilience capacity of the smallholder food systems to natural hazards. To reap benefits from ecosystem services, future resilience stewardship must increase structural heterogeneity and diversity across multiple dimensions, including landscapes, food provision, and consumption activity.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph19063652/s1, Figure S1: PRISMA chart showing study number at each stage; Table S1: PICOS criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies; Table S2: Key aspects of resilience and their implementation in the study; Table S3: The interaction between the food system and ecosystem services; Table S4: Natural hazards and food systems’ resilience interventions.

Author Contributions

Y.V. developed the study concept, Y.V. and D.T. conducted the study, including data collection, and analysis. D.T. ensured that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature. Y.V. and D.T. approved the final version of the manuscript for submission. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the University of Arizona Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health and Arizona Institutes for Resilience—International Programs Grants for Concept Papers on Resilience Research for Development Challenges, The University of Arizona.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interest or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Fanzo, J.; Covic, N.; Dobermann, A.; Henson, S.; Herrero, M.; Pingali, P.; Staal, S. A research vision for food systems in the 2020s: Defying the status quo. Glob. Food Sec. 2020, 26, 100397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Barrett, C.B. Actions Now Can Curb food Systems Fallout from COVID-19. Nat. Food 2020, 1, 319–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gaupp, F.; Hall, J.; Hochrainer-Stigler, S.; Dadson, S. Changing risks of simultaneous global breadbasket failure. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 10, 54–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. GLOPAN. Future Food Systems: For People, Our Planet and Prosperity. Available online: https://www.glopan.org/foresight2/ (accessed on 6 July 2020).
  5. Fanzo, J.; Davis, C.; McLaren, R.; Choufani, J. The effect of climate change across food systems: Implications for nutrition outcomes. Glob. Food Secur. 2018, 18, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. FAO. The Impact of Disasters and Crises on Agriculture and Food Security: 2021; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2021; p. 245. [Google Scholar]
  7. Adger, W.N.; Brown, K.; Nelson, D.R.; Berkes, F.; Eakin, H.; Folke, C.; Galvin, K.; Gunderson, L.; Goulden, M.; O'Brien, K.; et al. Resilience implications of policy responses to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2011, 2, 757–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Degani, E.; Leigh, S.G.; Barber, H.M.; Jones, H.E.; Lukac, M.; Sutton, P.; Potts, S.G. Crop rotations in a climate change scenario: Short-term effects of crop diversity on resilience and ecosystem service provision under drought. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 285, 106625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lomba, A.; Buchadas, A.; Honrado, J.P.; Moreira, F. Are We Missing the Big Picture? Unlocking the Social-Ecological Resilience of High Nature Value Farmlands to Future Climate Change. In Climate Change Management; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 53–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nyong, A.P.; Ngankam, T.M.; Felicite, T.L. Enhancement of resilience to climate variability and change through agroforestry practices in smallholder farming systems in Cameroon. Agrofor. Syst. 2019, 94, 687–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hertel, T.W.; Elouafi, I.; Ewert, F.; Tanticharoen, M. Building Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses: A Paper on Action Track 5; Center for Development Research (ZEF) in cooperation with the Scientific Group for the UN Food System Summit 2021: Bonn, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  12. Vázquez-González, C.; Ávila-Foucat, V.S.; Ortiz-Lozano, L.; Moreno-Casasola, P.; Granados-Barba, A. Analytical framework for assessing the social-ecological system trajectory considering the resilience-vulnerability dynamic interaction in the context of disasters. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 59, 102232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bisoffi, S.; Ahrné, L.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Báldi, A.; Cuhls, K.; DeClerck, F.; Duncan, J.; Hansen, H.O.; Hudson, R.L.; Kohl, J.; et al. COVID-19 and Sustainable Food Systems: What Should We Learn Before the Next Emergency. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Butler, J.R.A.; Davila, F.; Alders, R.; Bourke, R.M.; Crimp, S.; McCarthy, J.; McWilliam, A.; Palo, A.S.M.; Robins, L.; Webb, M.J.; et al. A rapid assessment framework for food system shocks: Lessons learned from COVID-19 in the Indo-Pacific region. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 117, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Fan, S.; Teng, P.; Chew, P.; Smith, G.; Copeland, L. Food system resilience and COVID-19—Lessons from the Asian experience. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 28, 100501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nordhagen, S.; Igbeka, U.; Rowlands, H.; Shine, R.S.; Heneghan, E.; Tench, J. COVID-19 and small enterprises in the food supply chain: Early impacts and implications for longer-term food system resilience in low- and middle-income countries. World Dev. 2021, 141, 105405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pollastri, S. House of cards: Fragility and resilience of food systems in a pandemic. Glob. Discourse 2021, 11, 181–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tittonell, P.; Fernandez, M.; El Mujtar, V.E.; Preiss, P.V.; Sarapura, S.; Laborda, L.; Mendonça, M.A.; Alvarez, V.E.; Fernandes, G.B.; Petersen, P.; et al. Emerging responses to the COVID-19 crisis from family farming and the agroecology movement in Latin America—A rediscovery of food, farmers and collective action. Agric. Syst. 2021, 190, 103098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Maseyk, F.; Dominati, E.; Mackay, A. More than a ‘nice to have’: Integrating indigenous biodiversity into agroecosystems in New Zealand. N. Z. J. Ecol. 2019, 43, 3372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pagnani, T.; Gotor, E.; Caracciolo, F. Adaptive strategies enhance smallholders’ livelihood resilience in Bihar, India. Food Secur. 2020, 13, 419–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Roy, R.; Gain, A.K.; Samat, N.; Hurlbert, M.; Tan, M.L.; Chan, N.W. Resilience of coastal agricultural systems in Bangladesh: Assessment for agroecosystem stewardship strategies. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 106, 105525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tittonell, P. Assessing resilience and adaptability in agroecological transitions. Agric. Syst. 2020, 184, 102862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shayanowako, A.I.T.; Morrissey, O.; Tanzi, A.; Muchuweti, M.; Mendiondo, G.M.; Mayes, S.; Modi, A.T.; Mabhaudhi, T. African Leafy Vegetables for Improved Human Nutrition and Food System Resilience in Southern Africa: A Scoping Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Winter, K.B.; Lincoln, N.K.; Berkes, F.; Alegado, R.A.; Kurashima, N.; Frank, K.L.; Pascua, P.; Rii, Y.M.; Reppun, F.; Knapp, I.S.S.; et al. Ecomimicry in Indigenous resource management: Optimizing ecosystem services to achieve resource abundance, with examples from Hawaii. Ecol. Soc. 2020, 25, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Turetta, A.P.D.; Bonatti, M.; Sieber, S. Resilience of Community Food Systems (CFS): Co-Design as a Long-Term Viable Pathway to Face Crises in Neglected Territories? Foods 2021, 10, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Speranza, C.I.; Wiesmann, U.; Rist, S. An indicator framework for assessing livelihood resilience in the context of social ecological dynamics. Glob. Environ. Chang. Hum. Policy Dimens. 2014, 28, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sina, D.; Chang-Richards, A.; Wilkinson, S.; Potangaroa, R. A conceptual framework for measuring livelihood resilience: Relocation experience from Aceh, Indonesia. World Dev. 2019, 117, 253–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Prosperi, P.; Allen, T.; Cogill, B.; Padilla, M.; Peri, I. Towards metrics of sustainable food systems: A review of the resilience and vulnerability literature. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2016, 36, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. FAO. Self-Evaluation and Holistic Assessment of Climare Resilience of Farmers and Pastoralists; FAO: Italy, Rome, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  30. Srinivasa Rao, C.; Kareemulla, K.; Krishnan, P.; Murthy, G.R.K.; Ramesh, P.; Ananthan, P.S.; Joshi, P.K. Agro-ecosystem based sustainability indicators for climate resilient agriculture in India: A conceptual framework. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 105, 621–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tariq, H.; Pathirage, C.; Fernando, T. Measuring community disaster resilience at local levels: An adaptable resilience framework. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 62, 102358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Campbell, D. Environmental change and the livelihood resilience of coffee farmers in Jamaica: A case study of the Cedar Valley farming region. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 81, 220–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Makate, C.; Makate, M.; Mango, N. Sustainable agriculture practices and livelihoods in pro-poor smallholder farming systems in southern Africa. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 2017, 9, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Röös, E.; Bajzelj, B.; Weil, C.; Andersson, E.; Bossio, D.; Gordon, L.J. Moving beyond organic—A food system approach to assessing sustainable and resilient farming. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 28, 100487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Perrin, A.; Martin, G. Resilience of French organic dairy cattle farms and supply chains to the Covid-19 pandemic. Agric. Syst. 2021, 190, 103082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kumar, A. (Ed.) Chapter 10—Mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation. In Ecosystem-Based Adaptation; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 603–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. IPBES. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2019; p. 56. [Google Scholar]
  38. Rosenstock, T.S.; Lubberink, R.; Gondwe, S.; Manyise, T.; Dentoni, D. Inclusive and adaptive business models for climate-smart value creation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 42, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Taye, F.A.; Folkersen, M.V.; Fleming, C.M.; Buckwell, A.; Mackey, B.; Diwakar, K.C.; Le, D.; Hasan, S.; Ange, C.S. The economic values of global forest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 189, 107145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Walz, Y.; Janzen, S.; Narvaez, L.; Ortiz-Vargas, A.; Woelki, J.; Doswald, N.; Sebesvari, Z. Disaster-related losses of ecosystems and their services. Why and how do losses matter for disaster risk reduction? Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 63, 102425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Renaud, F.G.; Nehren, U.; Sudmeier-Rieux, K.; Estrella, M. Developments and Opportunities for Ecosystem-Based Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation. In Ecosystem-Based Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation in Practice; Renaud, F.G., Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Estrella, M., Nehren, U., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ruangpan, L.; Vojinovic, Z.; Di Sabatino, S.; Leo, L.S.; Capobianco, V.; Oen, A.M.P.; McClain, M.E.; Lopez-Gunn, E. Nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological risk reduction: A state-of-the-art review of the research area. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2020, 20, 243–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Sudmeier-Rieux, K.; Arce-Mojica, T.; Boehmer, H.J.; Doswald, N.; Emerton, L.; Friess, D.A.; Galvin, S.; Hagenlocher, M.; James, H.; Laban, P.; et al. Scientific evidence for ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction. Nat. Sustain. 2021, 4, 803–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Munang, R.; Thiaw, I.; Alverson, K.; Liu, J.; Han, Z. The role of ecosystem services in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Parven, A.; Pal, I.; Hasan, M.S. Ecosystem for disaster risk reduction in Bangladesh: A case study after the Cyclone “Aila”. In Disaster Resilience and Sustainability; Pal, I., Shaw, R., Djalante, R., Shrestha, S., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 277–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Quandt, A.; Neufeldt, H.; McCabe, J. The role of agroforestry in building livelihood resilience to floods and drought in semiarid Kenya. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Ha’apio, M.O.; Gonzalez, R.; Wairiu, M. Is there any chance for the poor to cope with extreme environmental events? Two case studies in the Solomon Islands. World Dev. 2019, 122, 514–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Moreno, J.; Lara, A.; Torres, M. Community resilience in response to the 2010 tsunami in Chile: The survival of a small-scale fishing community. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 33, 376–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Asante, F.; Guodaar, L.; Arimiyaw, S. Climate change and variability awareness and livelihood adaptive strategies among smallholder farmers in semi-arid northern Ghana. Environ. Dev. 2021, 39, 100629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vignola, R.; Harvey, C.A.; Bautista-Solis, P.; Avelino, J.; Rapidel, B.; Donatti, C.; Martinez, R. Ecosystem-based adaptation for smallholder farmers: Definitions, opportunities and constraints. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 211, 126–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Stefanovic, L.; Freytag-Leyer, B.; Kahl, J. Food System Outcomes: An Overview and the Contribution to Food Systems Transformation. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Herrero, M.; Thornton, P.K.; Power, B.; Bogard, J.R.; Remans, R.; Fritz, S.; Gerber, J.S.; Nelson, G.; See, L.; Waha, K.; et al. Farming and the geography of nutrient production for human use: A transdisciplinary analysis. Lancet Planet. Health 2017, 1, e33–e42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. MEA. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  54. Holling, C.S. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 1973, 4, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Seekell, D.A.; Carr, J.; Dell’Angelo, J.; D’Odorico, P.; Fader, M.; Gephart, J.A.; Kummu, M.; Magliocca, N.; Porkka, M.; Puma, M.J.; et al. Resilience in the global food system. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 025010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Béné, C.; Frankenberger, T.; Griffin, T.; Langworthy, M.; Mueller, M.; Martin, S. “Perception matters”: New insights into the subjective dimension of resilience in the context of humanitarian and food security crises. Prog. Dev. Stud. 2019, 19, 186–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M.B. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Available online: www.cices.eu (accessed on 10 June 2020).
  58. Biggs, R.; Schlüter, M.; Biggs, D.; Bohensky, E.L.; BurnSilver, S.; Cundill, G.; Dakos, V.; Daw, T.M.; Evans, L.S.; Kotschy, K.; et al. Toward Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012, 37, 421–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Tendall, D.M.; Joerin, J.; Kopainsky, B.; Edwards, P.; Shreck, A.; Le, Q.B.; Kruetli, P.; Grant, M.; Six, J. Food system resilience: Defining the concept. Glob. Food Secur. 2015, 6, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. FAO. An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security. Practical Guides; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  61. Jacobi, J.; Mukhovi, S.; Llanque, A.; Augstburger, H.; Käser, F.; Pozo, C.; Peter, M.; Delgado, J.M.F.; Kiteme, B.; Rist, S.; et al. Operationalizing food system resilience: An indicator-based assessment in agroindustrial, smallholder farming, and agroecological contexts in Bolivia and Kenya. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 433–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Whitfield, S.; Beauchamp, E.; Boyd, D.S.; Burslem, D.; Byg, A.; Colledge, F.; Cutler, M.E.J.; Didena, M.; Dougill, A.; Foody, G.; et al. Exploring temporality in socio-ecological resilience through experiences of the 2015–16 El Niño across the Tropics. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019, 55, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Smith, L.C.; Frankenberger, T.R. Does Resilience Capacity Reduce the Negative Impact of Shocks on Household Food Security? Evidence from the 2014 Floods in Northern Bangladesh. World Dev. 2018, 102, 358–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Frankenberger, T.; Swallow, K.; Mueller, M.; Spangler, T.; Downen, J.; Alexander, S. Feed the Future Learning Agenda Literature Review: Improving Resilience of Vulnerable Populations; TANGO International: Tucson, AZ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  65. Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Chapin, T.; Rockström, J. Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kahiluoto, H.; Kaseva, J. No Evidence of Trade-Off between Farm Efficiency and Resilience: Dependence of Resource-Use Efficiency on Land-Use Diversity. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0162736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Olsson, P.; Folke, C.; Berkes, F. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environ. Manag. 2004, 34, 75–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Adger, W.N.; Huq, S.; Brown, K.; Conway, D.; Hulme, M. Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. Prog. Dev. Stud. 2003, 3, 179–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lebel, L.; Anderies, J.; Campbell, B.; Folke, C.; Hatfield-Dodds, S.; Hughes, T.; Wilson, J.A.J. Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological Systems. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Rao, Y.; Zhou, M.; Ou, G.; Dai, D.; Zhang, Z.; Nie, X.; Yang, C. Integrating ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management in semi-arid region. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 186, 662–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Du Preez, C.C.; van Huyssteen, C.W.; Kotzé, E.; van Tol, J.J. Ecosystem services in sustainable food systems. In The Role of Ecosystem Services in Sustainable Food Systems; Rusinamhodzi, L., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 17–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. OECD. Strengthening Agricultural Resilience in the Face of Multiple Risks; OECD: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. OECD/FAO. Building Agricultural Resilience to Natural Hazard-Induced Disasters: Insights from Country Case Studies; OECD: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  74. Baird, J.; Quinlan, A.; Plummer, R.; Moore, M.-L.; Krievins, K. Assessing the capacities of watershed organizations to navigate change: Making sense of social-ecological resilience, adaptation and transformation. In Water Resilience: Management and Governance in Times of Change; Baird, J., Plummer, R., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 139–169. [Google Scholar]
  75. Martin-Breen, P.; Anderies, J.M. Resilience: A Literature Review; Bellagio Initiative: Brighton, UK; IDS, Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  76. Maes, J.; Liquete, C.; Teller, A.; Erhard, M.; Paracchini, M.L.; Barredo, J.I.; Grizzetti, B.; Cardoso, A.; Somma, F.; Petersen, J.-E.; et al. An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 17, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Rusinamhodzi, L. Challenges in maximizing benefits from ecosystem. In The Role of Ecosystem Services in Sustainable Food Systems; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bennett, E.M.; Baird, J.; Baulch, H.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Fraser, E.; Loring, P.; Morrison, P.; Parrott, L.; Sherren, K.; Winkler, K.J.; et al. Ecosystem services and the resilience of agricultural landscapes. In The Future of Agricultural Landscapes, Part II; Bohan, D.A., Vanbergen, A.J., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; Volume 64, pp. 1–43. [Google Scholar]
  79. Mafongoya, P.L.; Sileshi, G.W. Indices to identify and quantify ecosystem services in sustainable food systems. In The Role of Ecosystem Services in Sustainable Food Systems; Rusinamhodzi, L., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 43–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sharp, R.; Douglass, J.; Wolny, S.; Arkema, K.; Bernhardt, J.; Bierbower, W.; Chaumont, N.; Denu, D.; Fisher, D.; Glowinski, K.; et al. InVEST 3.9.0.post24+ug.g66b919f User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project; Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA; University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  81. Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Sim, S.; Hamel, P.; Bryant, B.; Noe, R.; Mueller, C.; Rigarlsford, G.; Kulak, M.; Kowal, V.; Sharp, R.; et al. Life cycle assessment needs predictive spatial modelling for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Martínez-López, J.; Bagstad, K.J.; Balbi, S.; Magrach, A.; Voigt, B.; Athanasiadis, I.; Pascual, M.; Willcock, S.; Villa, F. Towards globally customizable ecosystem service models. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 650, 2325–2336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Jackson, B.; Pagella, T.; Sinclair, F.; Orellana, B.; Henshaw, A.; Reynolds, B.; McIntyre, N.; Wheater, H.; Eycott, A. Polyscape: A GIS mapping framework providing efficient and spatially explicit landscape-scale valuation of multiple ecosystem services. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 112, 74–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wood, L.; Hooper, P.; Foster, S.; Bull, F. Public green spaces and positive mental health—Investigating the relationship between access, quantity and types of parks and mental wellbeing. Health Place 2017, 48, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Hausmann, A.; Slotow, R.O.B.; Burns, J.K.; Di Minin, E. The ecosystem service of sense of place: Benefits for human well-being and biodiversity conservation. Environ. Conserv. 2016, 43, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Kumar, A. (Ed.) Chapter 3—Ecosystem-based adaptation approach: Concept and its ingredients. In Ecosystem-Based Adaptation; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 105–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Doswald, N.; Munroe, R.; Roe, D.; Giuliani, A.; Castelli, I.; Stephens, J.; Möller, I.; Spencer, T.; Vira, B.; Reid, H. Effectiveness of ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation: Review of the evidence-base. Clim. Dev. 2014, 6, 185–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hickey, G.M.; Pouliot, M.; Smith-Hall, C.; Wunder, S.; Nielsen, M.R. Quantifying the economic contribution of wild food harvests to rural livelihoods: A global-comparative analysis. Food Policy 2016, 62, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Mengist, W.; Soromessa, T.; Feyisa, G.L. A global view of regulatory ecosystem services: Existed knowledge, trends, and research gaps. Ecol. Process. 2020, 9, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Gann, G.D.; McDonald, T.; Walder, B.; Aronson, J.; Nelson, C.R.; Jonson, J.; Hallett, J.G.; Eisenberg, C.; Guariguata, M.R.; Liu, J.; et al. International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2019, 27, 1–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Tashiro, A. Implementation of Green Infrastructure in Post-disaster Recovery. In Sustainable Cities and Communities; Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Özuyar, P.G., Wall, T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Tashiro, A. Assessing green management in health belief model: An analysis of a post-disaster rural context. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 302, 114025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Singh, P.; Tabe, T.; Martin, T. The role of women in community resilience to climate change: A case study of an Indigenous Fijian community. Women's Stud. Int. Forum 2022, 90, 102550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Debele, S.E.; Kumar, P.; Sahani, J.; Marti-Cardona, B.; Mickovski, S.B.; Leo, L.S.; Porcù, F.; Bertini, F.; Montesi, D.; Vojinovic, Z.; et al. Nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological hazards: Revised concepts, classification schemes and databases. Environ. Res. 2019, 179, 108799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kumar, P.; Debele, S.E.; Sahani, J.; Aragão, L.; Barisani, F.; Basu, B.; Bucchignani, E.; Charizopoulos, N.; Di Sabatino, S.; Domeneghetti, A.; et al. Towards an operationalisation of nature-based solutions for natural hazards. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 731, 138855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Cohen-Shacham, E.; Andrade, A.; Dalton, J.; Dudley, N.; Jones, M.; Kumar, C.; Maginnis, S.; Maynard, S.; Nelson, C.R.; Renaud, F.G.; et al. Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling Nature-based Solutions. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 98, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Rieb, J.T.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Daily, G.C.; Armsworth, P.R.; Böhning-Gaese, K.; Bonn, A.; Cumming, G.S.; Eigenbrod, F.; Grimm, V.; Jackson, B.M.; et al. When, Where, and How Nature Matters for Ecosystem Services: Challenges for the Next Generation of Ecosystem Service Models. BioScience 2017, 67, 820–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Meyer, M.A. The role of resilience in food system studies in low- and middle-income countries. Glob. Food Secur. 2020, 24, 100356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Barrett, C.B.; Ghezzi-Kopel, K.; Hoddinott, J.; Homami, N.; Tennant, E.; Upton, J.; Wu, T. A scoping review of the development resilience literature: Theory, methods and evidence. World Dev. 2021, 146, 105612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Peterson, C.A.; Eviner, V.T.; Gaudin, A.C.M. Ways forward for resilience research in agroecosystems. Agric. Syst. 2018, 162, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Labeyrie, V.; Renard, D.; Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y.; Benyei, P.; Caillon, S.; Calvet-Mir, L.; Carrière, S.M.; Demongeot, M.; Descamps, E.; Braga Junqueira, A.; et al. The role of crop diversity in climate change adaptation: Insights from local observations to inform decision making in agriculture. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2021, 51, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Le Goff, U.; Sander, A.; Lagana, M.H.; Barjolle, D.; Phillips, S.; Six, J. Raising up to the climate challenge—Understanding and assessing farmers’ strategies to build their resilience. A comparative analysis between Ugandan and Swiss farmers. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 89, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Heckelman, A.; Smukler, S.; Wittman, H. Cultivating climate resilience: A participatory assessment of organic and conventional rice systems in the Philippines. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2018, 33, 225–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Dardonville, M.; Bockstaller, C.; Villerd, J.; Therond, O. Resilience of agricultural systems: Biodiversity-based systems are stable, while intensified ones are resistant and high-yielding. Agric. Syst. 2022, 197, 103365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Kaseva, J.; Himanen, S.; Kahiluoto, H. Managing Diversity for Food System Resilience; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  106. Béné, C.; Riba, A.; Wilson, D. Impacts of resilience interventions—Evidence from a quasi-experimental assessment in Niger. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 43, 101390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Béné, C.; Frankenberger, T.; Nelson, S. Design, Monitoring and Evaluation of Resilience Interventions: Conceptual and Empirical Considerations; Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  108. Tran, N.; Cao, Q.L.; Shikuku, K.M.; Phan, T.P.; Banks, L.K. Profitability and perceived resilience benefits of integrated shrimp-tilapia-seaweed aquaculture in North Central Coast, Vietnam. Mar. Policy 2020, 120, 104153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ashkenazy, A.; Calvão Chebach, T.; Knickel, K.; Peter, S.; Horowitz, B.; Offenbach, R. Operationalising resilience in farms and rural regions—Findings from fourteen case studies. J. Rural Stud. 2018, 59, 211–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Knickel, K.; Redman, M.; Darnhofer, I.; Ashkenazy, A.; Calvão Chebach, T.; Šūmane, S.; Tisenkopfs, T.; Zemeckis, R.; Atkociuniene, V.; Rivera, M.; et al. Between aspirations and reality: Making farming, food systems and rural areas more resilient, sustainable and equitable. J. Rural Stud. 2018, 59, 197–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Davis, H.; Rice, R.; Rockwood, L.; Wood, T.; Marra, P.M. The economic potential of fruit trees as shade in blue mountain coffee agroecosystems of the Yallahs River watershed, Jamaica W.I. Agrofor. Syst. 2017, 93, 581–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Sen, L.T.H.; Bond, J.; Winkels, A.; Linh, N.H.K.; Dung, N.T. Climate change resilience and adaption of ethnic minority communities in the upland area in Thừa Thiên-Huế province, Vietnam. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2021, 92, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Reed, J.; van Vianen, J.; Foli, S.; Clendenning, J.; Yang, K.; MacDonald, M.; Petrokofsky, G.; Padoch, C.; Sunderland, T. Trees for life: The ecosystem service contribution of trees to food production and livelihoods in the tropics. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 84, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Ickowitz, A.; Powell, B.; Salim, M.A.; Sunderland, T.C.H. Dietary quality and tree cover in Africa. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 24, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Pandey, D.N.; Gupta, A.K.; Anderson, D.M. Rainwater harvesting as an adaptation to climate change. Curr. Sci. 2003, 85, 46–59. [Google Scholar]
  116. Marco, P.D.; Coelho, F.M. Services performed by the ecosystem: Forest remnants influence agricultural cultures’ pollination and production. Biodivers. Conserv. 2004, 13, 1245–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Galappaththi, E.K.; Ford, J.D.; Bennett, E.M.; Berkes, F. Climate change and community fisheries in the arctic: A case study from Pangnirtung, Canada. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 250, 109534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Makate, C.; Makate, M.; Mango, N.; Siziba, S. Increasing resilience of smallholder farmers to climate change through multiple adoption of proven climate-smart agriculture innovations. Lessons from Southern Africa. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 231, 858–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Prado, D.S.; Seixas, C.S.; Berkes, F. Looking back and looking forward: Exploring livelihood change and resilience building in a Brazilian coastal community. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2015, 113, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Baker, T.; Nelson, R.E. Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage. Adm. Sci. Q. 2016, 50, 329–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Holt, D.; Littlewood, D. Waste Livelihoods Amongst the Poor Through the Lens of Bricolage. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 253–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Chowdhury, M.S.N.; La Peyre, M.; Coen, L.D.; Morris, R.L.; Luckenbach, M.W.; Ysebaert, T.; Walles, B.; Smaal, A.C. Ecological engineering with oysters enhances coastal resilience efforts. Ecol. Eng. 2021, 169, 106320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Coninck, H.D.; Revi, A.; Babiker, M.; Bertoldi, P.; Buckeridge, M.; Cartwright, A.; Dong, W.; Ford, J.; Fuss, S.; Hourcade, J.; et al. Chapter 4. Strengthening and Implementing The Global Response; IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5∞C; PCC-The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  124. Ford, J.D.; King, N.; Galappaththi, E.K.; Pearce, T.; McDowell, G.; Harper, S.L. The Resilience of Indigenous Peoples to Environmental Change. One Earth 2020, 2, 532–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. FAO. Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems: Insights on Sustainability and Resilience from the Front Line of Climate Change; FAO, Alliance of Bioversity International, CIAT: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  126. Lemma, S. Assessment of the Prevailing Chicken Egg Storage Materials and Length at Rural Household in Different Agro Ecology of Eastern Ethiopia. Agric. For. Fish. 2019, 8, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Walshe, R.A.; Argumedo, A. Ayni, ayllu, yanantin and Chanincha: The cultural values enabling adaptation to climate change in communities of the potato park, in the peruvian andes. Gaia-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2016, 25, 166–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Jackson, G.; McNamara, K.E.; Witt, B. “System of hunger”: Understanding causal disaster vulnerability of indigenous food systems. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 73, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Adhikari, L.; Hussain, A.; Rasul, G. Tapping the Potential of Neglected and Underutilized Food Crops for Sustainable Nutrition Security in the Mountains of Pakistan and Nepal. Sustainability 2017, 9, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Akinola, R.; Pereira, L.M.; Mabhaudhi, T.; de Bruin, F.-M.; Rusch, L. A Review of Indigenous Food Crops in Africa and the Implications for more Sustainable and Healthy Food Systems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. International, B. Mainstreaming Agrobiodiversity in Sustainable Food Systems: Scientific Foundations for an Agrobiodiversity Index; Bioversity International: Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  132. Kuhnlein, H.V.; Erasmus, B.; Spigelski, D. Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems: The Many Dimensions of Culture, Diversity and Environment for Nutrition and Health; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  133. Ogar, E.; Pecl, G.; Mustonen, T. Science Must Embrace Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge to Solve Our Biodiversity Crisis. One Earth 2020, 3, 162–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Charles Aworh, O. Promoting food security and enhancing Nigeria’s small farmers’ income through value-added processing of lesser-known and under-utilized indigenous fruits and vegetables. Food Res. Int. 2015, 76, 986–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Marrero, A.; Mattei, J. Reclaiming traditional, plant-based, climate-resilient food systems in small islands. Lancet Planet. Health 2022, 6, e171–e179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Hamadani, H.; Rashid, S.M.; Parrah, J.D.; Khan, A.A.; Dar, K.A.; Ganie, A.A.; Gazal, A.; Dar, R.A.; Ali, A. Traditional Farming Practices and Its Consequences. In Microbiota and Biofertilizers, Vol 2: Ecofriendly Tools for Reclamation of Degraded Soil Environs; Dar, G.H., Bhat, R.A., Mehmood, M.A., Hakeem, K.R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Carpenter, S.R.; Mooney, H.A.; Agard, J.; Capistrano, D.; Defries, R.S.; Díaz, S.; Dietz, T.; Duraiappah, A.K.; Oteng-Yeboah, A.; Pereira, H.M.; et al. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 1305–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Dipierri, A.A.; Zikos, D. The Role of Common-Pool Resources’ Institutional Robustness in a Collective Action Dilemma under Environmental Variations. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Ostrom, E. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 2009, 325, 419–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Ostrom, E. Design Principles of Robust Property-Rights Institutions: What Have We Learned? Political Econ. Comp. Political Econ. Ejournal 2008, 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  141. Meuwissen, M.P.M.; Feindt, P.H.; Spiegel, A.; Termeer, C.J.A.M.; Mathijs, E.; Mey, Y.d.; Finger, R.; Balmann, A.; Wauters, E.; Urquhart, J.; et al. A framework to assess the resilience of farming systems. Agric. Syst. 2019, 176, 102656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Ecosystem services contribution to food systems resilience.
Table 1. Ecosystem services contribution to food systems resilience.
CapacityDefinitionEcosystem Services
Implications		Examples of
Contributions to Food System Resilience		Related Indicators for ES Delivered
AnticipateThe capacity in creating systems that can maintain its state in response to the unexpected crises.Lifecycle maintenance, habitat, and gene pool protection; pest and disease control; regulation of soil quality; water conditions; atmospheric composition and conditions.Pollination and seed dispersal; weathering processes and their effect on soil quality; regulation of the chemical condition of water by living processes; micro and regional climate regulation.Pollinators’ species richness; host-species (trees); abundance number of beehives, areal coverage of vegetation (hedgerows, flower strips, high nature farmland); soil organic matter content; carbon sequestered; humidity index.
PreventThe capacity of a system and its properties to cushion against stresses and shocks.Regulation of baseline flows and extreme events.Buffering and attenuation of mass movement; control of erosion; hydrological cycle and water flow regulation—flood control and coastal protection; wind protection, fire protection.Density of hedgerows; percentage of soil cover; soil erosion risk; retention capacity of water in agricultural soils; share of agroforestry within floodplains.
AbsorbThe capacity of change that a system can undergo while still retaining its function and structure.Mediation of wastes or toxic substances of anthropogenic origin by living and non-living processes).Bioremediation, filtration/sequestration/storage/accumulation by micro-organisms, algae, plants, and animals; dilution by atmosphere, freshwater and marine ecosystems; smell reduction; visual screening.Concentration of pollutants in soil in agricultural areas; hedgerow length.
AdaptThe capacity of learning, combining experience and knowledge, and adjustments to external drivers.Cultivated terrestrial and aquatic plants for nutrition, materials, or energy; reared animals for nutrition, materials or energy e.g., aquatic; wild plants and animals; genetic material from plants, algae, fungi, animals; water used for nutrition, materials or energy.Increased food and nutrition security and profits; use of agro-ecologically suitable high yielding varieties; greater food diversity of diets and micronutrient.Yields of food and feed crops; livestock data; wild game population estimates; energy from manure treatment systems; volume of water bodies.
TransformThe creation of a new system through making a fundamental change of its characteristics and actions when the initial state is not bearable anymore.Mineral/non-mineral substances or ecosystem properties used for nutrition, energy (wind, solar, geothermal); physical, experiential, intellectual, and representative interactions with natural environment.Diversified income sources buffer against climate fluctuations; switch to renewable energies, curbing demand for high energy use technologies.Number of hunting licenses; number of scientific studies on agro-ecosystems; cropland or grassland in protected agricultural areas; alternative energy production.
Based on [21,75,76].
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Varyvoda, Y.; Taren, D. Considering Ecosystem Services in Food System Resilience. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3652. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063652

AMA Style

Varyvoda Y, Taren D. Considering Ecosystem Services in Food System Resilience. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(6):3652. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063652

Chicago/Turabian Style

Varyvoda, Yevheniia, and Douglas Taren. 2022. "Considering Ecosystem Services in Food System Resilience" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 6: 3652. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063652

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop