Other UBC
DSpace
Sustainability 16 (24): 11034 (2024)
Food Systems PRISM Lab. Okanagan Campus
University of British Columbia. Charles Fipke Centre for Innovative Research
Cadavid, Luis
Arulnathan, Vivek
Pelletier, Nathan
Agriculture and food systems are central to human well-being. As a result, food production and consumption are at the heart of every discourse on sustainable development, both from an environmental and a socio-economic perspective. The concepts of food security and food sovereignty, both significant within the discourse on sustainable food systems, have seen increased interest over recent decades. Despite the importance and relevance of these concepts to one another within the agri-food systems discourse, they are rarely discussed in concert. This literature review explores the definitions, synergies, and potential trade-offs between food security, food sovereignty, and environmental sustainability objectives, as assessed using Life Cycle Assessment—today’s pre-eminent tool for environmental impact measurement and management of products and services. Food cost, adequate caloric/nutrient intake, and access to food were identified as the most used food security indicators, and resource availability, food consumption, and characterization of food production were observed to be the most common food sovereignty indicators. Simultaneous consideration of both food security and environmental sustainability was surprisingly rare in the reviewed literature and was mostly limited to no more than mentions of the terms “environment” or “sustainability”. Joint consideration of these aspects might enable understanding of potential tensions as well as a means to identify strategies that best satisfy what may be viewed as competing objectives.
Citation: Cadavid, L.; Arulnathan, V.;Pelletier, N. Food Security and FoodSovereignty: A Review of CommonlyUsed Indicators and Consideration ofEnvironmental Sustainability Aspects.Sustainability 2024, 16, 11034. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411034Academic Editor: Ðurd¯ica AcˇkarReceived: 24 September 2024Revised: 12 December 2024Accepted: 13 December 2024Published: 16 December 2024Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.This article is an open access articledistributed under the terms andconditions of the Creative CommonsAttribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).ReviewFood Security and Food Sovereignty: A Review of CommonlyUsed Indicators and Consideration of EnvironmentalSustainability AspectsLuis Cadavid, Vivek Arulnathan * and Nathan PelletierFood Systems PRISM Lab, Fipke Centre for Innovative Research, University of British Columbia, 3247 UniversityWay, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada; nathan.pelletier@ubc.ca (N.P.)* Correspondence: vivek.arulnathan@ubc.caAbstract: Agriculture and food systems are central to human well-being. As a result, food productionand consumption are at the heart of every discourse on sustainable development, both from anenvironmental and a socio-economic perspective. The concepts of food security and food sovereignty,both significant within the discourse on sustainable food systems, have seen increased interest overrecent decades. Despite the importance and relevance of these concepts to one another within theagri-food systems discourse, they are rarely discussed in concert. This literature review exploresthe definitions, synergies, and potential trade-offs between food security, food sovereignty, andenvironmental sustainability objectives, as assessed using Life Cycle Assessment—today’s pre-eminent tool for environmental impact measurement and management of products and services.Food cost, adequate caloric/nutrient intake, and access to food were identified as the most usedfood security indicators, and resource availability, food consumption, and characterization of foodproduction were observed to be the most common food sovereignty indicators. Simultaneousconsideration of both food security and environmental sustainability was surprisingly rare in thereviewed literature and was mostly limited to no more than mentions of the terms “environment” or“sustainability”. Joint consideration of these aspects might enable understanding of potential tensionsas well as a means to identify strategies that best satisfy what may be viewed as competing objectives.Keywords: food security; food sovereignty; LCA; life cycle assessment; indicators1. IntroductionToday’s society is grappling with the escalating issue of climate change, marked byrising global temperatures, extreme weather events, and ocean acidification, largely drivenby human-induced greenhouse gas emissions [1]. Deforestation and habitat loss are causinga dramatic decline in biodiversity, disrupting ecosystems, and threatening the extinction ofcountless species [2]. Pollution, including plastic waste and air and water contamination,is posing serious health and environmental risks [3], while overexploitation of naturalresources is leading to resource depletion and further destabilizing ecological systems.Agri-food systems are at the center of most of these challenges; hence, increasingly, theresource and environmental sustainability aspects of food systems are garnering morefocused attention [4].Life cycle thinking (LCT) and associated tools like Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) enablecomparison of a subset of the resource/environmental impacts of product or technologyalternatives within the context of food and agriculture [5]. LCT embodies a systemsapproach to understanding the sustainability implications of a product’s entire value chain,not merely the product itself [6]. LCT can be applied to investigating both environmentaland socio-economic aspects and has gained relevance as regulators, value chain partners,and the public increasingly demand transparency beyond the product in the store [7]. LCAis today the primary quantitative tool for analyzing potential resource and environmentalSustainability 2024, 16, 11034. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411034 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainabilitySustainability 2024, 16, 11034 2 of 19impacts or product supply chains globally [8]. It enables a comprehensive environmentalimpact assessment, considering all stages of product life cycles, from raw material inputsto product disposal, on a multi-criteria basis [9].Food security and food sovereignty have also emerged as critical concepts in thediscourse on sustainable food systems [10]. Despite their shared focus on securing accessto adequate and nutritious food for all, these concepts differ in their perspectives andobjectives [11]. The World Food Summit’s definition of food security encompasses foodavailability, accessibility, and utilization, all within the context of nutritional well-being [12].In contrast, food sovereignty refers to people’s right to healthy and culturally appropriatefood produced using ecologically sound and sustainable methods. This definition offood sovereignty further extends to the right of people to define their own food andagricultural systems [13]. However, commonalities exist between these concepts, primarilytheir emphasis on ensuring sufficient food availability [11,14].Despite the importance of food security, food sovereignty, and resource/environmentalaspects in agri-food systems discourse, they are rarely discussed in concert. As a result,this paper aims to review commonly used food security and food sovereignty indicatorsand explore potential trade-offs between the concepts of food security, food sovereignty,and environmental sustainability, particularly in the context of LCA. These objectives wereachieved by answering the following questions:1. What are the most common indicators used to measure and/or understand foodsecurity and food sovereignty?2. How and to what extent have the environmental sustainability aspects of food pro-duction systems been considered in food security and food sovereignty research,particularly via the use of LCA?• Are there specific methods for or limitations to doing so, and to what extentcould LCA be used to quantify specific indicators?3. What specific synergies and/or trade-offs have been identified among food security,food sovereignty, and environmental sustainability outcomes in different contexts?By scrutinizing the existing literature on these topics, this review aims to deepen ourcollective understanding of how these concepts can synergistically foster a more sustainableand equitable food system globally. This would provide a robust foundation for a morecomprehensive analysis supported by use of LCA, thereby enriching the understanding ofsustainability considerations in food systems that spans socio-economic and environmentalconsiderations. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the methods usedfor the literature review; Section 3 consists of the results and discussion, which discusseskey food security and food sovereignty indicators found in the literature reviewed andthe association between the concepts of food security and food sovereignty with environ-mental sustainability (particularly within the context of LCA); and Section 4 provides theconclusion and future directions for research arising from this review.2. Methods2.1. Identifying LiteratureTo ensure the temporal relevance of the literature, this review considered paperspublished between February 2007 and November 2024. The starting point of February2007 corresponds with the Declaration of Nyeleni [15], marking the emergence of a unifieddefinition of food sovereignty [16].Literature to be included in this review was identified using the University of BritishColumbia’s SUMMON 2.0 tool. SUMMON is a powerful search tool that indexes resultsfrom all UBC library holdings in one search—including a comprehensive range of journalsspanning multiple publishers. Using this tool helps avoid potentially missing relevantsources when using publication-specific search tools such as Web of Science and Scopus. Italso helps avoid the many irrelevant results that are likely when using a generic search toollike Google Scholar [17].Sustainability 2024, 16, 11034 3 of 19The following keyword combinations were employed in the SUMMON search tool:“food security” OR “food sovereignty”, AND “indicators” for identifying literature specificto food security and food sovereignty, respectively. To ensure the capture of literaturecombining these topics with life cycle thinking, additional searches with the key words“food security” OR “food sovereignty” used in combination with “LCA” OR “life cycleassessment” were conducted. Papers that were exclusively LCA studies—without inclusionof any food security or food sovereignty indicators—were not considered. All non-peer-reviewed publications, book reviews, magazine articles, newsletters, and posters wereexcluded. Publications not written in English were also excluded.Title and abstract screening was performed to identify sources that were relevant to thespecified review questions. For papers where title and abstract screening was inconclusive,a set of search terms (“food security”, “food sovereignty”, “indicators”, “sustainability”,“environment*”, “life cycle assessment”, and “LCA”) was used in the text to determineif a given source should be shortlisted. After completing the abstract screening or in-text keyword search, a full-text analysis was performed to identify sources that specifiedindicators used for the assessment of food security and food sovereignty and to determinetheir inclusion of environmental sustainability aspects and LCA. Literature was consideredirrelevant and subsequently excluded if its contents did not directly relate to these searchthemes. This included instances where the key terms were only mentioned in keywordsor citations, or where a term was mentioned without further information or analysis. Thesame process was repeated for each set of keyword searches employed.2.2. Review Question 1To answer review question 1, all of the indicators reported for measuring food securityor food sovereignty in the shortlisted literature sources were compiled, along with thesource and measurement method for each indicator. Then, the frequency of use for eachunique indicator identified was determined. Any indicators that were used four times orfewer were not considered further, since such usage was deemed too infrequent, and thenumber of indicators to be considered would otherwise be unwieldy.2.3. Review Question 2To address review question 2, all of the papers shortlisted were reviewed in detail,with the results annotated in an Excel table showing how the indicators are measured.Instances of environmental sustainability analysis/discussion not explicitly associated withthe tabulated food security/sovereignty indicators from the first review question werealso documented. This included noting methods and any limitations highlighted by theauthors regarding either analysis or interpretation. Occurrences of LCA being employed(or opportunities to do so) to assess environmental aspects were also noted.2.4. Review Question 3For the third review question, each paper that incorporated treatment of environ-mental sustainability aspects and those explicitly categorized as food security or foodsovereignty indicators was considered. The review documented any specific synergiesor trade-offs between the additional environmental sustainability indicators and the foodsecurity/sovereignty indicators that were explicitly identified by the authors. Particu-lar attention was given to synergies/trade-offs based on LCT (i.e., considering potentialinteractions at the systems level).3. Results and DiscussionFigure 1 summarizes the results of the search protocols employed. For food secu-rity indicators, 5522 papers were screened, of which 68 were shortlisted for full analy-sis. For food security + life cycle assessment literature, 465 additional publications werescreened, after which 27 were reviewed for the inclusion of LCA. All 27 of these paperswere included in the review for food security indicators. For food sovereignty indica-Sustainability 2024, 16, 11034 4 of 19tors, 144 papers screened, of which 33 were short-listed for review. The search for foodsovereignty + LCA literature yielded no additional papers for review. In total, 101 uniquepapers were reviewed in relation to the multiple objectives addressed in this paper. Adetailed tabulation of the literature sources reviewed, the indicators used, and a descriptionof the indicator or the measurement for each indicator is provided in Supplementary FileTables S1 (food security) and S2 (food sovereignty). * Only 101 unique papers were reviewed. All 27 papers reviewed for LCA inclusion were also reviewed for identifying food security indicators. Figure 1. Summary of the literature identification and screening processes used in this review.Figure 2 shows an increasing trend in the number of food security papers beingpublished. While the period between 2007 and 2015 saw a maximum of three paperspublished annually (except the outlier year of 2013 with six publications), the years between2016 and 2024 had at least four publications a year, with 2018 (10) and 2024 (8) havingthe highest number of papers published related to food security. With respect to foodsovereignty, over 80% of the papers were published in or after 2018. About one-third ofall the sources reviewed did not focus on any specific geographical region and addressedfood security or sovereignty at a global scale. The most commonly considered countriesin the review were China and the USA. In all, 33 unique countries or regions spanning allfive major continents and Oceania were considered in the reviewed literature. Finally, thereviewed literature was sourced from a diverse range of 55 unique journals. “Agricultureand Food Security” (4), “Food Security” (5), “Global Food Security” (5), and “Sustainability”(3) were the only four journals with more than two papers each among the reviewedliterature. Figure 2. Increased publication of food security literature in the review period considered.Sustainability 2024, 16, 11034 5 of 193.1. Food Security Indicators IdentifiedThe frequency of food security indicators that were found more than four times in theliterature sources reviewed is provided in Figure 3. Figure 3. Frequency of occurrence of food security indicators in the reviewed literature.Seven indicators were identified as having been employed a minimum of six timesin the literature that was reviewed. These indicators generally align with the Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO) definition of food security. This encompasses elements ofavailability (sufficient food/calories/nutrients, policy), access (food costs/expenditure, ac-cess to food, policy, access to fresh food, water access), utilization (sufficient food/calories/nutrients, food-related health conditions), and stability (access to food, sufficient food/calories/nutrients) [12,18,19]. Of note, some indicators intersect with multiple categories,illustrating their multifaceted influence on food security.The indicators are often assessed based on changing conditions over time, with datagathered through an array of surveys such as the US Household Food Security Survey Mod-ule, the Latin American Food Security Scale (ELCSA), and the Household Food InsecurityAccess Scale, among others [20–24]. Despite slight differences in scope and methodology,these surveys generate numerical scores that enable comparison over time or across ju-risdictions. They are often used to assess the efficacy of local policies in achieving foodsecurity.Nonetheless, the use of different surveys or methodologies may lead to varyingresults [25,26]. Such discrepancies have cast doubt on the reliability of the findings [27,28].Furthermore, not all surveys are regularly updated in every region, and the number ofparticipants may vary from country to country [25]. In certain remote regions, theremay also be limitations in resources, personnel, or logistics, which further complicatescomprehensive data collection [18,29].3.1.1. Food Cost/ExpenditureThe most frequently used indicator for food security, cited 25 times in the literaturereviewed, was the cost of food and/or food expenditures. It is observed that individualswith higher incomes have access to more and higher quality food, while the opposite istrue for those with lower incomes, leading to increased food insecurity in impoverishedareas [14,30–32]. This indicator is also closely linked to the concept of a food basket or basicfood basket [26,33–36].Several countries actively track the cost of the basic food basket, simplifying theprocess of data collection and analysis [36,37]. This basket usually comprises staple foodsin sufficient quantity to feed a family [38] and is typically estimated based on surveysconducted by third parties or self-administered by households [25]. However, it is crucial toSustainability 2024, 16, 11034 6 of 19note that this indicator is not perfect, as it does not account for individual spending habits,which can vary significantly. Therefore, income and food basket costs may not necessarilyserve as accurate indicators of human behavior [39].3.1.2. Adequacy of Food, Caloric Intake, and/or NutrientsTwenty-four studies reviewed employed the adequacy of calories and/or nutrientintake as an indicator. This measure is often deemed the gold standard for assessingfood security [23,37,40,41]. A principal advantage of sufficient caloric or nutrient intakeis its direct correlation with reduced mortality rates and improved overall health out-comes [35]. Two primary aspects were usually evaluated: the adequacy of energy consump-tion and the sufficiency of nutrient absorption, which has a more direct impact on healthoutcomes [25,42]. It is crucial to recognize that sufficient caloric intake does not necessarilymean adequate nutrient intake [39,43,44].The Household Dietary Diversity Score and Food Consumption Score (FCS) were thecommon methodologies used for assessing nutrient adequacy and were referenced by mostof the sources. Other survey-based approaches include the Household Food InsecurityAccess, the Latin American and Caribbean Food Security Scale (ECLSA), and the FoodInsecurity Experience Index, which are more region-specific [45].There is a notable link between dietary diversity and the adequacy of calorie and/ornutrient intake, with both typically measured in a similar manner [29]. A diverse dietincreases the likelihood of meeting all essential nutrient requirements, consequently re-ducing mortality and other health-related risks [40,46]. Research demonstrates positivecorrelations between dietary diversity and per capita food expenditure [35]. Therefore,those with higher incomes generally have access to a more varied diet, leading to a higherdietary diversity score [30,32]. This indicator is vital and requires careful balance, as overlyfocusing on certain foods to meet calorie requirements can result in food-related healthissues [47].3.1.3. Food AccessWith 22 mentions in the literature surveyed, food accessibility was among the mostused indicators of food security. A 2018 United Nations report highlighted that over 821million people worldwide were chronically malnourished, with the majority in the AsiaPacific region (578 million) and Africa (239 million). This underscores global disparitiesand insufficiencies with respect to food access [48].The measurement of food access can take several forms. Most commonly, it is assessedin terms of actual access to food over the past year or the ability to secure sufficientfood [49–51]. Surveys may also ask respondents if they have experienced hunger orskipped meals, or their actions when lacking sufficient food [44]. These inquiries aim togauge the severity of food insecurity [46]. Typically, such surveys target households withthe lowest incomes [28,43,50]. Alternatively, food accessibility can be evaluated in economicterms [38,42], given the strong correlation between poverty and food access [46].3.1.4. PolicyAs reflected in 15 of the reviewed sources, the presence or absence of food security-specific policies within a particular jurisdiction is another key food security indicator.Policies may encompass various aspects of the food supply chain, from production todisposal [26,52]. Examples include policies promoting community gardens, governmentsupport [42,53], food banks, or strategies for food waste management [54]. In many regionssuch as Eastern Europe and parts of Asia, the focus of food policy often leans towardsself-sufficiency [14]. Associated policies can include backing local production throughaffordable financing, fiscal incentives for safeguarding local production by imposing importtariffs, and limiting imports in general [55].The availability of food aid, such as food banks, soup kitchens, community gardens,and community kitchens, also often reflects policy support for food security [49,54]. TheseSustainability 2024, 16, 11034 7 of 19resources serve as a safety net for those in extreme circumstances. They are often orches-trated by local governments or communities as a last resort. Policies aimed at elderlypopulations and other vulnerable groups, in particular, are crucial in achieving higherlevels of food security [35,56].3.1.5. Food-Related Health ConditionsHealth conditions related to food, including diabetes, malnutrition, and obesity, aresimilarly important indicators of food security, as evidenced by appearing 15 times inthe reviewed literature [49,51,56]. They can result from improper food consumption andabsorption [33,57]. Various surveys like the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS),Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), and the South African National Health andNutrition Evaluation Survey are employed to assess the presence and prevalence of specificfood-related health conditions [25,28]. The Global Burden of Disease Framework is anothervaluable tool in support of this indicator. It is important to note that factors such as poorsanitation or inadequate access to healthcare can exacerbate the effects of an unhealthy diet,and these influences may not be straightforward to trace [39].3.1.6. Access to Fresh FoodAccessibility to fresh food is an indicator of food security that is predicated on theimportance of easy access to nutritious fresh meats, fruits, and vegetables rather than pro-cessed foods [14,26,58,59]. This metric assesses both the availability and the consumptionof these essential food items. Challenges associated with satisfaction of this indicator oftenarise in urban centers where food production is typically minimal and sellers of fresh foodsare limited [53], sometimes creating conditions of “food deserts” [60] The assessment offresh food accessibility, similar to other food security indicators, is often conducted throughsurveys, including those mentioned earlier [51].3.1.7. Water AccessWhile not directly associated with food (other than often being required for cooking),access to clean water is an essential aspect of human health and an important, albeit lesspopular, food security indicator. Access to safe water is defined as the availability of aminimum of 7 L per person per day throughout the year [61]. This metric is particularlycrucial in predicting food security in scenarios where water is scarce or hard to access [40].It is commonly evaluated via surveys distributed to the target population [26,62]. Wateraccess typically falls under the utilization category, given that safe water enables safe foodpreparation and consumption [18]. Sometimes, it is combined with sanitation, even thoughthe latter is not always directly linked to food security. However, many argue that sanitationshould be included, as it enhances the likelihood of achieving food security [26,39,61,62].3.2. Food Sovereignty IndicatorsThe list of food sovereignty indicators that were found more than four times in theliterature reviewed, as well as their frequency of use, is provided in Figure 4.Food sovereignty, according to the widely accepted definition, pertains to the rightof people to access healthy, culturally suitable food produced via ecologically responsibleand sustainable methods [63]. It also includes their right to shape their own food andagricultural systems [64]. Five key indicator categories have been well established in theliterature to measure food sovereignty: resources, production models, commercialization,food consumption and the right to food, and agricultural policies and civil society organiza-tion [65,66]. Figure 4 indicates how often they were used in the literature that was reviewed.Additionally, a sixth category, gender, was often mentioned, albeit not universally accepted,but it was significant enough to be noted [66].Sustainability 2024, 16, 11034 8 of 19 Figure 4. Frequency of occurrence of food sovereignty indicators in the reviewed literature.3.2.1. ResourcesResources are one of the most frequently used indicators of food sovereignty. Thedomain includes water availability [67], land availability [68], access to infrastructureand industrial equipment [69], forest availability [70], protected areas [71], and numerousother factors. In addition, several unconventional, but also insightful, indicators addressthe ability to gather wild food [72], availability of capital [67], farm sizes [71], and thediversity and availability of crops [73]. These parameters center on sovereignty, examiningcommunity access and control over resources. The food sovereignty discourse frequentlychampions small-scale agriculture over industrial agriculture, endorsing farming practicesthat align with local traditions and dietary preferences [14]. This arises out of oppositionto corporate control over agricultural production and genetics [74]. Advocates generallypromote a model of production rooted in de-globalization and decentralization, whichempowers local farmers and communities. Owing to the extensive range of potentialresources, there is an abundance of measurable numerical data, be it in the form of ratios,per capita resources, total availability (in hectares), or quality. Aspects for comparisoncan vary from location to location depending on the local conditions, specific resources ofconcern, and resource availability.3.2.2. Food Consumption and Right to FoodThis indicator category primarily centers on the right to access to food and foodconsumption patterns. A variety of factors contribute to food consumption, including thediversity of food items such as fruits and vegetables [75] or overall dietary diversity [69].Nevertheless, the main emphasis lies in ensuring sufficient food availability from bothnutritional and energy viewpoints [76].This aspect correlates directly with food security, and several sources now regardfood security as a valid means to measure food consumption [77]. The estimates forthese indicators are usually derived from surveys and statistics, yielding reasonably clearnumerical results that facilitate comparison of changes over time. However, some elementsare more subjective, like those considering cultural appropriateness aspects [62].3.2.3. Production ModelsThe “production models” indicator is pivotal from a sustainability perspective, asit evaluates the environmental impacts of food production. Concurrently, it furnishes aconcrete definition of sustainability as constructed by the food sovereignty movement.Several elements are measured within this category, including, but not limited to, agri-Sustainability 2024, 16, 11034 9 of 19cultural inputs and outputs [69], composting rates, irrigation methods [78], water usagein farming [71], means of production (i.e., farming, hunting fishing, and gathering) [36],crop diversity [70], and overall biodiversity. In addition, seed ownership is sometimesconsidered, which focuses on whether they are genetically modified organisms (GMOs)patented by corporations or traditional, ancestral seeds under local ownership. This cate-gory utilizes ratios, percentage changes, and production percentages, rendering it highlynumerical and straightforward to assess. For instance, the tons of fertilizer used per hectareof food production can be measured easily and compared across different regions and overseveral years [66].3.2.4. Agrarian Policies and Civil Society OrganizationThis category emphasizes the role of government and societal support for agriculture,which can manifest at local, county, state, or national levels [79]. Examples include commu-nity gardens, agricultural societies, or corn subsidies. Since these policies and subsidies arequantifiable, either in terms of the number of existing laws or the monetary amount spent,they provide straightforward measures for year-over-year comparison. Additionally, tariffsimposed on agricultural imports also factor into these assessments [48].3.2.5. TradeThis indicator’s focus is on trade policy and the different measurements such asimport/export ratios, value added, and policies around subsidies and tariffs. The foodimport/export ratio, as mentioned by Vergara-Romero, is a significant indicator of a nation’sdependency on foreign products for its food supply [80]. This ratio can reveal the balance(or imbalance) between domestically produced and imported food. A high ratio of importsto exports might suggest a heavy reliance on external sources, which can be a concern froma food sovereignty perspective, as it could imply a lack of control over the national foodsystem.Similarly, access to local food markets is another critical aspect [77]. A thriving localmarket can support food sovereignty by promoting local agricultural products, reducingfood miles (thereby potentially reducing associated environmental impacts), and con-tributing to the local economy. Food value-added refers to the increase in value that aproduct gains as it moves through the production process [75]. In the context of agriculture,value-added can result from processing raw agricultural products, branding or certifyingproducts, or other activities that increase the product’s market value. Value-added activitiescan support local agricultural communities by increasing the profitability of farming andimproving the livelihoods of farmers, which can in turn contribute to food sovereignty.3.2.6. GenderThis indicator, being utilized more frequently in recent literature, addresses the ne-cessity of acknowledging and measuring gender-related factors. Specifically, it addressesgender equality within the workforce. Having more equitable participation is seen as betterfor food sovereignty. Gender equality can be measured in various ways, from calculatingthe percentage of employed women to determining the ratio of men to women in leadershippositions. Emphasis is placed on advocating for women’s rights and ensuring their partici-pation at all community levels, from working roles to leadership positions [69,77]. The lastpoint, encompassing comprehensive community involvement, is particularly underscored.It is not just about women’s participation in the workforce, but also their involvement inleadership and decision-making processes [75].3.3. Food Security and Environmental SustainabilityTable 1 reports whether or not the food security sources reviewed mentioned environ-mental sustainability or LCA. If the former was mentioned, how it was used or referred toois described, and mentions of LCA were also documented.Sustainability 2024, 16, 11034 10 of 19Table 1. Inclusion of environmental sustainability aspects, including via LCA, in the food securityliterature considered.Source Inclusion of EnvironmentalSustainability AspectsRefers to orUtilizes LCA How Environmental Sustainability Aspects Are Addressed[14] Yes No Mentions promotion of sustainable agriculture[18] Yes No “Environmental conditions affecting food utilization”, briefly mentionssustainability[20] No No Mentions Goal 2 of the SDGs[23] No No Mentions Goal 2 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)[25] No No N/A[26] No No N/A[29] No No N/A[31] No No N/A[32] No No N/A[33] No No N/A[34] No No N/A[35] No No N/A[38] Yes No “Food and nutrition security face the risk of environmental degradation”[39] No No N/A[40] No No N/A[41] Yes No Food production and environment interrelated, anthropogenic load on environment[42] Yes No Mentions environmental degradation and climate change and its effects on foodsecurity[43] No No N/A[44] Yes No “Weather and environmental shocks on food systems”[46] No No N/A[48] Yes No Refers to three dimensions of sustainability. States food systems fall short ofsustainability expectations[49] No No N/A[50] Yes No Briefly mentions the importance of natural environment—“wild woods deliveringfood”[51] No No Mentioned in sources used from the perspective of sustainable food systems[52] No No N/A[53] Yes No Food systems as a sustainability concern in cities, mentions environmental problemsas a threat[56] No No N/A[57] Yes No “Environmental degradation threatens food systems”[61] Yes No “Livelihoods affected by environmental and economic shocks”[62] Yes No “People afraid of environmental threats”[71] Yes No “Food systems affected by environment and vice-versa”, environmental indicatorsfocus[81] No No N/A[82] No No Mentions Goal 2 of the SDGs[83] Yes No US program training and promotion of sustainable farming practices anddiversification[84] Yes No “Transforming food systems sustainably and food security must be considered”[85] No No N/A[86] Yes No Mentions sustainability and resilience in food system and sustainable agriculture &wild food[87] Yes No Mentions the role of the ecological environment on food security[88] Yes No Describes conflict between goals of food security and preserving ecology andenvironment[89] No No N/A[90] No No N/ASustainability 2024, 16, 11034 11 of 19Table 1. Cont.Source Inclusion of EnvironmentalSustainability AspectsRefers to orUtilizes LCA How Environmental Sustainability Aspects Are Addressed[91] Yes No Talks about production required to meet food demands impacting the environment[92] No No N/A[93] Yes No Natural resources related indicators are included in a food security index[94] No No N/A[95] No No N/A[96] Yes No Limits to resources required for food production such as land and water availability[97] No No N/A[98] No No N/A[99] Yes No Environmental conditions for food production are accounted for[100] No No N/A[101] No No N/A[102] No No N/A[103] No No N/AThe simultaneous consideration of both food security and environmental sustainabilitywas surprisingly sparse in the reviewed literature, given the importance of both concepts tofood sustainability discourse. Consideration was mostly limited to no more than mentionsof the terms “environment” or “sustainability”. Although some papers (not included inthis review) do recognize the potential of LCA as a tool for contributing to sustainable foodsecurity for specific products [104–106], most references offer only superficial or cursorymentions rather than in-depth analysis or application.Overall, approximately half of the sources reviewed contain superficial references tothe environment or sustainability. For example, the Provincial Health Service Authorityprovides broad and nonspecific endorsement of sustainability in the context of packag-ing [54]. The fear of environmental effects and the fact that food systems are affectedby the environment are mentioned, indicating an understanding that environmental ef-fects are a threat to food security [84,105,107]. Nonetheless, despite a seeming consensusthat environmental degradation threatens food systems and, consequently, food security,none of the sources reviewed suggest specific strategies to support both food security andenvironmental sustainability.Notably, none of the studies used LCA to quantify food security indicators, as theygenerally lack an environmental focus. Similarly, a few LCA studies mention food securitybut without any accompanying analyses [107–110]. Thus, the intersection of food securityindicators and LCA in sustainable food system research remains largely uncharted territory.This divergence may be due to food security’s traditional focus on the social aspects ofsustainability, especially regarding people’s food and nutritional needs. In contrast, envi-ronmental LCA tends to concentrate on the environmental implications of food production,consumption, and disposal [6].Although potential conflicts might exist between the objectives associated with foodsecurity and environmental sustainability, there are also potential synergies. Incorporat-ing LCA with food security indicators could thus provide more comprehensive decisionsupport for sustainable food system management, considering both potential synergiesand trade-offs. Indeed, some view food security increasingly through the lens of environ-mental sustainability [48]. For example, LCA could be used to assess and compare theenvironmental implications of specific food security measures, track the resource efficiencyof different production models in meeting specific nutritional outcomes, and quantifychanges in environmental impact over time. An encouraging development in LCA is themeasurement of impacts in relation to the nutritional quality of agricultural products [111],which could potentially align food security indicators and LCA more closely in ways notyet implemented.Sustainability 2024, 16, 11034 12 of 193.4. Food Sovereignty and Environmental SustainabilityAspects of environmental sustainability are central to the concept of food sovereignty,particularly for indicators related to resources and production models. However, de-spite frequent mentions of sustainability and ecological practices for farming in the foodsovereignty literature considered, numerical evidence to support claims regarding specificpractices is generally lacking. For example, indications of the desirability of agro-ecologicalproduction areas or practices are common, but no evidence is provided regarding actualoutcomes compared to standard industrial practices [75,78]. Similarly, traditional means ofproduction and/or hunting [72] are prioritized, but without supporting analysis. Hence,it is currently unclear which among the practices currently promoted within the foodsovereignty literature might actually yield net environmental benefits.Many of these indicators do, however, align directly with the kinds of environmentalimpacts typically assessed using LCA methods [70,75]. For example, common environmen-tal concerns, including polluting emissions such as greenhouse gas emissions, are regularlymodeled in LCA [66]. Other ecological indicators, such as land degradation resulting fromagricultural production, can also be evaluated through LCA [76]. In general, LCA can beused to identify which agro-ecological techniques result in lower environmental impacts ina specific region and to understand the association between land degradation and differentmodels for agricultural production. This would enable insights into which practices trulyhelp preserve land and other vital resources [112].3.5. Food Security, Food Sovereignty, and Environmental Sustainability—Potential Synergies andTrade-OffsFood security, primarily concerned with satisfying basic needs, personal perceptionsof food sufficiency, and policy, does not necessarily require sustainably grown or sociallyresponsible food. Instead, it prioritizes the accessibility, diversity, and affordability offood—aspects that are typically outside of the scope of environmental LCA. Consequently,there is little direct alignment between food security and environmental sustainabilityconsiderations (this however does not necessarily mean there can be no alignment [113]). Akey potential source of tension among food security, food sovereignty, and environmentalsustainability outcomes lies in the choice of the preferred production model. Food securitypredominantly concerns itself with outcomes, rarely addressing production methods, whilefood sovereignty explicitly considers environmental indicators like agricultural emissionsand sustainable practices.Thus, an isolated consideration of food security can be analogous to neoclassicaleconomic theory, in that they both have well-meaning objectives (food security aims toachieve food sufficiency and neoclassical economics is concerned with delivering well-beingto economic actors) but fail to account for important constraining considerations. This iswhere ecological economics and its nested hierarchy of requirements for sustainability [114]represents a potentially useful framework to conceptually integrate the ideas of foodsecurity and food sovereignty with environmental sustainability (Figure 5). The limitedobjectives of food security can be considered an allocation problem, where economicsystems need to be efficient enough to deliver sufficient food for the global populationof necessary calorific and nutritional value. However, achieving this objective needs tobe necessarily contained within a shared conceptualization of distributive justice, and asignificant proportion of food sovereignty considerations represent such distributive justiceaspects. Encompassing these two ideas should be the concept of sustainable scale, whichrepresents the need for our economic and social systems to operate within the biophysicallimits of the earth (which is conceptually similar to the ideas of critical natural capital,planetary boundaries, and carrying capacity) to ensure continued functioning of the criticalecosystem services that make life possible, and, in turn, upon which economic and socialsystems are built. And, as pointed out by [115], LCA is a framework that can be used tosupport sustainability objectives from this ecological economics perspective by enablingSustainability 2024, 16, 11034 13 of 19quantification and comparison of the resource/environmental efficiency of alternativetechnologies and/or other strategies.Figure 5. A conceptual integration of food security and food sovereignty with environmentalsustainability based on Daly’s [114] descriptions of sustainable scale, just distribution, and efficientallocation.Another divergence arises from the narrow scope of food security, which focuses oncaloric sufficiency, in contrast to the more expansive objective and associated indicatorsfor food sovereignty. This is where LCA can play an important role, evaluating claimssuch as the purported environmental and biodiversity benefits of small-scale, regenerativeagriculture compared to industrial farming. LCA can provide the concrete data necessaryto identify and prioritize among environmentally beneficial growing techniques.Food sovereignty maintains a complex relationship with food security, with foodsecurity serving as only one among many indicators for food sovereignty. Under theumbrella of food sovereignty, environmental outcomes must be sustainable, which is arequirement not inherently tied to food security. This is particularly evident in caseslike the Russian interpretation of the concept, which carries a more nationalistic and self-sufficient connotation, implying a drive towards achieving sustainable food systems, foodsovereignty, and security for their nation [14].There also exists a synergy in policy overlap between food security and sovereignty.Policies mentioned in food security literature, like community gardens, supply chain man-agement, and self-sufficiency, align well with food sovereignty’s focus on investment,nationalism, and agricultural support. Such policies could fund many programs identifiedby the food security literature, thus providing a beneficial intersection where food securityobjectives can be achieved within the broader framework of food sovereignty and sustain-ability. In this context, LCA can be used to analyze the environmental impacts of differentmethods that may be supported.A key area of overlap is that of policy around importation of food. From the perspectiveof food security, the priority is to ensure enough food for the population, regardless of itsorigin. In contrast, food sovereignty advocates control and choice over how the food isproduced. The question arises as to which is better—shorter local supply chains or complex,international supply chains? Here, LCA can play an important role, as it can analyzethe environmental effects of long compared to short supply chains, taking into accountpotential differences in regional production models and efficiencies. At the same time, foodsecurity and sovereignty add important dimensions to food system sustainability measuredbased on LCA by allowing consideration of sustainability aspects linked to food controland sufficiency.LCA can be used to model the potential impacts of production on a resource, and inaddition there remain opportunities to expand its application to incorporate additionalSustainability 2024, 16, 11034 14 of 19dimensions relevant to food security and sovereignty. For example, certain category indica-tors for food sovereignty, such as gender, commercialization, policy, and food consumption,do not directly align with environmental LCA. However, they can potentially be assessedusing social LCA, a complementary methodology to LCA that assesses social aspects inproduct life cycles. For example, Hanne Møller and colleagues describe how “food secu-rity” was identified by stakeholders as a necessary additional category in a social LCA ofNorwegian livestock production [116].4. ConclusionsThis literature review aimed to identify commonly used food security and foodsovereignty indicators and the inclusion of environmental sustainability considerations inrelation to those topics. The review managed to capture a comprehensive subset of sourcesthat were screened, shortlisted, and reviewed (while recognizing that no literature reviewcan expect to capture all relevant literature due to the inherent need for constraints in searchprotocols). The review showed that the concepts of food security and food sovereignty, bothsignificant within the discourse on sustainable food systems, have seen increased interestover recent years. Seven indicators—food cost, adequacy of food, access to food, access tofresh food, access to water, food related health conditions, and food security policy—wereidentified to be most used in the food security literature. These indicators encompassedelements of availability, access, and stability, the four key elements of FAO’s definitionof food security. With respect to food sovereignty, resources, right to food, productionmodels, agrarian policies, trade, and gender were the most used indicators. However,the integration of environmental sustainability aspects into the food security and foodsovereignty literature reviewed was minimal and did not include any integration of lifecycle thinking, despite the shared relevance of these concepts. Despite potentially havingconflicting objectives with environmental sustainability, there exists potential for synergies.For example, LCA could be used to assess the efficiency of different production modelsin meeting specific nutritional outcomes. Rigorous, quantitative methodologies like LCAhelp to provide a clear understanding of the actual environmental impacts of many claimsor ideas associated with the food sovereignty movement. LCAs can help identify the bestpractices from an environmental perspective, while still retaining space for considerationof food security and sovereignty considerations. This is particularly true in instances whereassumptions lacking empirical support are made, which can be observed in some notions offood sovereignty, such as the assumption of the inherent environmental benefits of shortersupply chains. Analyzing these concepts in tandem can lead to a better understanding ofpotential synergies and trade-offs. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach, combiningsocial and natural sciences, is essential to successfully addressing the complex challenge ofachieving a sustainable, secure, and sovereign food system.In conclusion, key takeaways and future directions for research that emerge fromconsideration of the literature at this intersection include:• Food security evaluation needs to shift from focusing on achieving a narrow set ofobjectives. Assessing the environmental impacts of delivering adequacy and accessto sufficient nutrients will ensure that food security outcomes do not unintentionallycreate environmental burdens.• Food sovereignty heavily emphasizes communitarian ideas while also consideringfood needs, but more explicit consideration of the environmental dimension is required.This requires recognition of the biophysical limitations of the earth in supporting oursocial and economic systems. This can potentially be achieved by considering theavailability of key resources from a global, and not regional/national/individual,perspectives.• Life Cycle Assessment can serve as a tool to effectively integrate environmental sustain-ability outcomes. More food security and sovereignty case studies and analyses thatuse LCA need to be undertaken. LCA can particularly be useful in screening for poten-Sustainability 2024, 16, 11034 15 of 19tially sustainable food security/sovereignty policies and comparing the performanceof different production models preferred for better sovereignty outcomes.• Additional research on potential integration between food security/sovereignty andLCA is required, with more case studies that combine food security objectives such asnutritional adequacy with nutritional LCAs and studies that include food security as asocial LCA sub-category alongside environmental LCAs.Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at:https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su162411034/s1. Table S1: Table of the notes and an-notations done in the papers analyzed for food security; Table S2: Table of the notes and annotationsdone in the papers analyzed for food sovereignty.Author Contributions: Conceptualization: L.C. and N.P.; methodology: L.C.; literature search anddata analysis: L.C.; writing—original draft preparation: L.C.; writing—review and editing: V.A. andN.P.; funding acquisition: N.P.; supervision: N.P. All authors have read and agreed to the publishedversion of the manuscript.Funding: This work was supported by funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering ResearchCouncil of Canada (NSERC) and Egg Farmers of Canada (EFC) through the NSERC/EFC IndustrialResearch Chair in Sustainability.Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the designof the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; orin the decision to publish the results.References1. IPCC Climate Change. Mitigation of Climate Change. In Working Group III Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6);Summary for Policymakers; IPCC Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022.2. Bodo, T.; Gimah, B.G.; Seomoni, K.J. Deforestation and Habitat Loss: Human Causes, Consequences and Possible Solutions. J.Geogr. Res. 2021, 4, 22–30. [CrossRef]3. Landrigan, P.J.; Stegeman, J.J.; Fleming, L.E.; Allemand, D.; Anderson, D.M.; Backer, L.C.; Brucker-Davis, F.; Chevalier, N.; Corra,L.; Czerucka, D.; et al. Human Health and Ocean Pollution. Ann. Glob. Health 2020, 86, 151. [CrossRef] [PubMed]4. Garnett, T. Food Sustainability: Problems, Perspectives and Solutions. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2013, 72, 29–39. [CrossRef] [PubMed]5. Hauschild, M.Z. Life Cycle Assessment Theory and Practice; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018.6. Life Cycle Initiative What Is Life Cycle Thinking? Available online: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/starting-life-cycle-thinking/what-is-life-cycle-thinking/ (accessed on 15 July 2024).7. Williams, F.E. Green Giants: How Smart Companies Turn Sustainability into Billion-Dollar Businesses; AMACOM: Utrecht, TheNetherlands, 2015.8. Hauschild, M.Z.; Rosenbaum, R.K.; Olsen, S.I. (Eds.) Life Cycle Assessment; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg,Germany, 2018; ISBN 978-3-319-56474-6.9. ISO 14040; Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.10. FAO; IFAD; UNICEF; WFP; WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022; ISBN978-92-5-136499-4.11. Gordillo, G.; Mendez Jeronimo, O. Food Security and Sovereignty; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013; Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/61f3f359-669c-40ff-88c6-b39b48135f3a/content (accessed on 15 July 2024).12. Berry, E.M.; Dernini, S.; Burlingame, B.; Meybeck, A.; Conforti, P. Food Security and Sustainability: Can One Exist without theOther? Public Health Nutr. 2015, 18, 2293–2302. [CrossRef]13. Wittman, H.; Desmarais, A.A.; Wiebe, N. Food Sovereignty: Reconnecting Food, Nature and Community; Food First Books: Oakland,Canada, 2010.14. Wegren, S.K.; Nikulin, A.M.; Trotsuk, I. The Russian Variant of Food Security. Probl. Post-Communism 2017, 64, 47–62. [CrossRef]15. Sélingué, M. Declaration of Nyéléni. 2007. Available online: https://world-governance.org/en/declaration-of-nyeleni (accessedon 7 June 2023).16. FAO. Agroecology Knowledge Hub. 2007. Available online: https://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/en/c/1253617/(accessed on 7 June 2023).Sustainability 2024, 16, 11034 16 of 1917. Haddaway, N.R.; Collins, A.M.; Coughlin, D.; Kirk, S. The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability toGrey Literature Searching. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0138237. [CrossRef]18. Carletto, C.; Zezza, A.; Banerjee, R. Towards Better Measurement of Household Food Security: Harmonizing Indicators and theRole of Household Surveys. Glob. Food Sec. 2013, 2, 30–40. [CrossRef]19. FAO. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action: World Food Summit 13–17 November 1996; FAO:Rome, Italy, 1996; ISBN 9251039399.20. Cafiero, C.; Nord, M.; Viviani, S.; Del Grossi, M.E.; Ballard, T.; Kepple, A.; Nwosu, C. Methods for Estimating Comparable PrevalenceRates of Food Insecurity Experienced by Adults Throughout the World; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:Rome, Italy, 2016.21. Coates, J.; Swindale, A.; Bilinsky, P. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Food Access: Indicator Guide:Version 3; Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance III Project; Academy for Education Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2007;Available online: https://www.fantaproject.org/sites/default/files/resources/HFIAS_ENG_v3_Aug07.pdf (accessed on 7 June2023).22. Corrêa, A.M.S.; Uribe, M.C.Á.; Quiñonez, H.M.; Escamilla, R.P. Escala Latinoamericana y Caribeña de Seguridad Alimentaria (ELCSA):Manual de Uso y Aplicaciones; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012.23. Bertelli, O. Food Security Measures in Sub-Saharan Africa. a Validation of the Lsms-Isa Scale. J. Afr. Econ. 2020, 29, 90–120.[CrossRef]24. Melgar-Quinonez, H. Towards an International Household Food Security Measurement. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2009, 41, S11.[CrossRef]25. de Haen, H.; Klasen, S.; Qaim, M. What Do We Really Know? Metrics for Food Insecurity and Undernutrition. Food Policy 2011,36, 760–769. [CrossRef]26. Santeramo, F.G. On the Composite Indicators for Food Security: Decisions Matter! Food Rev. Int. 2015, 31, 63–73. [CrossRef]27. Smith, L.C.; Alderman, H.; Aduayom, D. Food Insecurity in Sub-Saharan Africa: New Estimates from Household Expenditure Surveys;Research Report of the International Food Policy Research Institute; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington,DC, USA, 2006. [CrossRef]28. Hendriks, S.L.; van der Merwe, C.; Ngidi, M.S.; Manyamba, C.; Mbele, M.; McIntyre, A.M.; Mkandawire, E.; Molefe, Q.N.;Mphephu, M.Q.; Ngwane, L. What Are We Measuring? Comparison of Household Food Security Indicators in the Eastern CapeProvince, South Africa. Ecol. Food Nutr. 2016, 55, 141–162. [CrossRef] [PubMed]29. Msaki, M.M.; Hendriks, S.L. Measuring Household Food Security Using Food Intake Indicators in Rural Kwazulu Natal, SouthAfrica. Ecol. Food Nutr. 2014, 53, 193–213. [CrossRef]30. Hoddinott, J.; Yohannes, Y. Dietary Diversity as a Food Security Indicator (No. 583-2016-39532); Food Consumption and NutritionDivision: Rome, Italy, 2002.31. Ghanem, H. The State of Food Insecurity in the World-High Food Prices and Food Security—Threats and Opportunities; Food andAgricultural Organization: Rome, Italy, 2008; Volume 30.32. Thorne-Lyman, A.L.; Valpiani, N.; Sun, K.; Semba, R.D.; Klotz, C.L.; Kraemer, K.; Akhter, N.; De Pee, S.; Moench-Pfanner, R.; Sari,M.; et al. Household Dietary Diversity and Food Expenditures Are Closely Linked in Rural Bangladesh, Increasing the Risk ofMalnutrition Due to the Financial Crisis. J. Nutr. 2010, 140, 182–188. [CrossRef]33. Babych, M.; Kovalenko, A. Food Security Indicators in Ukraine: Current State and Trends of Development. Balt. J. Econ. Stud.2018, 4, 8–15. [CrossRef]34. Gregory, C.A.; Coleman-Jensen, A. Do High Food Prices Increase Food Insecurity in the United States? Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy2013, 35, 679–707. [CrossRef]35. Lo, Y.T.; Chang, Y.H.; Lee, M.S.; Wahlqvist, M.L. Dietary Diversity and Food Expenditure as Indicators of Food Security in OlderTaiwanese. Appetite 2012, 58, 180–187. [CrossRef] [PubMed]36. Nilsson, L.M.; Evengõrd, B. Food Security or Food Sovereignty: What Is the Main Issue in the Arctic? In The New Arctic; Evengård,B., Nymand Larsen, J., Paasche, Ø., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 213–223. [CrossRef]37. Khayrullina, O. Economic Affordability of Food as an Indicator of Food Security in Russia. In Proceedings of the IOP ConferenceSeries: Earth and Environmental Science, St. Petersburg, Russia, 24–27 April 2019; Volume 274, p. 12013.38. Mock, N.; Morrow, N.; Papendieck, A. From Complexity to Food Security Decision-Support: Novel Methods of Assessment andTheir Role in Enhancing the Timeliness and Relevance of Food and Nutrition Security Information. Glob. Food Sec. 2013, 2, 41–49.[CrossRef]39. Pinstrup-Andersen, P. Food Security: Definition and Measurement. Food Secur. 2009, 1, 5–7. [CrossRef]40. Hossain, M.; Mullally, C.; Asadullah, M.N. Alternatives to Calorie-Based Indicators of Food Security: An Application of MachineLearning Methods. Food Policy 2019, 84, 77–91. [CrossRef]41. Sedikova, I.; Savenko, I.; Boiko, O. Food security of the black sea littoral and features of its development. Balt. J. Econ. Stud. 2019,4, 297–304. [CrossRef]42. Ashley, J.M. Food Security in the Developing World; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; ISBN 0128017791.43. Coates, J. Build It Back Better: Deconstructing Food Security for Improved Measurement and Action. Glob. Food Sec. 2013, 2,188–194. [CrossRef]Sustainability 2024, 16, 11034 17 of 1944. Upton, J.B.; Cissé, J.D.; Barrett, C.B. Food Security as Resilience: Reconciling Definition and Measurement. Agric. Econ. 2016, 47(Suppl. S1), 135–147. [CrossRef]45. Cafiero, C.; Viviani, S.; Nord, M. Food Security Measurement in a Global Context: The Food Insecurity Experience Scale.Measurement 2018, 116, 146–152. [CrossRef]46. Namayengo, F.M.; Antonides, G.; Cecchi, F. Microcredit and Food Security: Evidence from Rural Households in Uganda. J. Afr.Econ. 2018, 27, 457–482. [CrossRef]47. Rodgers, D.; Wolf, R. Sacred Cow: The Case for (Better) Meat: Why Well-Raised Meat Is Good for You and Good for the Planet; BenBellaBooks: Dallas, TX, USA, 2020; ISBN 1950665119.48. Beloshitskii, D.S.; Patlasov, O.Y. Technologies for Assessing Food Security in the Transition to a Circulating Economy. In IOPConference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 723, p. 22053.49. Besterman-Dahan, K.; Arriola, N.B.; Bradley, S.E. Evaluation of the Impacts of a Community Garden Program for Veterans onFood Security and Indicators of Healthy Diets. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 2021, 16, 442–445. [CrossRef]50. Gandure, S.; Drimie, S.; Faber, M. Food Security Indicators after Humanitarian Interventions Including Food Aid in Zimbabwe.Food Nutr. Bull. 2010, 31, 513–523. [CrossRef]51. Leroy, J.L.; Ruel, M.; Frongillo, E.A.; Harris, J.; Ballard, T.J. Measuring the Food Access Dimension of Food Security: A CriticalReview and Mapping of Indicators. Food Nutr. Bull. 2015, 36, 167–195. [CrossRef]52. Salaev, B.K.; Natyrov, A.K.; Gorlov, I.F.; Fedotova, G.V.; Mosolova, N.I.; Sukhinin, A.V. Food Security Parameters of the Agro-Industrial Complex in Russia. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume677, p. 32017.53. Moragues-Faus, A. Addressing Food Security Vulnerabilities Through Urban Food Policy Alliances: The Case of the SustainableFood Cities Network in the UK. Adv. Food Secur. Sustain. 2017, 2, 87–113.54. Provincial Health Services Authority Implementing Food Security Indicators: Phase II: Food Security Indicators Project; British ColumbiaProvincial Health Services Authority: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2010.55. Food and Agricultural Organization. Annex 1: Food Security in South Asia. Available online: https://www.fao.org/4/ab981e/ab981e0a.htm (accessed on 5 August 2024).56. Bustillos, B.D. Nutrition Resource Associations with Food Security Parameters among Mexican-Heritage Seniors: A StructuralEquation Model Analysis. FASEB J. 2016, 30, 815–899. [CrossRef]57. Domingo, A.; Spiegel, J.; Guhn, M.; Wittman, H.; Ing, A.; Sadik, T.; Fediuk, K.; Tikhonov, C.; Schwartz, H.; Chan, H.M.; et al.Predictors of Household Food Insecurity and Relationship with Obesity in First Nations Communities in British Columbia,Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario. Public Health Nutr. 2021, 24, 1021–1033. [CrossRef]58. Eigenbrod, C.; Gruda, N. Urban vegetable for food security in cities. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 483–498. [CrossRef]59. Diekmann, L.O.; Gray, L.C.; Baker, G.A. Growing ‘good food’: Urban gardens, culturally acceptable produce and food security.Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2020, 35, 169–181. [CrossRef]60. Hamidi, S. Urban Sprawl and the Emergence of Food Deserts in the USA. Urban Stud. 2020, 57, 1660–1675. [CrossRef]61. Vaitla, B.; Cissé, J.D.; Upton, J.; Tesfay, G.; Abadi, N.; Maxwell, D. How the Choice of Food Security Indicators Affects theAssessment of Resilience—An Example from Northern Ethiopia. Food Secur. 2020, 12, 137–150. [CrossRef]62. Nilsson, L.M.; Berner, J.; Dudarev, A.A.; Mulvad, G.; Odland, J.Ø.; Parkinson, A.; Rautio, A.; Tikhonov, C.; Evengård, B. Indicatorsof Food and Water Security in an Arctic Health Context—Results from an International Workshop Discussion. Int. J. CircumpolarHealth 2013, 72, 21530. [CrossRef] [PubMed]63. Sampson, D.; Cely-Santos, M.; Gemmill-Herren, B.; Babin, N.; Bernhart, A.; Bezner Kerr, R.; Blesh, J.; Bowness, E.; Feldman, M.;Gonçalves, A.L. Food Sovereignty and Rights-Based Approaches Strengthen Food Security and Nutrition across the Globe: ASystematic Review. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 686492. [CrossRef]64. Wittman, H. Food Sovereignty: A New Rights Framework for Food and Nature? Environ. Soc. 2011, 2, 87–105.65. Cerdâ, M.O.; Rivera-Ferre, M.G. Indicadores Internacionales de Soberanía Alimentaria: Nuevas Herramientas Para Una NuevaAgricultura. Revibec Rev. Red Iberoam. Econ. Ecológica 2010, 14, 53–77.66. Ruiz-Almeida, A.; Rivera-Ferre, M.G. Internationally-Based Indicators to Measure Agri-Food Systems Sustainability Using FoodSovereignty as a Conceptual Framework. Food Secur. 2019, 11, 1321–1337. [CrossRef]67. Klassen, S.E. Principles and Processes for Food Sovereignty: An Evaluation of the Blueberry Sector in British Columbia (. DoctoralDissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2016; pp. 1–144.68. Charoenratana, S.; Anukul, C.; Rosset, P.M. Food Sovereignty and Food Security: Livelihood Strategies Pursued by Farmersduring the Maize Monoculture Boom in Northern Thailand. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9821. [CrossRef]69. Binimelis, R.; Rivera-Ferre, M.G.; Tendero, G.; Badal, M.; Heras, M.; Gamboa, G.; Ortega, M. Adapting Established Instruments toBuild Useful Food Sovereignty Indicators. Dev. Stud. Res. 2014, 1, 324–339. [CrossRef]70. Wolff, R. Improving Well-Being Through Food Sovereignty: A Meta-Narrative Literature Review. Master’s Thesis, University ofBritish Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2021.71. Levkoe, C.Z.; Blay-Palmer, A. Food Counts: Food Systems Report Cards, Food Sovereignty and the Politics of Indicators. Can.Food Stud./Rev. Can. Etudes L’Alimentation 2018, 5, 49–75. [CrossRef]Sustainability 2024, 16, 11034 18 of 1972. Noreen, W.; Johnson-Down, L.; Jean-Claude, M.; Lucas, M.; Robinson, E.; Batal, M. Factors Associated with the Intake ofTraditional Foods in the Eeyou Istchee (Cree) of Northern Quebec Include Age, Speaking the Cree Language and Food SovereigntyIndicators. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2018, 77, 1536251. [CrossRef] [PubMed]73. Abdoellah, O.S.; Schneider, M.; Nugraha, L.M.; Suparman, Y.; Voletta, C.T.; Withaningsih, S.; Parikesit; Heptiyanggit, A.; Hakim,L. Homegarden Commercialization: Extent, Household Characteristics, and Effect on Food Security and Food Sovereignty inRural Indonesia. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 797–815. [CrossRef]74. Andrée, P.; Ayres, J.; Bosia, M.; Massicotte, M.-J. Globalization and Food Sovereignty: Global and Local Change in the New Politics ofFood; University of Toronto Press: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2014.75. de Dios, H.C.; Putnam, H.; Dzul, S.A.; Godek, W.; Kissmann, S.; Pierre, J.L.; Gliessman, S. The Challenges of Measuring FoodSecurity and Sovereignty in the Yucatán Peninsula. Dev. Pract. 2014, 24, 199–215. [CrossRef]76. Oteros-Rozas, E.; Ruiz-Almeida, A.; Aguado, M.; González, J.A.; Rivera-Ferre, M.G. A Social-Ecological Analysis of the GlobalAgrifood System. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 2645–26473. [CrossRef]77. Jernigan, V.B.B.; Maudrie, T.L.; Nikolaus, C.J.; Benally, T.; Johnson, S.; Teague, T.; Mayes, M.; Jacob, T.; Taniguchi, T. FoodSovereignty Indicators for Indigenous Community Capacity Building and Health. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 704–750.78. García-Sempere, A.; Morales, H.; Hidalgo, M.; Ferguson, B.G.; Rosset, P.; Nazar-Beutelspacher, A. Food Sovereignty in the City?A Methodological Proposal for Evaluating Food Sovereignty in Urban Settings. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 43, 1145–1173.[CrossRef]79. Daye, R. Competing Food Sovereignties: GMO-Free Activism, Democracy and State Preemptive Laws in Southern Oregon. InSocial Innovation and Sustainability Transition; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 37. [CrossRef]80. Vergara-Romero, A.; Jimber-del-Río, J.-A.; Márquez-Sánchez, F. Food Autonomy within Food Sovereignty: Evidence from aStructural Model. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1141. [CrossRef]81. Antamoshkina, E.N.; Rogachev, A.F. Analysis of Indicators of Food Security and Import Substitution Based on the Methods ofEconomic and Mathematical Modeling. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK,2021; Volume 650.82. Nord, M.; Cafiero, C.; Viviani, S. Methods for Estimating Comparable Prevalence Rates of Food Insecurity Experienced by Adultsin 147 Countries and Areas. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2016; Volume 772.83. Swindale, A.; Bilinsky, P. Development of a Universally Applicable Household Food Insecurity Measurement Tool: Process,Current Status, and Outstanding Issues. J. Nutr. 2006, 136, 1449s–1452s. [CrossRef] [PubMed]84. Moragues-Faus, A.; Marsden, T. The Political Ecology of Food: Carving ‘Spaces of Possibility’ in a New Research Agenda. J.Rural. Stud. 2017, 55, 275–288. [CrossRef]85. Sandoval, L.A.; Carpio, C.E.; Garcia, M. Comparison between Experience-Based and Household-Undernourishment FoodSecurity Indicators: A Cautionary Tale. Nutrients 2020, 12, 3307. [CrossRef] [PubMed]86. Powell, B.; Thilsted, S.H.; Ickowitz, A.; Termote, C.; Sunderland, T.; Herforth, A. Improving Diets with Wild and CultivatedBiodiversity from across the Landscape. Food Secur. 2015, 7, 535–554. [CrossRef]87. Zhao, Y.; Meng, Q. Construction and system evolution analysis of China’s food security indicator system. Front. Sustain. FoodSyst. 2024, 8, 1363340.88. Song, F.; Wang, S.; Bai, X.; Wu, L.; Wang, J.; Li, C.; Chen, H.; Luo, X.; Xi, H.; Zhang, S.; et al. A New Indicator for Global FoodSecurity Assessment: Harvested Area Rather Than Cropland Area. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2022, 32, 204–217. [CrossRef]89. Scott, C.K.; Chi, G.; Glenna, L. Household food security in the agropastoral communities of rural southern Kyrgyzstan. Agric.Food Secur. 2024, 13, 14. [CrossRef]90. Singh, R.K.; Joshi, P.K.; Sinha, V.S.P.; Kumar, M. Indicator based assessment of food security in SAARC nations under the influenceof climate change scenarios. Future Foods 2022, 5, 100122. [CrossRef]91. Lee, C.C.; Li, J.; Zeng, M. Construction of China’s food security evaluation index system and spatiotemporal evolution. Environ.Sci. Pollut. Res. 2024, 31, 25014–25032. [CrossRef] [PubMed]92. Acheampong, P.P.; Obeng, E.A.; Opoku, M.; Brobbey, L.; Sakyiamah, B. Does food security exist among farm households?Evidence from Ghana. Agric. Food Secur. 2022, 11, 24. [CrossRef]93. Koç, G.; Uzmay, A. Construction of a Farm-Level Food Security Index: Case Study of Turkish Dairy Farms. Soc. Indic. Res. 2024,175, 687–714. [CrossRef]94. Tadesse, L.; Uncha, A.; Toma, T. Multiple indicators-based assessment of rural food security status in landslide-prone areas ofSouthern Ethiopia. Discov. Sustain. 2024, 5, 109. [CrossRef]95. Iversen, T.; Westengen, O.; Jerven, M. Measuring the end of hunger: Knowledge politics in the selection of SDG food securityindicators. Agric. Hum. Values 2023, 40, 1273–1286. [CrossRef]96. Zhang, X.; Wang, Y.; Bao, J.; Wei, T.; Xu, S. A Research on the Evaluation of China’s Food Security under the Perspective ofSustainable Development—Based on an Entropy Weight TOPSIS Model. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1926. [CrossRef]97. Ahmed, M.R. Climate shocks’ impact on agricultural income and household food security in Bangladesh: An implication of thefood insecurity experience scale. Heliyon 2024, 10, e25687. [CrossRef] [PubMed]98. Charamba, V.; Kazembe, L.N.; Nickanor, N. Application of item response theory modelling to measure an aggregate food securityaccess score. Food Sec. 2023, 15, 1383–1398. [CrossRef]Sustainability 2024, 16, 11034 19 of 1999. Cruz-Sánchez, Y.; Aguilar-Estrada, A.; Baca-del Moral, J.; Monterroso-Rivas, A.I. The availability of food in Mexico: An approachto measuring food security. Agric. Food Secur. 2024, 13, 35. [CrossRef]100. Jena, P.R.; Tanti, P.C. Effect of farm machinery adoption on household income and food security: Evidence from a nationwidehousehold survey in India. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 922038. [CrossRef]101. Mbunga, B.K.; Mapatano, M.A.; Egbende, L.; Strand, T.A.; Hatloy, A.; Engebretsen, I.M. An example of a convergent mixed-methods analysis to examine food security: The case of Popokabaka in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Agric. Food Secur. 2023,12, 36. [CrossRef]102. Kuri, S.; Turowska, Z.; Damu, C.; Klemm, J.; de Pee, S. Affordability of nutrient-adequate diets as an indicator for food andnutrition security. Evidence from fill the nutrient gap analyses. Glob. Food Secur. 2024, 42, 100796. [CrossRef]103. Antwi, J.; Quaidoo, E.; Ohemeng, A.; Bannerman, B. Household food insecurity is associated with child’s dietary diversity scoreamong primary school children in two districts in Ghana. Food Nutr. Res. 2022, 66, 7715. [CrossRef] [PubMed]104. Gava, O.; Bartolini, F.; Venturi, F.; Brunori, G.; Zinnai, A.; Pardossi, A. A Reflection of the Use of the Life Cycle Assessment Toolfor Agri-Food Sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 11, 71. [CrossRef]105. Le Roux, B.; van der Laan, M.; Vahrmeijer, T.; Annandale, J.G.; Bristow, K.L. Water Footprints of Vegetable Crop Wastage alongthe Supply Chain in Gauteng, South Africa. Water 2018, 10, 539. [CrossRef]106. Zhang, M.; Gao, M.; Yue, S.; Zheng, T.; Gao, Z.; Ma, X.; Wang, Q. Global Trends and Future Prospects of Food Waste Research: ABibliometric Analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 24600–24610. [CrossRef]107. Brankatschk, G.; Finkbeiner, M. Crop Rotations and Crop Residues Are Relevant Parameters for Agricultural Carbon Footprints.Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 37, 1–14. [CrossRef]108. Brodt, S.; Kendall, A.; Mohammadi, Y.; Arslan, A.; Yuan, J.; Lee, I.-S.; Linquist, B. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions inCalifornia Rice Production. Field Crops Res. 2014, 169, 89–98. [CrossRef]109. Gava, O.; Bartolini, F.; Venturi, F.; Brunori, G.; Pardossi, A. Improving Policy Evidence Base for Agricultural Sustainability andFood Security: A Content Analysis of Life Cycle Assessment Research. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1033. [CrossRef]110. Ruddell, B.L. Threshold Based Footprints (for Water). Water 2018, 10, 1029. [CrossRef]111. McAuliffe, G.A.; Takahashi, T.; Lee, M.R.F. Applications of Nutritional Functional Units in Commodity-Level Life CycleAssessment (LCA) of Agri-Food Systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 208–221. [CrossRef] [PubMed]112. Huambachano, M. Enacting Food Sovereignty in Aotearoa New Zealand and Peru: Revitalizing Indigenous Knowledge, FoodPractices and Ecological Philosophies. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 42, 1003–1028. [CrossRef]113. Niu, K.Y.; Hui, G.U.O.; Jing, L.I.U. Can food security and low carbon be achieved simultaneously?—An empirical analysis of themechanisms influencing the carbon footprint of potato and corn cultivation in irrigation areas. J. Integr. Agric. 2023, 22, 1230–1243.[CrossRef]114. Daly, H.E. Allocation, distribution, and scale: Towards an economics that is efficient, just, and sustainable. Ecol. Econ. 1992, 6,185–193. [CrossRef]115. Pelletier, N.; Bamber, N.; Brandão, M. Interpreting life cycle assessment results for integrated sustainability decision support: Canan ecological economic perspective help us to connect the dots? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 1580–1586. [CrossRef]116. Møller, H.; Rydhmer, L.; Christensen, T.; Poulsen, L.K.; Olsen, H.F. Social life cycle assessment in current and future Norwegianlivestock production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2024, 1–18. [CrossRef]Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individualauthor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury topeople or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Article
eng
Reviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
CC BY 4.0
Faculty
Researcher
food security
food sovereignty
LCA
life cycle assessment
indicators
Food Security and Food Sovereignty: A Review of Commonly Used Indicators and Consideration of Environmental Sustainability Aspects
Text