agronomy
Review
Resilience in Food Systems: Concepts and Measurement
Options in an Expanding Research Agenda
Megan Roosevelt 1 , Eric D. Raile 2, *
Citation: Roosevelt, M.; Raile, E.D.;
Anderson, J.R. Resilience in Food
Systems: Concepts and Measurement
Options in an Expanding Research
Agenda. Agronomy 2023, 13, 444.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
agronomy13020444
Academic Editor: Peter J. Batt
Received: 22 December 2022
Revised: 19 January 2023
Accepted: 29 January 2023
Published: 2 February 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Agronomy 2023, 13, 444. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13020444
and Jock R. Anderson 3
1 Department of International Studies and Political Science, Virginia Military Institute,
Lexington, VA 24450, USA
2 Department of Political Science, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA
3 Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
* Correspondence: eric.raile@montana.edu
Abstract: The idea of “resilience” increasingly appears in development dialogue and discussion
of food systems. While the academic concept of resilience has roots in diverse disciplines, climate
change and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have led to a rapid intensification
of interest in the concept as it applies to food systems. Both the broad conceptual roots and the
swift increase in attention pose dangers of conceptual dilution, contradiction, and confusion as
agronomists and other analysts of food systems incorporate the resilience concept into their work.
In this publicly funded research, the authors present the results of an extensive search of literature
and subsequent analysis. The overview examines conceptualizations of resilience more broadly,
followed by a similar review within the food systems domain. The authors consider connections
among related concepts under the broader umbrella of food security, such as vulnerability and risk,
and discuss challenges and opportunities in the investigation of food system resilience. The review
of concepts serves as a precursor to an investigation of measurement options in a rapidly expanding
body of empirical research, as measurement should flow clearly from conceptualization. The analysis
here presents various resilience measures at different levels and breaks down their components
as they apply to food systems, identifying commonalities and divergences. The authors identify a
glut of resilience conceptualizations and measurements but indicate avenues for consolidation and
precision. The range of options means that researchers can likely find suitable existing subconcepts
and measurements for their own work across many different types of shocks. The authors also
discuss policy and practical applications, including connections to the United Nations’ Sustainable
Development Goals and food system responses to climate change and pandemics.
Keywords: resilience; food system resilience; adaptive capacities; resilience measurement; risk;
sustainability; vulnerability
1. Introduction
The effects of phenomena such as climate change, locust swarms, and the coronavirus
disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have underscored the global need for resilient food
systems in recent years. New shocks and long-term stressors have exerted pressure on
food systems, necessitating an improved understanding of how food systems might suc-
cessfully deal with such adversity. Fortunately, the concept of resilience has a rich history
of development across a wide range of disciplines, including in studies of food systems
more recently. However, as with any multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary subject, concep-
tual dilution and stretching threaten to undermine utility. Such conceptual stretching is
particularly problematic as researchers have moved into the measurement of resilience at
different levels. Therefore, the present paper supplies an overview of the development of
the concept of resilience and its associated measurement, both generally and specifically
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy
Agronomy 2023, 13, 444 2 of 18

within the study of food systems. As food system resilience has garnered more attention
among policymakers at national and international levels, researchers have developed an
expanding array of cross-national resilience indices to supplement those that assess food
system resilience on more localized levels. The hope is that this overview can elucidate
core ideas behind such measures and can thereby serve as a foundation for scientific in-
vestigation and practical applications in agronomy and related fields that examine food
system resilience.
In some ways, resilience might seem like a repackaging of older ideas, but the new
emphasis on integrating resilience as a core theme requires a reorientation of thinking.
Certainly, the fields of agronomy and agricultural economics have a history of studying
topics such as vulnerability, risk, and recovery as they relate to events that include price
shocks and drought [1–4]. The knowledge generated by this earlier scholarship must
inform the present moment. However, the realization of resilience as a cross-cutting theme
in agronomy means that concepts and measures must be capable of addressing many
different types of shocks and capable of working at different levels. Making progress on
food system resilience will require clear objectives and indicators, tasks that will benefit
significantly from clear conceptualization. Scientific progress is difficult to assess without
clear foundations. Such foundations are crucial as research on food system resilience
moves into more complicated terrain that includes coincident risks, tradeoffs between
resilience and other goals, and tradeoffs between local resilience and global resilience [5–8].
Similarly, policies for food system resilience require clear baselines for making projections,
for identifying areas for improvement, and for evaluating the performance of programs.
Measurement, whether qualitative or quantitative, is crucial for scientists, governments,
and donors. Further, the problems facing food systems are complex and multidimensional.
Such problems necessitate a sophisticated response. The response thus far has also been
complex, covering domains such as food security, food system sustainability, and climate-
smart agriculture. Distinguishing resilience from these other major topics in food systems is
also important for clarifying objectives. The food systems literature has advanced enough
at this juncture in its consideration of resilience to allow for a careful examination of the
extant knowledge as well as of challenges and areas for additional work.
We have conducted a conceptually focused, systematized review of the literature that
included academic and gray literature. Our searches emphasized scientific databases and
search engines. Furthermore, we have conducted the review in an iterative manner, follow-
ing up on new lines of inquiry (e.g., related concepts and subconcepts) and identifying the
most recent publications in a rapidly evolving field. In conducting our review, we funneled
from the most general to most specific topics. The following research questions guided our
review process: How did the resilience concept originally evolve across disciplines? How
did measurement of resilience progress across disciplines? How has the resilience concept
evolved in the study of food systems? How have researchers and practitioners approached
measurement of food system resilience?
This paper proceeds in sections that move from general conceptual work to specific
measurement challenges in the food systems domain. In Section 2, we examine the multi-
disciplinary history of the resilience concept and its measurement, as well as investigate
conceptual disagreements and consider the relationships among resilience and similar con-
cepts. Further, we provide a summary of the general substantive components of resilience,
categorized into six different capacity areas. In Section 3, we build directly on the previous
section by delving more specifically into the application of resilience to food systems. The
section begins with an overview of existing conceptual work on food system resilience, link-
ing this work to the six capacity areas covered earlier and adding two capacity areas specific
to food research. We then summarize existing work on the measurement of food system
resilience, similarly discussing remaining issues in measurement. Finally, in Section 4,
we summarize our findings and discuss how our work fits into agronomy research more
broadly. We also consider implications of existing resilience work for policymaking and
evaluation in food systems.
Agronomy 2023, 13, 444 3 of 18

While we identify many different conceptualizations and measurement approaches,

our overview and analysis provide a solid foundation for integrating resilience concepts
and measurement into food system research and practice. Researchers can build on a strong
body of resilience conceptualization and can identify strengths in existing measurement
approaches that would benefit the specific contexts of their own research. Prominent policy
and evaluation processes globally will continue supplying an impetus to make resilience a
core part of thinking about food systems.

2. Resilience Concepts and Measures Generally

The concept of resilience emerged in multiple fields as a term describing the pro-
cesses or state of withstanding stress and recovering after a disturbance. The term ap-
peared in the study of ecosystems [9], social infrastructures intersecting with the natural
environment [10], objects and systems in the physical sciences [11], and individuals’ psy-
chological development within the behavioral sciences [12]. Scholars in these disciplines
disagree about where the term first gained currency and how it should be applied or
understood, often arguing that transporting the term into other contexts warps or dilutes
its meaning [13–15]. Some of these arguments go so far as to say that the alteration and
dilution of the term has rendered it meaningless.
Nonetheless, the term “resilience” has recently experienced a surge in attention across
disciplinary boundaries, and clarity about its application could enhance its utility greatly
in fields such as agronomy. Conceptually, resilience offers a framework for thinking
about agriculture, urban planning, environmental engineering, disaster relief coordination,
community organization, and a host of other areas in addressing contemporary threats
to the stability of systems. Given the pervasive, recurrent, and often widespread nature
of many contemporary shocks, researchers and practitioners have increased attention on
community resilience and on the ability of an entire network or social structure to withstand
and recover from disturbance.

2.1. Conceptual Disagreements

In this subsection, we briefly explore three intellectual debates that have arisen as
the concept of resilience evolved beyond its original meanings and applications. The first
concerns whether and how resilience can be extrapolated from discrete entities to larger
populations. The second considers whether resilience is a quality or outcome that can
be reached or is a dynamic process that is harder to observe. The last ponders whether
resilience requires a prompt return to a predisaster status quo or adaptation to a state of
higher functioning.
First, early applications conceptualized resilience at the individual or discrete object
level, such as a person coping with psychological adversity or an object resuming its
normal form and function after disruption. This limited scope simplified the assessment of
resilience, particularly when combined with the view that resilience is an observable trait
or outcome—as discussed below. Pushing back against broader usage, some researchers
working at the intersection of engineering and ecology argued that the term held too much
inherited meaning to be used in analyzing the dynamics of social networks and ever-
changing populations [13]. Scaling the concept of resilience to deal with social–ecological
systems required significant expansions and made objective assessment more complicated.
Most notably, community resilience is not the simple sum of individual resilience in the
system [16–19]. Further, risk and vulnerability are not equally distributed across system
components or community members, and risky internal dynamics in one part of a system or
community can easily negate resilience in other parts, thus making the system nonresilient
overall [20,21]. One response to this challenge is to focus on high and non-disparate levels
of functioning, access to support, quality of life, etc., among members of a population [18].
When analyzing the resilience of complex systems that include policy and institutional
configurations, human behavior, and market forces—all of which are influenced by external
shocks and internal workings of other components—the resilience of the system depends
Agronomy 2023, 13, 444 4 of 18

critically on resilience among constituent parts but cannot be treated simply as the aggregate
of those parts.
A second point of contention in applying resilience to communities or systems is the
question of whether resilience is a quality or attribute to be possessed or is instead a dynamic
process. One straightforward way to define and measure resilience is as a function of the
degradation in quality of services or functioning, as well as the time until full operation
is restored [22]. Less clear is whether resilience is the outcome of that process (i.e., the
speedy restoration of normal functioning) or can be assessed dynamically in observing the
process of recovery itself. Earlier definitions typically adhered to an outcome-based view,
focusing on the act of bouncing back from or absorbing impacts—conjuring images of an
object’s elasticity [23–25]. In such a view, resilience is an attribute that can only be observed
after disruption. Wildavsky, for example, defined resilience as “the capacity to cope with
unanticipated dangers after they have become manifest” [25] p. 77. Outcome-based views
necessarily treat resilience in a reactive way, placing limits on its relevance to predisturbance
planning or capacity building.
As a result of these limitations, resilience is now conceptualized more commonly as a
dynamic strategy or framework or as a constant process of refining a network of adaptive
capacities [18,26,27]. Such an approach often emphasizes the identification of common
characteristics of resilient entities [14]. Despite the focus on dynamism, this rethinking also
permits the assessment of community or system resilience at a given point in time and
allows communities to build resilience proactively. Norris et al., in a thorough and careful
overview of conceptual issues tied to community resilience, define resilience as “a process
linking a set of adaptive capacities to a positive trajectory of functioning and adaptation
after a disturbance” [18] p. 130. Their approach has gained considerable currency across
disciplines, almost to the point of serving as a common definition. In what follows, we use
their definition as a baseline as well.
The third point of contention is whether the hallmark of a resilient system is the
return to a normal, predisaster functioning or is an adaptation that markedly changes
functioning, particularly if that means an improvement in quality. Advocates for a return
to normal functioning emphasize resumption of the rhythms of daily life [28] or a return
to normal [17]. Some envision resilience as resistance (see below) or as an insulating
buffer capacity, meaning that systems display resilience by maintaining the status quo
in the face of a disturbance [26]. Along these lines, resilience is “the ability of a system
to remain stable . . . the function, structure, and identity of the resilient system do not
change” [29] p. 346.
More in line with conceptualization of resilience as a dynamic process, others propose
that resilient systems and communities “not only deal with adversity but also reach a
higher level of functioning” [30] p. 760. Resilient communities, for example, “maintain
or enhance residents’ quality of life following a shock” [31] p. 130, learn from risk events
quickly and inclusively [32], or develop new trajectories for the future [33]. Such an
understanding—which is growing more common in the natural hazards and disaster
recovery literature—complicates the measurement of resilience because possible trajectories
for learning and change are practically infinite. Conversely, previous conceptualizations
allowed for quantifying resilience simply as the time required for a system to return to
its predisaster status quo functioning. Norris et al. describe the relevant difference as
one between “engineering resilience”, which “makes a system return to one pre-designed
state”, versus “ecological resilience”, which “allows for many possible desirable states
that match the environment” [18] p. 130. The authors further note that the latter is more
relevant for human communities, organizations, and societies [18]. Ultimately, altering our
understanding of resilience to encompass not only recovery but also growth in the wake of
disturbances seems more in line with the normative hopes for resilience as a framework for
adapting to contemporary social challenges. This is certainly true of food systems, which
necessarily involve human beings in a variety of ways. However, we also acknowledge
that growth is not always necessary if a system was performing well prior to a shock.
 Agronomy 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

Agronomy 2023, 13, 444 5 of 18

acknowledge that growth is not always necessary if a system was performing well prior
to a shock.

2.2. Related
2.2. Related Concepts
This subsection
This subsection considers
considers linkages
linkagesamong
amongresilience
resilienceandandsimilar
similarconcepts
concepts relevant
relevantto to
food systems. Figure 1 and Table 1 provide basic definitions and
food systems. Figure 1 and Table 1 provide basic definitions and shows what happens shows what happens in
a food
in a foodsystem
systemthatthat
deals successfully
deals withwith
successfully negative systemic
negative shocks—more
systemic shocks—morefrom afrom
con- a
ceptual than
conceptual a causal
than standpoint.
a causal standpoint. FoodFood
system resilience
system is roughly
resilience in theinmiddle
is roughly of theof
the middle
conceptual
the conceptual chain shown
chain shown in the figure.
in the AsAs
figure. a theoretical
a theoreticalmodel,
model, thethe
figure
figureexcludes
excludes some
some
levelof
level ofreal-world
real-worldcomplexity.
complexity.AAfully fullyaccurate
accuraterendering
rendering would
would include
include more
more arrows.
arrows. The
The purpose
purpose of figure
of this this figure
is to isshow
to show the positioning
the positioning of resilience
of resilience relative
relative to other
to other con-
concepts.
cepts. Starting
Starting at the bottom
at the bottom of the figure,
of the figure, risk has risk has a substantial
a substantial historyhistory in disciplines
in disciplines that
that include
include economics, agricultural economics, disaster management,
economics, agricultural economics, disaster management, and psychology. Sometimes and psychology. Some-
times referred
referred to as exposure”
to as “risk “risk exposure”or justor“exposure”,
just “exposure”,risk risk incorporates
incorporates potential
potential shocks
shocks into
into the model. Higher-risk situations suggest more frequent and/or
the model. Higher-risk situations suggest more frequent and/or more severe shocks. How more severe shocks.
How
the the system
system deals deals with these
with these shocks shocks
is theisfocus
the focus of paper.
of this this paper.

Figure1.1. The
Figure The figure
figure shows
shows relationships
relationships among
amongkeykeyconcepts
conceptsand
andfood
foodsystem
systemresilience. Arrows
resilience. Arrows
indicate that concepts contribute to or influence other concepts in the diagram.
indicate that concepts contribute to or influence other concepts in the diagram.

TableSuccessful
1. Definitions forsystems
food Figure 1 illustration.
address shocks through either resilience or resistance. Some
scholars have conceptualized resistance as an element of resilience, with resilient commu-
Example
nities absorbing shocks to minimize theirDefinition
Concept initial impact on functioning, thereby speeding
Source(s)
recovery time [16]. Accordingly, resilience is easier to achieve when disturbances are mini-
Risk Likelihood and potential severity of a negative shock
mized or repulsed in the beginning. However, other scholars differentiate clearly[34] between
resilience “A process linking a set of adaptive capacities to a positive tra- [17], [18]
Resilienceand resistance, with the latter repulsing the shock in a way that prevents any
dysfunction in jectory
the firstofplace
functioning and adaptation
[18]. Figure after
1 adopts this a disturbance”
approach. p. 130
Ability to block or minimize shocks, preventing negative
Successful response to a negative systemic shock sometimes requires recoverycon-
Resistance [18] and
sequences
other times requires adaptation. For example, the negative consequences posed by a civil
war might be historically limited and require recovery for a food system. Alternatively,
many negative climate change influences on food systems are long-term factors that ne-
cessitate adaptation to new conditions. Adaptation sometimes involves the adoption of
new procedures and technologies [36], such as those embodied in climate-smart agricul-
Agronomy 2023, 13, 444 6 of 18

ture approaches [42]. Thinking along these lines fits well with the “adaptive capacities”
terminology of resilience. As discussed earlier, recovery and adaptation in response to a
shock are definitional indicators of system resilience. As such, they appear with resilience
in Figure 1 and contribute to either improvement or sustainability of the food system.
Improvement, again, would involve a higher level of functioning or one better adapted
to the environment, while sustainability would involve meeting present needs without
compromising the future.
Table 1. Definitions for Figure 1 illustration.

Concept Definition Example Source(s)

Likelihood and potential severity of a
Risk [34]
negative shock
“A process linking a set of adaptive
capacities to a positive trajectory of
Resilience [17,18] p. 130
functioning and adaptation after
a disturbance”
Ability to block or minimize shocks,
Resistance [18]
preventing negative consequences
Return to conditions that existed
Recovery [35]
prior to a shock
Response to major environment
Adaptation changes and/or political and [36]
economic shocks
An undesirable interaction between
Vulnerability risk and readiness potentially [37]
producing negative outcomes
Meeting the needs of the present
Sustainability without compromising the ability to [38,39]
meet future needs
A condition encompassing the
availability, accessibility, utilization,
Food security [40,41]
safety, quality, and nutritional
adequacy of food

Vulnerability and resilience have a close relationship, sometimes characterized as

being opposites on a single spectrum [18,24]. However, we believe a clearer conceptual-
ization views vulnerability—a state of potential in common usage—as a combination of
risk and readiness [37] that indicates sensitivity to a shock [43]. A system is vulnerable
when the risk–readiness combination is undesirable (e.g., high risk and low readiness).
Adaptive capacities of resilient systems are often also features of readiness to deal with
shocks. However, some systems do not need extensive readiness to deal with certain
shocks. For example, a city hundreds of miles inland has less vulnerability to a hurricane,
regardless of adaptive capacities, due to low risk. Alternatively, high-risk situations re-
quire significant adaptive capacities to reduce vulnerability. Consequently, a community
can improve resilience either by improving adaptive capacities or by reducing risk [44].
Figure 1 includes a zone of “vulnerability interactions” in which problematic combinations
of shocks, available resources, and responses could interact to produce negative outcomes.
The topic of resistance is an important one on its own given its potential to make
resilience unnecessary. While the present paper focuses on resilience, the strong connec-
tion between the two concepts allows for certain observations and conclusions. Many
of the adaptive capacities in Figure 1 might also constitute “resistance capacities” that
could repel shocks. Correspondingly, one could envision a parallel box with such ca-
pacities and an arrow to resistance in Figure 1. Strong resistance characteristics—as a
form of readiness—would make a system less vulnerable to shocks. Future research could
investigate overlap and differences between the concepts of resilience and resistance.
Sustainability scholars often point toward elements that echo definitions of resilience.
For example, authors talk about “dynamic preservation, over time, of the intrinsic identity
Agronomy 2023, 13, 444 7 of 18

of the system among perpetual changes” [45] p. 958 or “the ability of a system to maintain
productivity in spite of major disturbance” [46] p. 35. However, sustainability is distinct
in its focus on meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability to meet
future needs [38], which is not an explicit component of resilience. Therefore, as shown
in Figure 1, food system resilience may contribute to sustainability, but sustainability is a
function of more than just resilience. Factors such as resource and ecosystem stability also
contribute to the sustainability of food systems.
Finally, food security is an outcome of improvements to and sustainability of a food
system—along with many other factors. Due to the breadth of the concept, food security
definitions often directly incorporate the different components that contribute to food
security, such as the availability, accessibility, utilization, and stability of food [41]. Figure 1
positions these definitional elements as conceptual contributors to food security. This list is
not comprehensive due to the complexity and breadth of the concept of food security.

2.3. Substantive Components of Resilience

Many authors have grouped the adaptive capacities that contribute to resilience into
general substantive categories. These categories appear in the lower left-hand corner of
Figure 1. Again, a resilient system utilizes adaptive capacities in a way that turns shocks
into positive functioning. This subsection discusses six capacity categories relevant to
food systems.
First, economic capacities revolve around a system’s ability to deal with shocks both
with minimal macroeconomic welfare losses and in ways that reduce microeconomic
vulnerability [47]. Past studies have focused primarily on the diversity and volume of
resources or on employment opportunities in a community as indicators of economic
resilience [18,33,48,49]. Notably, such characteristics may work at cross purposes. For
example, agricultural industrialization may increase efficiency and productivity while
crowding out smallholder enterprises that can offer critical diversity in crop and livestock
variants [50]. In the social–ecological systems literature, the influences of economic interde-
pendence can reduce resilience by eroding community autonomy and increasing exposure
to volatility [16,51], though others argue that economic globalization offers benefits for
resilience, including classic gains from trade [52,53]. Additionally, a review of the recent
economics literature on global supply chains highlights ways in which varying degrees
of market competition and scales of production across industries may inhibit businesses’
ability to form robust and resilient supply chains [7].
A second set of capacities are political or institutional in nature. In short, the structure
and quality of government institutions create political capacity, which is strengthened by
institutional transparency and efficiency in allocating resources. Contributing to resilience
are inclusive and responsive political institutions that empower citizens and are committed
to transparency and honesty, creating trust in times of crisis [30,52,54]. Governments
might build resilience by increasing access points to make participation easier and to
deploy resources more efficiently [18,19,22,33,48,49]. Metrics range the gamut from more
qualitative assessments [33,48,54] to subjective evaluations provided by interviews and
survey data [30] to measures of institutional efficiency [22,49].
Social capacities are a third category that includes social capital and civic engagement,
as well as demographic factors that shape communities’ adaptation and ability to draw
on supports. Different forms of social capital within communities help them to access
resources and to engage collectively in resisting and responding to disaster [55]. Com-
munities are most resilient when social capital produces systems that are more inclusive
and that prioritize creative and collective decision making [53]. Social capital also enables
communities to draw effectively on government resources [32,52,53]. In short, social capital
mitigates the social effects of disasters, helping to maintain community cohesion, participa-
tion, and trust in institutions [28]. However, close-knit communities may overestimate their
ability to cope with disasters, shunning outside support or ignoring risk warnings [31].
Social dimensions of resilience are built across levels, with individual resilience and risk
Agronomy 2023, 13, 444 8 of 18

exposure as well as the demographic makeup of the community affecting its collective
ability to withstand or recover from disaster [18,26]. Studies identify more vulnerable and
less resilient subpopulations, or ones disproportionately harmed by shocks and to whom
resources facilitating recovery are less readily available [19,51]. Common measures assess
the structure of support networks, the sociodemographic composition of a community,
levels of volunteerism or civic engagement, and a sense of connection to place or cultural
identity [18,30,33,48,49,54,56].
The physical/infrastructural capacities of resilience, a fourth category, include the
technical capacity of vital infrastructures and resources in response to disturbance. Resilient
communities require infrastructures to deliver water, fuel, medical support, and other re-
sources reliably at all times, and particularly under pressure [22,48]. Physical infrastructure
must be well maintained and should have redundancies to guarantee continued functioning
or a prompt return to functioning [22,49]. More resilient communities also develop physical
infrastructure that reliably provides access to quality education, healthcare, public transit,
and leisure spaces antecedent to crises, all of which should increase the resistance capacity
of a community and facilitate social dimensions of resilience [28,48,54]. Some measures
focus on the quality of construction in the built environment [22,49], while others include
the share and diversity of renewable energy sources serving a community, accessibility of
hospitals or doctors per capita, and sustainability of systems controlling drinking water
and wastewater [48]. Yet other indicators tap into the infrastructure shaping community
resilience, including educational attainment and the proportion of land devoted to public
leisure [28,54].
A fifth category, informational capacities, includes both tangible communication
infrastructure and the more subjective element of imputing meaning or framing a shared
narrative around shocks and responses. The systems for relaying information about crises
and for crisis response can make communities more resilient by increasing preparedness
and by directing individuals toward relevant resources [18]. Greater efficiency and accuracy
in communication result in greater capacity to absorb shocks and a more rapid return to
normal, as qualified entities credibly disseminate information through wide-reaching
platforms [26]. Further, the transmission of information must build a narrative that creates
shared meaning that is relevant to the affected parties [18,19,54]. Some measures look
objectively at communication infrastructure that provides citizens with information about
risks and recovery strategies [18,26] or the degree to which adaptive strategies are rooted in
empirical data collection [48,49]. Other measures focus on the extent to which communities
can develop a shared understanding of problems and possible solutions grounded in local
context and culture [18,33].
Environmental capacities, a sixth category, are at the core of many analyses of social–ecological
system responses to natural disasters and climate-driven shocks. Resilient communities
use their environmental resources to withstand or bounce back from disaster. Depen-
dence on natural resources and intrinsic characteristics of the natural environment affect
resilience [16,51]. Although geography may leave some communities more exposed to
shocks, the environment may also provide resources critical to recovery [29]. While some
analyses consider environmental resilience qualitatively through descriptions of how soci-
eties interact with the land, more generalizable ways to observe environmental resilience
hinge on tangible measures of land usage or environmental degradation, as well as access
to key natural resources such as clean air/water and healthy soil [48,49,54,56].
Another common approach in thinking about adaptive capacities is to examine their
properties, including robustness, redundancy, and rapidity [18,22]. Robust resources main-
tain functioning under stress. Redundant resources are substitutable when disruption
occurs. Rapidly deployable resources reduce response and recovery timelines. Commu-
nities and systems can move from transient dysfunction to resilient, adapted functioning
when resources are sufficiently robust, redundant, and rapidly deployed [18]. Certainly,
these properties are also observable qualities of specific adaptive capacities in the categories
just outlined.
Agronomy 2023, 13, 444 9 of 18

3. Application of Resilience to Food Systems

Food system researchers have made notable efforts to incorporate resilience as a frame-
work or as a strategic aim for policymaking into their research. Food system researchers
favor the conceptualization of resilience as a dynamic, multiscale process. Food systems
are social–ecological systems made up of complex feedback loops that “encompass social,
economic, political, institutional, and environmental processes and dimensions” [57] p. 18.
Given a focus on climate change, this literature tends to emphasize adaptation and trans-
formation of systems under pressure, resulting in improved functioning post-shock rather
than a return to the status quo. This section addresses how existing notions of food system
resilience comport with broader conceptualizations of resilience and adds two capacity cat-
egories specific to food systems. This section also examines interactions between resilience
and other concepts in Figure 1 within the food systems literature.

3.1. Food System Adaptive Capacities

Resilience in the food systems literature echoes past definitions, emphasizing “the abil-
ity of a system and its component parts to anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or recover from
the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner by ensuring the preserva-
tion, restoration, or improvement of its essential basic structures and functions” [45] p. 959.
Similarly, Tendall et al. put forward a working definition of food system resilience as
“capacity over time of a food system and its units at multiple levels, to provide suffi-
cient, appropriate and accessible food to all, in the face of various and even unforeseen
disturbances” [57] p. 19. While such definitions clearly incorporate recovery and adap-
tation trajectories following a shock, they also extend into the conceptual space of food
security. The most pressing disturbances covered in this literature are natural disasters and
market shocks resulting from global temperature rise and increasing climatic variability.
Food system resilience emphasizes capacities that translate loosely to the six capacities of
resilience reviewed earlier.
Economic factors (#1 in Figure 1) relevant to resilience sometimes cut both ways. The
positive of greater food access from increasingly global food supply chains is accompanied
by negative externalities in the form of pollution, food waste, and biodiversity pressure [45].
Similarly, freer global trade can generally address regional shortages of food [58], but
increased food supply does not automatically translate to reduced hunger or increased
food security due to political and distributional issues [59,60]. However, lower levels of
poverty and higher income relative to food prices can increase food system resilience [60].
Some analysts see the helpful characteristics of redundancy and rapidity in having local
food resources to fall back on, increasing resilience in the event that international supply
lines are damaged [61].
Politically (#2), food system researchers have also focused on the organizational struc-
ture of different levels of government. For example, national and international agreements
regulating subsidies or agricultural policy can stifle local decision-making autonomy, mak-
ing systems less resilient [62]. Further, the introduction of climate-smart agriculture or
other policies designed to make food systems more resilient requires buy-in both from
local users and political elites across levels of government, so political institutions that
influence or facilitate such buy-in are important to resilience [63]. Researchers generally
recognize the importance of high-quality governance and policy decisions to food system
resilience. For example, policy interventions by national governments contributed in major
ways to variation in food supply disruptions among Asian countries at the start of the
COVID-19 pandemic [64]. Some researchers point toward the need for governments to be
more “adaptive” if they want to help build resilient food systems [65].
The social capital (#3) capacity of resilience is echoed in arguments that local farmers
should interact with multiple suppliers and retailers, building a large, redundant network
that they can draw on to survive shocks. Further, food system resilience must consider
cultural or social appropriateness of foods, as foods deemed inappropriate locally may not
contribute as much to resilience [19,20]. Moreover, food insecurity is significantly more
Agronomy 2023, 13, 444 10 of 18

common in both female-headed households and financially insecure households across

African countries in the wake of COVID-190 s disruption of food systems [66]. The emphasis
on gender as a key factor in food system resilience parallels scholarship examining gendered
components of agricultural production [67].
Physical infrastructure (#4) emerges in discussion of food system resilience via the
structures in place to produce and distribute food, noting that more resilient food systems
develop ways to intensify food output through technological innovation [20]. Further,
equipment for planting, harvesting, and processing must be robust and/or redundant
under normal functioning and when subject to disturbances. The infrastructure that
connects urban and rural areas, shaping the delivery of foods to markets and consumers,
also influences resilience [20,60,68]. Moreover, access to electricity and other infrastructure
shapes production and profit for food producers and enables farms to resist some climate-
related shocks [50].
The increasing digitization of economic transactions and the agricultural sector com-
bine to increase informational (#5) capacities of food systems, building in redundancies
for communication and transactions and making food production technologically more
robust [69]. Moreover, growing movements to spread food literacy seek to expand knowl-
edge about healthy food choices for consumers, with those informational pathways altering
patterns of supply and demand. Further, information transmission by public officials to
food producers, retailers, and consumers regarding public health guidelines has major
consequences for the functioning of food systems [70,71].
Food system resilience is closely linked to environmental (#6) capacity, in that the
biophysical and ecological characteristics of a place are key food system drivers. These
characteristics influence the quality, quantity, and diversity of food production possible in
an area. Environmental characteristics shape baseline agricultural inputs into food systems
and can place constraints on supply chains and market interactions. In line with resilience
work focused on the intersection of social factors with built and natural environments,
community interactions with the land and the natural resources around them directly
influence food system functioning.
Food system resilience by necessity incorporates elements not included in other con-
ceptualizations of resilience. Agricultural (#7) capacities should contribute to robustness,
redundancy, rapidity, and adaptability [57]. Food production diversity [72,73] is an aspect
of capacity, as more diverse food systems are viewed as more robust and adaptable in
the face of shocks and also supply redundancy to hedge against crop failure. Similarly,
diversity of output markets for farmers contributes to resilience [72]. Further, countries
using improved agricultural technologies are better able to respond to shocks quickly and
effectively, thus demonstrating greater resilience [74].
While health capacities appear in a limited way in resilience studies elsewhere, a focus
on nutritional (#8) capacities is rather specific to food system resilience. The basic idea
is that the current nutritional situation influences the extent to which a food system can
handle a shock. For example, per capita food production (often roughly measured in terms
of food energy) and storage provide a picture of the nutritional situation, as do food costs
and expenditures [60,72]. Child malnutrition can similarly provide information about the
capacity of the society to meet basic needs [74]. Finally, food imports might constitute a
vulnerability if they indicate dependency, though imports can also serve as diversified or
redundant pathways improving resilience [72].

3.2. Related Concepts and Complications

This subsection reviews relationships between resilience and similar concepts in the
food systems literature. The concepts of resistance and recovery appear in food systems
research, which emphasizes nonlinear patterns of growth and exploitation, conservation,
and reorganization or renewal [62]. Studies incorporate resistance through preparedness
for shocks, intensification or diversification of food production processes, or building
in redundancies by developing several nonexclusive linkages with suppliers, farmers,
Agronomy 2023, 13, 444 11 of 18

retailers, shipping routes, etc. [59,60]. However, studies of food system resilience often
focus less on resistance and more on adaptiveness and ability to transform. Such research
notes that resistance to change in the face of various food system drivers (e.g., changes in
policy, demand, economic or environmental conditions) may actually preclude positive
adaptations [57].
Sustainability often appears in tandem with resilience in food system studies. An early
definition of agroecosystem sustainability [46] looked much like contemporary resilience
definitions. A newer definition of food system sustainability emphasizes protections for
producers, retailers, and consumers, meeting current needs for nutritious food supply
without compromising the ecosystem’s ability to produce food in the future [39], thereby
differentiating itself from resilience. Tendall et al. frame the two as complementary concepts,
with resilience helping to achieve sustainable performance [57]. Arguably the biggest
distinction in the food system literature is that sustainability is described as a normative
concept requiring stakeholders to agree upon subjective goals, whereas resilience and
vulnerability are more descriptive system properties [45].
Food system resilience and vulnerability often appear together as well. Some food
systems researchers argue that more resilient systems are less vulnerable by definition [45].
A more typical view is that vulnerability is a product of interactions between resilience and
risk. Figure 1 reflects such thinking. While food system resilience is partly a function of
risk (as argued earlier), the adaptive capacities of the food system may contribute to high
resilience, thereby lessening vulnerability.
A challenge in applying resilience frameworks to food systems is variance in relevant
time frames of shocks. Climate change may contribute to near-instantaneous shocks such
as floods—a finite event from which a community or system can recover. However, climate
change also serves as a chronic stressor to food systems, altering seasonal temperature
and precipitation patterns, gradually raising sea levels, or steadily reducing arable land.
Many of these shocks occur simultaneously or cumulatively on different time scales, com-
pounding and making it difficult to isolate or identify resilience to a particular external
disturbance [20].
Further, the dynamic nature of resilience and the complex interactions among net-
worked adaptive capacities limit our ability to disentangle its causes and effects [30]. Food
systems are complex social–ecological systems with infrastructures that govern access to
water, energy, land, and human labor, and their functioning depends on ecological factors,
human behavior, and various other institutions. Failure or vulnerability in any one of these
components can have difficult-to-quantify consequences for the functioning of another
component, particularly as these consequences may not be immediate or predictable [20].
Both conceptually and empirically, assessments of food system resilience should account
for the qualities and behaviors of the constituent parts of food systems and approach them
holistically to give a full picture of risk and adaptive capacities.

3.3. Measurement of Food System Resilience

This subsection examines approaches for measuring food system resilience at different
levels and with different degrees of dynamism. Cross-national measurement has tended
to focus on broader concepts, such as food security and sustainability, that incorporate
resilience as a subconcept. One national-level approach [73,75] operationalizes resilience
using two composite indicators: Food Production Diversity [76] and the Notre Dame
Global Adaptation Index (ND-GAIN) [74]. The latter measures exposure and sensitivity to
climate change as well as readiness to deploy resources and use them for adaptation [74].
ND-GAIN looks like a composite index characterizing resilience in its own right, though
it assesses the two components of readiness and vulnerability. Gustafson et al. intro-
duced this two-component (i.e., Food Production Diversity and ND-GAIN) measure of
resilience in food systems and applied it to nine countries [73], while Chaudhary et al. ex-
tended to 156 countries [75]. However, this measure produces relatively low cross-national
Agronomy 2023, 13, 444 12 of 18

variance [75]. Table 2 displays how indicators from four cross-national measures map to
the eight capacity categories of resilience discussed earlier.

Table 2. Resilience elements in national-level measurement approaches.

Chaudhary et al. [75] Seekell et al. [60] EIU’s GFSI [77] FAO [72]

(1) Economic

Wealth distribution X X
Economic readiness X
Dependence on natural capital X

(2) Political/institutional

Political commitment to adaptation X

Governance readiness/risk management X X

(3) Social

Demographic stress X
Social readiness X
Sociocultural wellbeing X X
(4) Physical/infrastructural

Energy infrastructure X
Transport infrastructure X X

(5) Informational

Information and
X
communication technology

(6) Environmental

Exposure to climate change impacts X X

Freshwater resources X X X
Land health X
Marine health X
Arable land resources X
Ecosystem stability X

(7) Agricultural
Food production diversity X X X
Output market diversity X
Yield gap/projected change X X
Agriculture capacity X
Agricultural water risk X

(8) Nutritional

Food imports X X
Stored food X
Malnutrition X
Waste and loss reduction X
Cost of food X
Per capita food expenditures X
Caloric production per capita X X
Notes. Chaudhary et al. measure food system sustainability, so some indicators capture components of sustain-
ability other than resilience [75]. The authors use ND-GAIN to measure resilience, but shaded cells do not appear
in ND-GAIN.
Agronomy 2023, 13, 444 13 of 18

Another cross-national index of food system resilience, produced by Seekell et al.,

scores up to 96 countries from 1992–2011 on metrics of food access (via income distribution
and purchasing power), biophysical capacity, and production diversity [60]. Data avail-
ability might now allow for greater coverage, particularly with socioeconomic indicators.
Several of their indicators are related to earlier measures by the Food and Agriculture Or-
ganization of the United Nations (FAO) and other agricultural development practitioners.
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU’s) Global Food Security Index (GFSI) incorpo-
rates a category on “Sustainability and Adaptation” as a main pillar [77]. Within this pillar,
indicators mark countries’ exposure to climate-related shocks; the quality and quantity
of land, water, and biodiversity; political measures showing commitment to adaptive
strategies; and disaster risk management [77]. Covering 113 countries, the GFSI pillar is the
most comprehensive cross-national measure of food system resilience. Worth noting is that
some of the categories indicated in Table 2 for the EIU’s GFSI are indicators in pillars other
than the Sustainability and Adaptation pillar.
The final column in Table 2 captures a recent cross-national measurement approach
for agrifood systems’ resilience from FAO. The approach utilizes various indicators in
assessing four areas of food system resilience: the domestic agricultural production system,
availability of food for consumers, food transportation infrastructure, and economic access
to food [72]. Redundant pathways and diversity of food sources are important elements of
the approach.
Researchers have also measured food system resilience at levels more granular than the
country level. Table 3 summarizes six different approaches for such measurement. These
measures typically operate at the household, community, or regional levels. The measures
have different purposes and emphases but typically incorporate adaptive capacities.

Table 3. Subnational resilience measures.

Measure/Approach Description Source(s)

Self-Evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate
Resilience of farmers and Pastoralists (SHARP)
Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis
(RIMA) I and II
International Development Enterprise (iDE)’s
Market System Resilience Index (MRSI)
Resilience and resilience capacity measurement
options (produced for the United States Agency
for International Development)
World Bank Group rating system
Operationalizing food system resilience in
three dimensions
Small-group interview data collected by tablet
with quick data visualization tools, indicating
[62,78]
smallholder, farmer, and household
perceptions; refined version is SHARP+
Assessment of household-level adaptive
capacity, social safety nets, assets, and access to
[79]
basic services as four core pillars of resilience;
measures direct and indirect resilience
Assessment of resilience in market system,
especially in rural areas; combines market
[80]
structure, connectivity, and support, as well as
dynamic functioning and redundancy
Light, intermediate, and full approaches for
measuring resilience at the household and
community levels, along with specific [44,81]
measures for absorptive capacity, adaptive
capacity, and transformative capacity
Assessment of exposure and adaptive capacity
[82]
in individual development projects
Assessment of resilience dimensions of “buffer
capacity, self-organization, and capacity for [40] p. 434
learning and adaptation” at subnational level

A remaining measurement concern is that context specificity (e.g., time, space, shock)
and variance across farming systems introduce a complexity that makes the development
of general measurement tools difficult [83,84]. Some researchers have pushed for context-
specific measures of resilience for individual systems [62], while others have argued for
standardized metrics that convey approximate measures of resilience across agroecosys-
tems, countries, or regional contexts [60,75]. Researchers will have to determine acceptable
Agronomy 2023, 13, 444 14 of 18

trade-offs between specificity and generalizability. A related concern is that tools useful
for generalizing across spatial and temporal contexts cannot really capture multiscale
feedback loops or variables having different impacts in different time periods [83]. Re-
searchers have aimed to capture such dynamism by employing methods such as scenario
diagramming [20], social foresight modeling [68], and discrete choice models to draw infer-
ences about resilience under varying climate forecasts [50]. Similarly, Cabell and Oelofse’s
behavior-based qualitative indicators of resilient agroecosystems are iteratively linked to
phases of adaptive cycles and feedback mechanisms [62].

4. Discussion
The primary objective for this paper was to provide an overview of the conceptualiza-
tion and measurement of resilience both generally and within the domain of food system
resilience. We proceeded with a systematized review that focused on identifying what is
known and what the current limitations and lines of future inquiry might be [85]. In so
doing, we have created a solid foundation for continued scientific progress in studying
food system resilience—a topic presently attracting great interest. A lesson from this ex-
ercise is that the study of resilience generally struggles from a glut of conceptualizations
and measurements, threatening to reduce conceptual utility. However, the differences
are not wholly irreconcilable, and the food systems literature on resilience has shown
greater restraint. While the food systems literature boasts options in terms of the level of
analysis, the dynamism of the approach, and relationships with other key concepts, the
basic underlying ideas tend to be similar. Further, the diversity in measurement strategies
can serve as an asset. Collectively, the different approaches look across levels and subdi-
mensions and examine resistance, recovery, and transformation in slightly different lights.
This diversity enables the up-front clarification that researchers increasingly want, given
the term’s widespread usage and resulting ambiguity [14,24]. Further, some measures
offer ways to observe and assess resilience as a dynamic process with complex feedback
loops between drivers and outcomes. Which measures or modeling strategies are most
appropriate depends on the audience and goals of each project. The variety of measurement
efforts—capturing dynamics of resilience in so many ways and across levels of individuals,
households, communities, systems, and countries—should allow researchers to select an
option appropriate to their objectives [57]. The notion of resilience is likely to become an
integral part of food system research and practice moving forward. Certainly, agronomists
can benefit from the considerable conceptual work already done. Such work, if appropri-
ately understood and heeded, provides a strong base for scientific advancement. However,
the context-dependence of resilience and the need to refine measurement approaches rep-
resent opportunities for careful future thinking and research [86]. The present paper has
emphasized the linkages between concepts and subsequent measurement, as well as the
nuances of measurement approaches at different levels. As such, we believe this paper
serves as a strong complement to parallel work very recently published with a greater focus
on conceptualization questions [86–88].
Clear conceptual and measurement work are essential precursors to answering more
complex questions about contexts, levels, and tradeoffs as they apply to food system re-
silience. Investigation of specific challenges and contexts has value, as does thinking more
broadly about general resilience, but the approaches have some logical differences [89,90].
The coincidence of different risks is another important context that may influence resilience
conceptualization and measurement [5]. Integration across levels is yet another advance-
ment in the literature, and one that poses challenges. Cross-level interactions can be
complex. For example, vulnerabilities at a lower level could be obviated by higher-level
policies or infrastructure, as in the case of national-level protections or subsidies to ab-
sorb lower-level losses and dysfunction. Finally, researchers have begun thinking about
resilience tradeoffs, with productivity, efficiency, and cost on the one hand trading off with
resilience goals such as nutritional value, environmental health, crop diversity, and lower
susceptibility to shocks [6,7,90]. Similarly, researchers have begun thoroughly investigating
Agronomy 2023, 13, 444 15 of 18

the resilience of supply chains, including tradeoffs inherent in local versus global supply
chains [7,8,90,91]. Technology, too, can serve as an asset for building resilience, but we must
pay attention to potential unforeseen consequences [92]. Technologies and innovations
come with their own susceptibilities and risks.
Conceptualization and measurement of food system resilience also have implications
for policymaking and evaluation. Again, clarity is necessary for establishing priorities,
making projections, and evaluating subsequent performance. We see implications of
conceptualization and measurement for larger efforts in development and food security as
well. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reference food systems and food system
sustainability in several objectives. The relationship between resilience and sustainability
in food systems is of critical importance for guiding international development projects
that target agricultural sectors and global food markets [65]. Likewise, the attention that
intergovernmental organizations such as World Bank and FAO have already dedicated to
understanding and measuring resilience suggests that this will be crucial to development
projects moving forward. However, research gaps remain in investigating food system
resilience in low- and middle-income countries [93].
Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted renewed focus on food system re-
silience in response to global health shocks. Researchers have thought critically about
applying different resilience components, thereby highlighting socially vulnerable de-
mographic groups and analyzing the role of global supply chains, digital information
transmission, political institutions, and other factors shaping food system resilience in re-
sponse to the pandemic [64,66,94,95]. Food system resilience in the face of major pandemic
disruptions—especially coinciding with challenges posed by climate change—offers crucial
lessons while generating new and important questions.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.R., E.D.R. and J.R.A.; methodology, M.R. and E.D.R.;
investigation, M.R., E.D.R. and J.R.A.; writing—original draft preparation, M.R.; writing—review
and editing, E.D.R. and J.R.A.; visualization, E.D.R.; supervision, E.D.R.; project administration,
E.D.R.; funding acquisition, E.D.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the United States Agency for International Development
(720-OAA-18-LA-0003) through the Rutgers University Feed the Future Policy Research Consortium
and the Sustainable Intensification Innovation Lab at Kansas State University.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank other members of the Rutgers University Feed
the Future Policy Research Consortium for their feedback on earlier drafts. The authors would also
like to thank the anonymous journal reviewers for their useful feedback.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Kallis, G. Droughts. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2008, 33, 85–118. [CrossRef]
2. Ianchovichina, E.I.; Loening, J.L.; Wood, C.A. How vulnerable are Arab countries to global food price shocks? J. Dev. Stud. 2014,
50, 1302–1319. [CrossRef]
3. Hill, R.V.; Porter, C. Vulnerability to drought and food price shocks: Evidence from Ethiopia. World Dev. 2017, 96, 65–77.
[CrossRef]
4. Ahmadalipour, A.; Moradkhani, H.; Castelletti, A.; Magliocca, N. Future drought risk in Africa: Integrating vulnerability, climate
change, and population growth. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 662, 672–686. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Fan, S.; Cho, E.E.; Meng, T.; Rue, C. How to prevent and cope with coincidence of risks to the global food system. Ann. Rev.
Environ. Resour. 2021, 46, 601–623. [CrossRef]
6. Komarnytsky, S.; Retchin, S.; Vong, C.I.; Lila, M.A. Gains and losses of agricultural food production: Implications for the
twenty-first century. Ann. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 13, 239–261. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2023, 13, 444 16 of 18

7. Baldwin, R.E.; Freeman, R. Risks and global supply chains: What we know and what we need to know. Ann. Rev. Econ. 2022,
14, 153–180. [CrossRef]
8. Wood, A.; Queiroz, C.; Deutsch, L.; González-Mon, B.; Jonell, M.; Pereira, L.; Sinare, H.; Svedin, U.; Wassénius, E. Reframing the
local-global food systems debate through a resilience lens. Nat. Food 2023, 4, 22–29. [CrossRef]
9. Holling, C.S. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1973, 4, 1–23. [CrossRef]
10. Timmerman, P. Vulnerability, Resilience and the Collapse of Society; Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto:
Toronto, ON, Canada, 1981.
11. Gordon, J.E. Structures: Or Why Things Don’t Fall Down; Penguin: London, UK, 1978.
12. Garmezy, N.E.; Rutter, M.E. Stress, Coping, and Development in Children; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1983.
13. Bodin, P.; Wiman, B. Resilience and other stability concepts in ecology: Notes on their origin, validity, and usefulness. ESS Bull.
2004, 2, 33–43.
14. Reid, R.; Botterill, L.C. The multiple meanings of ‘resilience’: An overview of the literature. Aust. J. Public Adm. 2013, 72, 31–40.
[CrossRef]
15. Rose, A. Economic resilience to natural and manmade disasters: Multidisciplinary origins and contextual dimensions. Environ.
Hazards 2007, 7, 383–398. [CrossRef]
16. Adger, W.N. Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2000, 24, 347–364. [CrossRef]
17. Boon, H.J.; Cottrell, A.; King, D.; Stevenson, R.B.; Millar, J. Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory for modelling community
resilience to natural disasters. Nat. Hazards 2012, 60, 381–408. [CrossRef]
18. Norris, F.H.; Stevens, S.P.; Pfefferbaum, B.; Wyche, K.F.; Pfefferbaum, R.L. Community resilience as metaphor, theory, set of
capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2008, 41, 127–150. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Ungar, M. Community resilience for youth and families: Facilitative physical and social capital in contexts of adversity. Child.
Youth Serv. Rev. 2011, 33, 1742–1748. [CrossRef]
20. Candy, S.; Biggs, C.; Larsen, K.; Turner, G. Modelling food system resilience: A scenario-based simulation modelling approach to
explore future shocks and adaptations in the Australian food system. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2015, 5, 712–731. [CrossRef]
21. Galea, S.; Nandi, A.; Vlahov, D. The epidemiology of post-traumatic stress disorder after disasters. Epidemiol. Rev. 2005, 27, 78–91.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Bruneau, M.; Chang, S.E.; Eguchi, R.T.; Lee, G.C.; O’Rourke, T.D.; Reinhorn, A.M.; Shinozuka, M.; Tierney, K.; Wallace, W.A.;
von Winterfeldt, D. A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance seismic resilience of communities. Earthq. Spectra 2003,
19, 733–752. [CrossRef]
23. Holling, C.S.; Schindler, D.W.; Walker, B.H.; Roughgarden, J. Biodiversity in the functioning of ecosystems: An Ecological
synthesis. In Biodiversity Loss: Economic and Ecological Issues; Perrings, C., Maler, K.G., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Jansson, B.O., Eds.;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1995; pp. 44–83.
24. Manyena, S.B. The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters 2006, 30, 434–450. [CrossRef]
25. Wildavsky, A. Searching for Safety; Transaction: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1988.
26. Ashmore, F.H.; Farrington, J.H.; Skerratt, S. Superfast broadband and rural community resilience: Examining the rural need for
speed. Scott. Geogr. J. 2015, 131, 265–278. [CrossRef]
27. Brown, D.D.; Kulig, J.C. The concepts of resiliency: Theoretical lessons from community research. Health Can. Soc. 1996, 4, 29–50.
28. Aldrich, D.P.; Meyer, M.A. Social capital and community resilience. Am. Behav. Sci. 2015, 59, 254–269. [CrossRef]
29. Moghim, S.; Garna, R.K. Countries’ classification by environmental resilience. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 230, 345–354. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
30. Kulig, J.C.; Edge, D.S.; Townsend, I.; Lightfoot, N.; Reimer, W. Community resiliency: Emerging theoretical insights. J. Community
Psychol. 2013, 41, 758–775. [CrossRef]
31. Besser, T. Resilient small rural towns and community shocks. J. Rural Community Dev. 2013, 8, 117–134.
32. Jensen, O.; Ong, C. Collaborative action for community resilience to climate risks: Opportunities and barriers. Sustainability 2020,
12, 3413. [CrossRef]
33. Magis, K. Community resilience: An indicator of social sustainability. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2010, 23, 401–416. [CrossRef]
34. Hardaker, J.B.; Lien, G.; Anderson, J.R.; Huirne, R.B.M. Coping with Risk in Agriculture: Applied Decision Analysis; CABI Publishing:
Wallingford, UK, 2015.
35. Bonanno, G.A. Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely
adverse events? Am. Psychol. 2004, 59, 20–28. [CrossRef]
36. Zilberman, D.; Zhao, J.; Heiman, A. Adoption versus adaptation, with emphasis on climate change. Ann. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2012,
4, 27–53. [CrossRef]
37. Pijawka, K.D.; Radwan, A.E. The transportation of hazardous materials: Risk assessment and hazard management. Danger. Prop.
Ind. Mater. Rep. 1985, 5, 2–11.
38. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Available online: https://
digitallibrary.un.org/record/139811 (accessed on 16 December 2022).
39. Story, M.; Hamm, M.W.; Wallinga, D. Research and action priorities for linking public health, food systems, and sustainable
agriculture: Recommendations from the Airlie Conference. J. Junger Environ. Nutr. 2009, 4, 477–485. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Agronomy 2023, 13, 444 17 of 18

40. Jacobi, J.; Mukhovi, S.; Llanque, A.; Augstburger, H.; Käser, F.; Pozo, C.; Peter, M.N.; Delgado, J.M.F.; Kiteme, B.P.; Rist, S.; et al.
Operationalizing food system resilience: An indicator-based assessment in agroindustrial, smallholder farming, and agroecologi-
cal contexts in Bolivia and Kenya. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 433–446. [CrossRef]
41. Upton, J.B.; Cissé, J.D.; Barrett, C.B. Food security as resilience: Reconciling definition and measurement. Agric. Econ. 2016,
47, 135–147. [CrossRef]
42. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Climate-smart Agriculture Sourcebook; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013.
43. Barrett, C.B.; Constas, M.A. Toward a theory of resilience for international development applications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2014, 111, 14625–14630. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. United States Agency for International Development. Building Resilience to Recurrent Crisis: USAID Policy and Program Guidance;
USAID: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
45. Allen, T.; Prosperi, P. Modeling sustainable food systems. Environ. Manag. 2016, 57, 956–975. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Conway, G.R. Agroecosystem analysis. Agric. Adm. 1985, 20, 31–55. [CrossRef]
47. Hallegatte, S. Economic Resilience: Definition and Measurement; Policy Research Working Paper 6855; World Bank: Washington, DC,
USA, 2014.
48. Feldmeyer, D.; Wilden, D.; Kind, C.; Kaiser, T.; Goldschmidt, R.; Diller, C.; Birkmann, J. Indicators for monitoring urban climate
change resilience and adaptation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2931. [CrossRef]
49. Jordan, E.; Javernick-Will, A. Measuring Community Resilience and Recovery: A Content Analysis of Indicators. In Proceedings
of the Construction Research Congress 2012, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 21–23 May 2012.
50. Seo, S.N. Is an integrated farm more resilient against climate change? A micro-econometric analysis of portfolio diversification in
African agriculture. Food Policy 2010, 35, 32–40. [CrossRef]
51. Bayliss-Smith, T. Food security and agricultural sustainability in the New Guinea highlands: Vulnerable people, vulnerable
places. IDS Bull. 1991, 22, 5–11. [CrossRef]
52. Matarrita-Cascante, D.; Trejos, B. Community resilience in resource-dependent communities: A comparative study. Environ. Plan.
2013, 45, 1387–1402. [CrossRef]
53. Smith, J.W.; Moore, R.L.; Anderson, D.H.; Siderelis, C. Community resilience in southern Appalachia: A theoretical framework
and three case studies. Hum. Ecol. 2012, 40, 341–353. [CrossRef]
54. Oliviera, A.T.C.; Araujo de Morais, N. Community resilience: An integrative literature review study. Trends Psychol. 2018,
26, 1747–1761. [CrossRef]
55. Claridge, T. Functions of social capital—Bonding, bridging, linking. Soc. Cap. Res. 2018, 20, 1–7.
56. Cutter, S.L.; Ash, K.D.; Emrich, C.T. The geographies of community disaster resilience. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 29, 65–77.
[CrossRef]
57. Tendall, D.M.; Joerin, J.; Kopainsky, B.; Edwards, P.; Shreck, A.; Le, Q.B.; Krütli, P.; Grant, M.; Six, J. Food system resilience:
Defining the concept. Glob. Food Secur. 2015, 6, 17–23. [CrossRef]
58. Anderson, K. International trade’s contribution to food security and sustainability. In Encyclopedia of Food Security and Sustainability;
Ferranti, P., Berry, E.M., Anderson, J.R., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 61–63.
59. Allouche, J. The sustainability and resilience of global water and food systems: Political analysis of the interplay between security,
resource scarcity, political systems and global trade. Food Policy 2011, 36, S3–S8. [CrossRef]
60. Seekell, D.; Carr, J.; Dell’Angelo, J.; D’Odorico, P.; Fader, M.; Gephart, J.; Kummu, M.; Magliocca, N.; Porkka, M.; Puma, M.; et al.
Resilience in the global food system. Environ. Res. 2017, 12, 025010. [CrossRef]
61. Barthel, S.; Isendahl, C. Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: Sources of resilience for long-term food security in
cities. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86, 224–234. [CrossRef]
62. Cabell, J.F.; Oelofse, M. An indicator framework for assessing agroecosystem resilience. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 18. [CrossRef]
63. Raile, E.D.; Young, L.M.; Sarr, A.; Mbaye, S.; Raile, A.N.W.; Wooldridge, L.; Sanogo, D.; Post, L.A. Political will and public will for
climate-smart agriculture in Senegal. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2019, 9, 44–62. [CrossRef]
64. 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. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Smith, K.; Lawrence, G. From disaster management to adaptive governance? Governance challenges to achieving resilient food
systems in Australia. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2018, 20, 387–401. [CrossRef]
66. Josephson, A.; Kilic, T.; Michler, J.D. Socioeconomic Impacts of COVID-19 in Four African Countries; Policy Research Working Paper
9466; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
67. Kiewisch, E. Looking within the household: A study on gender, food security, and resilience in cocoa-growing communities.
Gend. Dev. 2015, 23, 497–513. [CrossRef]
68. Toth, A.; Rendall, S.; Reitsma, F. Resilient food systems: A qualitative tool for measuring food resilience. Urban Ecosyst. 2016,
19, 19–43. [CrossRef]
69. Birner, R.; Daum, T.; Pray, C. Who drives the digital revolution in agriculture? A review of supply-side trends, players and
challenges. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2021, 43, 1260–1285. [CrossRef]
70. Anderson, J.R.; Nagarajan, L.; Naseem, A.; Pray, C.E.; Reardon, T.A. New corona virus, food security and identifying policy
options. Village Agric. 2020, 4, 77–88. [CrossRef]
71. Swinnen, J.; McDermmott, J. (Eds.) COVID-19 & Global Food Security; IFPRI: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
Agronomy 2023, 13, 444 18 of 18

72. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of Food and Agriculture 2021: Making Agrifood Systems More
Resilient to Shocks and Stresses; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021.
73. Gustafson, D.; Gutman, A.; Leet, W.; Drewnowski, A.; Fanzo, J.; Ingram, J. Seven food system metrics of sustainable nutrition
security. Sustainability 2016, 8, 196. [CrossRef]
74. Chen, C.; Noble, I.; Hellmann, J.; Coffee, J.; Murillo, M.; Chawla, N. University of Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index Country
Technical Report; Adaptation Initiative, University of Notre Dame: South Bend, IN, USA, 2015.
75. Chaudhary, A.; Gustafson, D.; Mathys, A. Multi-indicator sustainability assessment of global food systems. Nat. Commun. 2018,
9, 848. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
76. Remans, R.; Wood, S.A.; Saha, N.; Anderman, T.L.; DeFries, R.S. Measuring nutritional diversity of national food supplies. Glob.
Food Secur. 2014, 3, 174–182. [CrossRef]
77. Economist Intelligence Unit. Global Food Security Index 2022; The Economist Group: London, UK, 2022.
78. Choptiany, J.M.H.; Phillips, S.; Graeub, B.E.; Colozza, D.; Settle, W.; Herren, B.; Batello, C. SHARP: Integrating a Traditional Survey
with Participatory Self-Evaluation and Learning for Climate Change Resilience Assessment; Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2016.
79. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. RIMA-II: Moving Forward the Development of the Resilience Index
Measurement and Analysis Model; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015.
80. Ambrosino, C.; Wellstein, J.M.; Barua, B.K.; Ullah, M.H. Introducing and Operationalizing the Market System Resilience
Index (MSRI). In Proceedings of the Resilience Measurement, Evidence & Learning Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA,
12–15 November 2018.
81. Resilience and Resilience Capacities Measurement Options. Available online: https://www.resiliencelinks.org/system/files/
documents/2019-08/resiliencemeasurementoptions_nov2018508.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2022).
82. World Bank Group. Resilience Rating System: A Methodology for Building and Tracking Resilience to Climate Change; World Bank:
Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
83. Béné, C. Towards a Quantifiable Measure of Resilience; Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, UK, 2013.
84. Darnhofer, I.; Fairweather, J.; Moller, H. Assessing a farm’s sustainability: Insights from resilience thinking. Int. J. Agric. Sustain.
2010, 8, 186–198. [CrossRef]
85. Grant, M.J.; Booth, A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info. Libr. J.
2009, 26, 91–108. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
86. Zurek, M.; Ingram, J.; Bellamy, A.S.; Goold, C.; Lyon, C.; Alexander, P.; Barnes, A.; Bebber, D.P.; Breeze, T.D.; Bruce, A.; et al. Food
system resilience: Concepts: Issues, and challenges. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2022, 47, 511–534. [CrossRef]
87. Béné, C. Resilience of local food systems and links to food security—A review of some important concepts in the context of
COVID-19 and other shocks. Food Secur. 2020, 12, 805–822. [CrossRef]
88. van Wassener, L.; Oosterkamp, E.; van Asseldonk, M.; Ryan, M. Food system resilience: Ontology development and impossible
trinities. Agric. Food Secur. 2021, 10, 38. [CrossRef]
89. Meuwissen, M.P.; Feindt, P.H.; Spiegel, A.; Termeer, C.J.; Mathijs, E.; De Mey, Y.; Finger, R.; Balmann, A.; Wauters, E.; Urquhart, J.;
et al. A framework to assess the resilience of farming systems. Agric. Syst. 2019, 176, 102656. [CrossRef]
90. De Steenhuijsen Piters, B.; Termeer, E.; Bakker, D.; Fonteijn, H.; Brouwer, H. Perspective chapter: Food system resilience—Towards
a joint understanding and implications for policy. In Food Systems Resilience; Ribeiro-Barros, A.I., Tevera, D.S., Goulao, L.F.,
Tivana, L.D., Eds.; IntechOpen Limited: London, UK, 2021. [CrossRef]
91. Davis, K.F.; Downs, S.; Gephart, J.A. Towards food supply chain resilience to environmental shocks. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 54–65.
[CrossRef]
92. McClements, D.J.; Barrangou, C.H.; Hill, C.; Kokini, J.L.; Lila, M.A.; Meyer, A.S.; Yu, L. Building a resilient, sustainable, and
healthier food supply through innovation and technology. Ann. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 12, 1–28. [CrossRef]
93. Meyer, M.A. The role of resilience in food system studies in low- and middle-income countries. Glob. Food Secur. 2020, 24, 100356.
[CrossRef]
94. Béné, C.; Bakker, D.; Rodriguez, M.C.; Even, B.; Melo, J.; Sonneveld, A. Impacts of COVID-19 on People’s Food Security: Foundations
for a More Resilient Food System; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [CrossRef]
95. Meuwissen, M.P.M.; Feindt, P.H.; Slijper, T.; Spiegel, A.; Finger, R.; de Mey, Y.; Paas, W.; Termeer, K.J.A.M.; Poortvliet, P.M.;
Peneva, M.; et al. Impact of COVID-19 on farming systems in Europe through the lens of resilience thinking. Agric. Syst. 2021,
191, 103152. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.