Food Security and Food Sovereignty: A Review of Commonly Used Indicators and Consideration of Environmental Sustainability Aspects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".