Review Special Issues

Disruption of the Covid-19 pandemic on the agri-food sector: A systematic review of its implications in post-pandemic and future of food security

  • The unprecedented challenges posed by the global COVID-19 pandemic have significantly impacted various sectors, with the agri-food system proving especially vulnerable to disruptions. Ensuring food security and bolstering the resilience of agri-food systems in the aftermath of the pandemic has emerged as a crucial concern. Utilizing the PRISMA protocol, this systematic literature review systematically searched relevant databases and repositories using specific keywords related to agri-food security in the pre and post-pandemic context. The final review incorporated 37 articles. The results revealed that the pandemic profoundly impacted all facets of the agri-food sector, particularly agri-food systems. Despite this, we identified several measures that were implemented or recommended to mitigate disruptions caused by the pandemic and ensure the resilience of the agri-food sector for future similar events. Robust policy measures, promotion of urban agriculture, support for small-scale farmers, enhancement of the international market, technological innovations, collaborations, research and development, and the promotion of novel foods were all highlighted as crucial resilience measures. Policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders are urged to adopt a comprehensive approach encompassing these measures to build a resilient and secure food future in the post-pandemic era.

    Citation: Monsuru Adekunle Salisu, Che Rus Ridzwan, Yusuf Opeyemi Oyebamiji, Norhanizan Usaizan, Abiodun Emmanuel Abioye, Idris Fadheelah Biola, Nurudeen Babatunde Bamiro, Ahmed Kayode Omowunmi, Hussain Luqman. Disruption of the Covid-19 pandemic on the agri-food sector: A systematic review of its implications in post-pandemic and future of food security[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(1): 148-168. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024009

    Related Papers:

    [1] Yaning Li, Mengjun Wang . Well-posedness and blow-up results for a time-space fractional diffusion-wave equation. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(5): 3522-3542. doi: 10.3934/era.2024162
    [2] Shaoqiang Shang, Yunan Cui . Weak approximative compactness of hyperplane and Asplund property in Musielak-Orlicz-Bochner function spaces. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(1): 327-346. doi: 10.3934/era.2020019
    [3] Eteri Gordadze, Alexander Meskhi, Maria Alessandra Ragusa . On some extrapolation in generalized grand Morrey spaces with applications to PDEs. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(1): 551-564. doi: 10.3934/era.2024027
    [4] Yangrong Li, Shuang Yang, Qiangheng Zhang . Odd random attractors for stochastic non-autonomous Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equations without dissipation. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(4): 1529-1544. doi: 10.3934/era.2020080
    [5] Huali Wang, Ping Li . Fractional integral associated with the Schrödinger operators on variable exponent space. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(11): 6833-6843. doi: 10.3934/era.2023345
    [6] Peng Gao, Pengyu Chen . Blowup and MLUH stability of time-space fractional reaction-diffusion equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(9): 3351-3361. doi: 10.3934/era.2022170
    [7] Ling-Xiong Han, Wen-Hui Li, Feng Qi . Approximation by multivariate Baskakov–Kantorovich operators in Orlicz spaces. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(2): 721-738. doi: 10.3934/era.2020037
    [8] Shuguan Ji, Yanshuo Li . Quasi-periodic solutions for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations with nonlocal diffusion. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(12): 7182-7194. doi: 10.3934/era.2023363
    [9] Kun Cheng, Yong Zeng . On regularity criteria for MHD system in anisotropic Lebesgue spaces. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(8): 4669-4682. doi: 10.3934/era.2023239
    [10] Francisco Javier García-Pacheco, María de los Ángeles Moreno-Frías, Marina Murillo-Arcila . On absolutely invertibles. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(12): 6578-6592. doi: 10.3934/era.2024307
  • The unprecedented challenges posed by the global COVID-19 pandemic have significantly impacted various sectors, with the agri-food system proving especially vulnerable to disruptions. Ensuring food security and bolstering the resilience of agri-food systems in the aftermath of the pandemic has emerged as a crucial concern. Utilizing the PRISMA protocol, this systematic literature review systematically searched relevant databases and repositories using specific keywords related to agri-food security in the pre and post-pandemic context. The final review incorporated 37 articles. The results revealed that the pandemic profoundly impacted all facets of the agri-food sector, particularly agri-food systems. Despite this, we identified several measures that were implemented or recommended to mitigate disruptions caused by the pandemic and ensure the resilience of the agri-food sector for future similar events. Robust policy measures, promotion of urban agriculture, support for small-scale farmers, enhancement of the international market, technological innovations, collaborations, research and development, and the promotion of novel foods were all highlighted as crucial resilience measures. Policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders are urged to adopt a comprehensive approach encompassing these measures to build a resilient and secure food future in the post-pandemic era.



    Organic agriculture is considered the most sustainable alternative to industrial agriculture due to the many positive externalities associated with implementing innovative production processes [1]. This particular production farming system [2] includes, for example: restoration and protection of biodiversity [3,4,5,6]; maintenance of soil fertility [7,8,9] and higher water holding capacity [10]; reduction of greenhouse gas emissions [11,12,13]; human health protection [1,14]. The positive effects of organic farming on the environment, especially concerning the level of agroecosystem services provided by functional biodiversity [15], are amplified by a greater territorial concentration of production activities, which makes particularly significant actions aimed at the dissemination of this production model in a given area [16,17].

    On the other hand, the quality of organic food is particularly appreciated by postmodern consumers, who are demonstrating growing attention to the healthy dimension of food [18,19], whose demand has steadily increased in recent years, especially (but not only) in the most developed countries, rising from 15.1 billion in 2000 to 96.7 in 2018, with annual growth rates that show no sign of slowing down [20].

    The success of this type of agriculture also depends on the support received at a regulatory and political level. In Europe, for example, since the 1990s, organic farming has been supported by the Common Agricultural Policy [21] and, subsequently, by the Rural Development Regulations approved over the years. More recently, in the framework of the European Green Deal, the Farm to Fork strategy [22], among the various actions to achieve the goal of a resilient and sustainable food system in an environmental, social and economic sense, sets the goal of at least 25% of the agricultural area of the EU invested in organic farming to be reached by 2030. This recognition of the potential of these models [23] is important, but it requires the identification of factors that can facilitate the transition from industrial to organic farming.

    Several studies [24,25,26,27,28] highlight that the adoption of this innovation is conditioned by multiple, sometimes interconnected, elements, including the personal characteristics of the farmer and his family (the psycho-behavioural, psychosocial factors and ethical reasons), the level of skills of the entrepreneur and the supportive factors (for example, training, information acquisition or membership of association) essential for reorganising productive and commercial activities, and the farming factors and perception of the economic and political/regulatory environment.

    Our study will contribute to this strand of the literature, assessing the impact of decisive factors on organic farmers' intentions to convert to organic farming in the Marche region and, more specifically, in the province of Pesaro-Urbino.

    The Marche region represents an interesting case because it is a 'zipper region', with a central position between Northern and Southern Italy, both in geographical terms and in terms of general economic and social conditions [29]. At the same time, it is one of the Italian regions with the greatest share of agricultural surface destined for organic farming (22.2%, in 2019). The Pesaro-Urbino province, where about 25% of farms with certified organic crops and livestock of the regional total are located (https://siar.regione.marche.it/web/public/ConsultazioneAlboBio.aspx), is characterised by the presence of pioneer farms and some supply chain in organic production. This territory is therefore configured as an area particularly suitable for the creation of programs aimed at strengthening organic agriculture, such as organic districts [30] or Area Agri-environmental Agreements1 [31].

    1 These Agreements, financed by PSR of Marche region, have the purpose of aggregating and coordinating a set of public and private subjects of a particular territory, in order to face a specific environmental problem, for example water protection, through the undertaking of specific commitments especially by organic farmers.

    To support this process, we aim to investigate the factors that may encourage (or discourage) farmers' choice of the organic farming system. The study was developed through a participatory approach, organising focus groups with experts, policymakers, and local stakeholders, to collect data and discuss the results obtained.

    Through a farmers' survey and the econometric analysis of survey data, we analysed the relationships between the farmer's choice to adopt or not to adopt organic farming and a set of personal, professional and contextual factors.

    The paper is structured as follows. Section 1 presents the main conceptual arguments proposed in the literature to explain the conversion process to organic farming. Section 2 illustrates the quantitative investigation adopted, particularly the choice and definition of the statistical analysis model and data collection. The results of the estimation procedures are reported and discussed in Section 3, whereas Section 4 presents some implications of the analysis carried out for stakeholders and policy makers and, at the same time, provides some directions for further research.

    Since the early 1990s, the organic sector has steadily grown worldwide, both in surface area and the number of producers, from 11 million hectares certified as organic in 1999 to 71.5 million hectares in 2018, and reached almost 2.8 million producers [20,32]. Europe, in particular, is one of the continents with the largest share of agricultural land devoted to organic (8.5%, in 2019, with a growth rate of 38% over the last 10 years) [33]. The positive supply trend is certainly driven by the growth in demand and exports, especially to developed countries [34], where there is a strong increase in organic food consumers [35]. In fact, in recent years, the increasing attention towards the issue of environmental protection and food safety [26,36] has led to greater demands for organic foods, which are considered healthier, tastier, and obtained through more sustainable production processes than conventional foods [18,37,38].

    In addition to excellent market prospects, several other factors may influence the choice of agricultural entrepreneurs to convert to the organic method, as highlighted by a vast body of literature.

    In general, in the initial phase of the development of this sector, entrepreneurs were driven by ethical motivations rather than economic reasons [32]: organic farming, in fact, was considered a valid alternative to intensive production systems, able to ensure the preservation of the quality of natural resources and the ecosystem [26].

    Over the years, several studies have reported the importance of other variables in the choice of production method, starting from personal characteristics. These include, for example, gender, age, and educational qualifications. In some articles, the farmers most likely to convert to organic would be mainly women [39], younger age individuals [28,40,41,42] and with a medium-high education level [25,26,35,43]; in other studies, however, older and more experienced farmers have been found to have a more favourable attitude towards this production system [44,45,46,47].

    Organic certification adoption can be driven by farmers' values and lifestyle, especially in terms of environmental attention or awareness about the impact of production activities on natural resources [32,39,48,49,50,51,52] and human health [14,25,26,27].

    In addition to social motivations, farm characteristics are also relevant for switching to this production method [25], although different studies show quite differentiated results. In fact, some analyses emphasise that large companies are less likely to convert, as they usually use more intensive production methods than small to medium-sized companies [53,54,55]. Other research shows, however, that large firms are more likely to make this shift because they have greater financial resources and have the ability to overcome one of the biggest barriers to business transformation, namely access to technical assistance, contracting, and production planning services [46,56,57].

    Shifting to more sustainable models would involve radical changes [27], which are not particularly smooth for individuals, such as farmers, who are risk averse [35,51,57,58,59].

    Among the most important motivations to convert to organic farming, economic ones should certainly be considered, especially the provision of public incentives to adopt this production model [25,26,32,39,51,56]. In the European Union, for example, the development in the 1990s was supported by the definition of the regulatory framework on organic farming (starting with Regulation (EC) 2092/1991) and the introduction of incentives for low environmental impact techniques, initially with Regulation (EC) 2078/1992 and, later, with the introduction of agri-environmental payments [60].

    Subsequently, with the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy 2014–2020, new rules for agricultural entrepreneurs were defined, such as the maintenance of ecological focus areas and sustainability as fundamental requirements to meet consumer expectations and create a competitive advantage [51].

    Moreover, after switching from conventional to organic farming, farmers report higher productivity and earnings, given the higher price level [26,28,32,61].

    The problems that hinder this process must also be considered, together with the motivations that may favour a farmer's conversion to organic. These include problems related to the availability of inputs, the difficulties of switching from conventional to organic, including those related to the bureaucratic aspects and the management of the certification system [32,35,46,49], and the lack of competent technical support [62].

    An additional constraint on conversion to organic is uncertainty about the market and commercial outlets [25,32,35,46]. However, the greatest concern appears to be related to the fear of achieving lower production yields [25,35,39,48,51] and the presence of a higher workload than that required by industrial agriculture, resulting in higher production costs [25,26,35,46]. Moreover, another aspect that can hinder the conversion to organic farming is the absence of local origin labels, which is also related to ethnocentrism [63].

    In addition to the obstacles related to higher production costs, problems related to the insufficiency of public measures to support this production system are also highlighted, in terms of contributions, advertising and food education to consumers [52,64], but especially the need for greater support for the acquisition of new knowledge and technologies [25].

    This study's main variable of interest is the respondent's "Intention to adopt organic agriculture" on the farm. This variable is measured using a single-item scale, which results in an ordinal variable with three levels: N—I have no intention, U—I am uncertain, Y—I will adopt organic agriculture.

    The frequency of responses will allow us to evaluate the share of conventional farmers interested or considering the possibility of starting the conversion process to become organic farmers.

    Through the literature analysis, the framework of the multiple factors that can facilitate or hinder the transition from conventional to organic agriculture has been defined. These factors are essentially related to drivers, obstacles, farm characteristics, and personal characteristics of the farmers.

    The different types of drivers can be broken down into economic, socio-cultural, and environmental, while the obstacles can be divided into economic-organisational, and socio-cultural.

    In addition to these, we consider the characteristics of the company and the level of satisfaction with the farm management results obtained. Finally, the personal characteristics of the farmer, such as gender, age, educational qualification, role on the farm, time spent on the farm, the municipality in which the farm is located.

    In order to confirm or reject the relevance of these factors in orienting the behavior of entrepreneurs in the territory under consideration, we carried out a multivariate regression analysis. Given the nature of the dependent variable, the ordered logit regression approach was adopted [65]. This approach allows modeling the probability of an ordinal set of outcomes Pr(Zi) based on the values of the predictors X, as in the equation (1).

    Pr(Zi)=exp(Xβ)[1+exp(Xβ)] (1)

    This analysis makes it possible to relate, with a normal distribution of errors, the polychotomous ordinal dependent variable, which in the specific case is represented by the possible choices of the entrepreneur with respect to conversion to organic farming (No, Undecided, Yes) to the various independent variables: ⅰ) drivers (Driv); ⅱ) obstacles (Obst); ⅲ) farm characteristics (AgriB); ⅳ) personal characteristics (Prof).

    Pr(Intention=No|Driv,Obst,AgriB,Prof)=exp(Xβ)[1+exp(Xβ)]
    Pr(Intention=Undecided|Driv,Obst,AgriB,Prof)=exp(Xβ)[1+exp(Xβ)]
    Pr(Intention=Yes|Driv,Obst,AgriB,Prof)=exp(Xβ)[1+exp(Xβ)] (2)

    Where:

    Xβ=Σj=1kDrivβj+Σp=1qObstβp+Σi=1nAgriBβi+Σm=1dProfβm

    Data collection is carried out through the administration of a questionnaire. This questionnaire has been defined based on the examined literature and of a series of comparisons with different privileged witnesses, among which professors of the Department of agri-food sciences and technologies of the Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna and the Department of Economics, Society, Politics of the University of Urbino Carlo Bo, agricultural entrepreneurs, business consultants and managers of some producers' organisations.

    The questionnaire is divided into four sections, aimed at collecting a wide range of qualitative and quantitative information about drivers, obstacles, farm characteristics and personal characteristics of the entrepreneur interviewed. The key question was the propensity to undertake or not to undertake the process of farm conversion to organic agriculture. The drives we identified are the most often cited as key aspects for conversion in the literature [25,26,27,32,39]. Variables such as the company's small size, the lack of professionalism within the company for bureaucratic management, the higher costs linked to the certification process are the most commonly found obstacles to conversion [25,32,35]. Other aspects emerging from the literature have been included in the questionnaire, such as age and education since younger farmers with higher education levels are more inclined to convert [25,28,35].

    Initially, the questionnaire was tested with a pre-test on 50 companies, above all, to verify the comprehensibility of the questions.

    The variables obtained from the questionnaire are reported in Table 1.

    Table 1.  Independent variables (drivers, obstacles, farm characteristics and respondent profile).
    Drivers
    DRIV_01 Organic crops allow for a higher income
    DRIV_02 Organic allows you to receive more public incentives
    DRIV_03 Organic is a tool to differentiate productions from competitors
    DRIV_04 Organic farming reflects my philosophy of life
    DRIV_05 Applying organic farming requires resourcefulness
    DRIV_06 Organic is a production method highly respectful of the environment and animals
    DRIV_07 Organic farming provides consumers with safer, healthier foods
    DRIV_08 The application of the organic method protects my health and that of other agricultural operators
    DRIV_09 Organic farming allows for better products
    DRIV_10 My area is suitable for organic farming
    DRIV_11 My family members are in favour of adopting organic farming
    DRIV_12 The presence of an organic certification mark valid throughout Europe offers high guarantees
    DRIV_13 The demand for organic products is continuously growing
    DRIV_14 Organic products can be more easily placed on the market than conventional ones
    DRIV_15 In the organic sector, there are opportunities arising from the creation of forms of integration (cooperatives, consortia, supply chains)
    Obstacles
    OBST_01 Organic production costs are too high
    OBST_02 The training required for organic is excessive
    OBST_03 The organic sector needs to be sustained with more public funding
    OBST_04 Costs (also of transport) of organic fertilisers are too expensive
    OBST_05 Finding organic raw materials (such as seeds) is very difficult
    OBST_06 My financial resources are not sufficient to undertake organic farming
    OBST_07 The administrative requirements needed to undertake organic farming are difficult to manage
    OBST_08 The technical-agronomic application of organic regulations is difficult
    OBST_09 Controls for organic certification are too strict
    OBST_10 I do not have the technical facilities and farm size to undertake organic farming
    OBST_11 It is possible to efficiently adopt the organic regime only if neighbouring farmers also adhere to it
    OBST_12 In the organic sector, it is difficult to create partnerships with other producers
    OBST_13 Selling prices of organic products are excessively high
    OBST_14 The organic system does not allow a sufficiently wide range of products to be offered
    OBST_15 The commercial channels able to enhance the value of organic products are too limited
    OBST_16 In the organic sector, the lack of a national brand is strongly perceived
    OBST_17 In the organic sector, the lack of a regional brand is strongly perceived
    OBST_18 My fellow farmers make negative comments about organic farming
    OBST_19 Organic conditions will worsen in the future
    Farm characteristics
    AGRIB_01 Farm size (ha divided in classes: " > 100"; "50-99, 99"; "20-49, 99"; "10-19, 99"; "5-9, 99"; "2-4, 99"; "1-1, 99"; " < 1")
    Respondent profile
    PROF_01 Gender (Man or Woman)
    PROF_02 Age (Years)
    PROF_07 Educational Qualification (UD = University Degree; HSD = High School Diploma; SS = Secondary School; ES = Elementary School)
    Source: Survey questionnaire.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    For the drivers and obstacles variables, a 5-point Likert scale was used, in which the response was coded with 1 = Totally Disagree, 2 = Partially Disagree, 3 = Neither, 4 = Partially Agree, and 5 = Totally Agree.

    Before reaching the definition and estimation of the final model, monovariate analysis was performed to describe the individual variables considered. In order to understand the influence of these variables on the dependent, for purely exploratory purposes, a bivariate analysis was carried out among all the variables belonging to the four categories considered and the outcome variable Intention. After that, for the variables belonging to the Drivers and Obstacles categories, an Explanatory Factor Analysis was carried out in order to aggregate the variables that express a common concept. A correlation analysis with the Kendall method was carried out for personal characteristics variables. This aggregation will be conducted, within the identified categories, with arithmetic mean in cases with a reduced number of variables, and with the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) technique, in those with a high number of variables.

    The R software [66] and the packages 'polycor' [67], 'MASS' [68], 'readxl' [69], 'psych' [70] and 'catspec' [71] were used to process and analyse the data.

    Data collection was carried out through interviews with farmers who run conventional farms and are active in the territory of the Province of Pesaro-Urbino, selected through a non-probabilistic sampling procedure. Convenience sampling was carried out by inviting farmers belonging to the main producer organisations active in the territory (Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori and Coldiretti) to face-to-face interviews at their headquarters or on their farms, or participants in public events (seminars, conferences) held in various municipalities of the province. In order to reduce the unreliability of inference concerning quantitative information, especially regarding the response on the intention to convert to organic farming, entrepreneurs were informed that the interviews were carried out as part of a research project of the Department of Economics, Society, Politics of the University of Urbino, without specifying the objective.

    The administration took place during the period October 2018–January 2019. A total of 202 entrepreneurs were interviewed, representing 2.4% of the reference population [72], whose company location falls in 40 municipalities out of 54 in the Province of Pesaro-Urbino. In the assumption of a random sample, this sample size would imply a power of 7.1% considering a binomial variable at a 33% expected proportion and a confidence level (α) of 0.05.

    The survey data allowed us to analyse the four categories of variables that explain the farmer's decision.

    The descriptive statistics of the single independent variables were highlighted with the monovariate analysis. The results are reported in Supplementary Tables 14.

    The data collected are in line with the demographic characteristics of the European and Italian agricultural production structure [33,73], especially concerning the low presence of young entrepreneurs (10%), with a median age of our sample equal to 54 years (i.e. under 40 years of age, according to the indications of ISTAT and the Agricultural Accounting Information Network).

    In terms of educational level, 40% of respondents have a university degree (82 respondents), 8% have a high school diploma (17 respondents), 9% have a middle school diploma (18 respondents), and the remaining 42% have a primary school diploma (85 respondents). The majority of farmers, about 77%, work full-time in agriculture. In addition, in 54% of cases, it was found that at least one other member of the household works on the same farm. In other words, there is a clear prevalence of family management. Finally, most farmers are men (90%), and women represent only 10% of the sample.

    "Intention" is an ordinal dependent variable, measuring the propensity to adopt the organic production system, with three levels (NO, UNDECIDED, and YES). Figure 1 shows the number of responses in the sample.

    Figure 1.  Intention to convert to organic agriculture.

    An ordered logistic regression model (Ordered Logit) was estimated to identify the factors that most influence the propensity to convert to organic farming. In equation (3), reformulating (2), the predictors (i.e., the independent variables) are fifteen different motivations and nineteen issues that may or may not have driven farmers to convert, one farm characteristic (farm size), and three personal respondent's characteristics (gender, age, and education level).

    Pr(Intention=No|Drivj,Obstp,AgriBi,Profm)=exp(Xβ)[1+exp(Xβ)]
    Pr(Intention=Undecided|Drivj,Obstp,AgriBi,Profm)=exp(Xβ)[1+exp(Xβ)]
    Pr(Intention=Yes|Drivj,Obstp,AgriBi,Profm)=exp(Xβ)[1+exp(Xβ)] (3)

    Where:

    Xβ=β0+Σj=115βjDrivj+Σp=119βpObstp+βi=1AgriBi+Σm=13βmProfm

    Factor analysis, specifically PCA, which allows the extraction of a small number of independent, interpretable factors from a high-dimensional observed dataset with complex structure [74], was used to summarise the variables from the drivers and obstacles reported in Table 2.

    Table 2.  Synthesis variables.
    Synthesis variables Original variables
    Social and environmental sustainability—SocEnvSust Farmer's philosophy of life (DRIV_04)-Respect for the environment and animal welfare (DRIV_06)-Food safety (DRIV_07)-Health protection (DRIV_08)-Quality of organic products (DRIV_09)-Family members are favourable (DRIV_11)
    Technical and bureaucratic requirements—TecBurReq Bureaucratic compliance (OBST_07)-Technical implementation of legislation (OBST_08)
    Inadequate corporate assets—InadCorpAs Financial resources of the farmer (OBST_06)-Available technical facilities (OBST_10)-Controls for organic certification are too strict (OBST_09)
    Local Visibility—LocVis Absence of national label (OBST_16)-Absence of regional label (OBST_17)
    Personal Characteristics—PersChar Age (PROF_02)-Education qualification (PROF_07)
    Source: Analysis of the survey data.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Drivers reflecting a positive attitude towards organic farming were aggregated into a single factor (SocEnvSust-Social and environmental sustainability), which had a factor loading greater than 0.6 (see Figure 2). These drivers were related to the farmer's philosophy of life (DRIV_04), the resourcefulness of farmers (DRIV_05), the respect for the environment and animal welfare (DRIV_06), food safety (DRIV_07), health protection (DRIV_08), higher quality of organic products (DRIV_09) and the favour of family members towards this production method (DRIV_11).

    Figure 2.  Factor analysis for drivers.

    Regarding the obstacles, the variables with a factor loading greater than 0.6 (see Figure 3) were aggregated into three summarising factors by averaging them: the perceived difficulties in the management of bureaucratic requirements (OBST_07) and the technical-agronomic application of the organic regulations necessary to undertake organic farming (OBST_08) were aggregated in the factor TecBurReq-Technical and bureaucratic requirements; the second factor InadCorpAs-Inadequate corporate assets aggregates the variables on the perceived lack of financial availability possessed by the farmer (OBST_06), absence of technical facilities and adequate company size (OBST_10) and difficulty of complying with the controls for organic certification considered too strict (OBST_09); finally, the lack of a national organic brand (OBST_17) and a regional organic brand (OBST_16), were aggregated in the factor LocVis-Local Visibility.

    Figure 3.  Factor analysis for obstacles.

    Regarding the characteristics of the respondent's profile, a "Kendall correlation"2 analysis was carried out between the identified variables to understand the correlation level, and the results are shown in Table 3.

    2 Values with a correlation greater than 20% are considered statistically significant, although those just above this value will be weakly correlated while those above 40-50% will be more so.

    Table 3.  Correlation between personal characteristics variables.
    PROF_01_l Age PROF_07_l
    PROF_01_l 1.00 0.11 0.00
    Age 0.11 1.00 −0.29
    PROF_07_l 0.00 −0.29 1.00
    Source: Analysis of the survey data, Kendall's correlation coefficients.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Among the variables of the respondent's personal characteristics, it can be seen that those relating to age (Age) and the educational qualification of farmers (PROF_07) are negatively correlated with a coefficient of −29%. Those belonging to the youngest age groups are, on average, also the most educated and, for this reason, the two variables have been merged, with mean, into a single synthesis variable PersChar-Personal Characteristics.

    In the final multivariate order logit regression model, the new summary variables, SocEnvSust, TecBurReq, LocVis, InadCorpAs, PersChar, have been included.

    The variable company size was not included as the bivariate analysis with Intention did not show it to be statistically significant.

    Pr(Intention=No|SocEnvSust,TecBurReq,LocVis,InadCorpAs,PersChar)=exp(Xβ)[1+exp(Xβ)]
    Pr(Intention=Undecided|SocEnvSust,TecBurReq,LocVis,InadCorpAs,PersChar)=exp(Xβ)[1+exp(Xβ)]
    Pr(Intention=Yes|SocEnvSust,TecBurReq,LocVis,InadCorpAs,PersChar)=exp(Xβ)[1+exp(Xβ)] (4)

    Where:

    Xβ=β0+β1SocEnvSust+β2TecBurReq+β3LocVis+β4InadCorpAs+β5PersChar

    To assess the significance of the synthesis variables in the final regression model, we used the Residual Deviance, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the t-value3 and the signs of the coefficients of the value, allow us to interpret the effect, positive or negative, that each has on the probability of adopting the organic model.

    3 Statistically significant variable when the t-value, in absolute value, is greater than or equal to 1.96 with 95% probability.

    In the estimated model, two variables (SocEnvSust and LocVis) assume a positive coefficient sign, showing an effect in favour of conversion to organic farming (Table 4).

    Table 4.  Multivariate regression results.
    Value Std.
    Error
    t-value
    SocEnvSust 0.73537 0.1625 4.5264
    PersChar −0.35665 0.1400 −2.5471
    TecBurReq −0.18323 0.1444 −1.2688
    LocVis 0.02692 0.1399 0.1924
    InadCorpAs −0.18547 0.1433 −1.2942
    Source: Analysis of the survey data.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Social and environmental sustainability is the variable that most influences the likelihood of adopting organic farming. In particular, the greater the farmer's degree of attention to the social and environmental benefits achievable through organic farming, the greater the likelihood that he or she will be inclined to undertake the conversion process to organic farming.

    This result, which appears consistent with those reported in other studies [25,26,27,32,39], is essentially attributable to ethical and environmental motivation, considered to be the most significant driver in orienting the choices of the first generation of organic farmers. In the province of Pesaro-Urbino, in particular, the high significance of this variable can also be explained by the widespread knowledge of the successful experiences of many organic agri-food companies that, for several decades, have successfully combined environmental sustainability with the achievement of high levels of competitiveness at a national and international level [75]. The variable that seems to have a lower level of influence is inherent to local visibility.

    Vice versa, the other three variables (Personal characteristics, Technical and bureaucratic requirements and Inadequate farm assets) have a negative coefficient, highlighting the farmer's tendency to maintain, with greater probability, the conventional production system. In particular, when the variable 'Personal characteristics' (which is highly influential) takes on a higher value, i.e. when the farmer's age increases or when the level of education decreases, the probability that the individual adopts organic farming tends to decrease. For example, when considering two farmers with perfectly equal holdings, the older or less educated farmer is less likely to convert to organic farming than a younger, more educated farmer.

    These results are in line with the evidence from the literature review, which points to a higher propensity to convert to organic farming among younger and highly educated farmers [25,28,35]. According to [25,32,35], these aspects, such as the small size of the company, the lack of professionalism within the company for bureaucratic management, the higher costs related also to the certification process are the most marked obstacles to conversion.

    To satisfy the growing demand for organic food, a substantial increase in the area devoted to this farming system is necessary [76]. Internationally, the value of organic retail sales has grown from 15 billion euros in 2000 to 106 billion euros in 2019, and, in the same period, Europe has gone from 7 billion euros to 45 billion euros, of which 4 billion in Italy [20]. Apparently, the possibility of obtaining more remunerative and less volatile prices, in the face of production costs that are not necessarily higher and of yields that are not always lower than those of industrial agriculture [77,78,79], are not enough to incentivise conversion to organic farming [16].

    This work analysed the motivations and possible obstacles for the conversion process in a specific territory, providing information that could help policymakers identify appropriate support measures [80]. The effectiveness of policy measures is closely related to the knowledge of the factors that influence the propensity of agricultural entrepreneurs to convert to organic farming. Our study confirms that propensity is strongly related to the individual's characteristics and needs.

    Although in areas like the Province of Pesaro-Urbino, organic farming penetration is already quite high compared to other areas and the objectives of Farm to Fork [22], this penetration is not sufficient to reach the territorial scale needed to fully deploy the positive environmental effects of organic farming [2,17]. For companies operating in the local food supply chains, it would be necessary to promote economically sustainable production, distribution, and consumption projects, also favouring consumers' involvement [81,82].

    More structured technical assistance could remove some of the identified obstacles in the case we examined. For instance, providing knowledge to young entrepreneurs and technical-organisational support to farmers worried about the bureaucratic burden through innovation transfer agencies or supporting integration and cooperation to improve the farms' quality management systems. These measures would facilitate the transition towards more sustainable production models [35,49] in environmental, social and economic terms, offering development opportunities to small and medium-sized enterprises and the most marginal rural areas.

    An open question is whether these conclusions are valid in a context in which the penetration of organic farming is lower or inexistent. It may be reasonable to assume that farmers' attitudes about organic farming may be affected by the information they receive from their peers. Therefore, if the community does not include organic farmers or they are very few, a lack of trust in the information about the potential benefits of this farming system is to be expected. Subjective norms and the surrounding environment is positively correlated with the probability of converting to organic farming for less developed countries in Europe where this production model is still in its early stages [83]. This issue represents a limitation of this research, implying the need to analyse the predictors of organic farming adoption in a low penetration context.

    We thank the Regione Marche for financing the PhD fellowship of S.R. (POR Marche FSE 2014/2020, Progetto "Dottorato Innovativo").

    Elena Viganò also acknowledges funding from the PRIN 2017 project 20177J2LS9 004 ”Innovation for global challenges in a connected world: the role of local resources and socio-economic conditions”.

    We would like to thank all the stakeholders who help us with the design of the questionnaire and its implementation as prof. Gianluca Vitali (University of Bologna), the Operational Units of the Province of Pesaro-Urbino of CIA and Coldiretti, Fondazione Girolomoni (Silvia Cavinato and Maria Girolomoni), Cooperativa Gino Girolomoni (Giovanni Battista Girolomoni and Pierfrancesco Fattori), Consorzio Marche Biologiche (Francesco Torriani), and the President of Province of Pesaro-Urbino, Giuseppe Paolini.

    We also thank the reviewers whose comments and suggestions allowed our work to be improved.

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.

    Conceptualisation E.V., M.C. and S.R.; Literature review F.G., M.C. and S.R.; Qualitative Analysis and Data collection F.G. and S.R.; Methodology M.C. and S.R.; Software M.C. and S.R.; Validation E.V., M.C., F.G. and S.R.; Wrote the paper E.V., M.C. and S.R. All authors contributed to the manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted and final version.

    Table Supplementary 1.  Descriptive analysis of independent variables: drivers.
    Variable label Description Totally disagree Partially disagree Neutral Partially agree Totally
    agree
    DRIV_01 Organic crops allow to obtain a higher income 27 40 24 83 28
    DRIV_02 Organic allows you to receive more public incentives 3 6 10 56 127
    DRIV_034 Organic is a tool to differentiate productions from competitors 9 17 20 76 79
    DRIV_04 Organic farming reflects my philosophy of life 17 19 53 43 70
    DRIV_05 Applying organic farming requires resourcefulness 16 15 44 56 71
    DRIV_06 Organic is a production method highly respectful of the environment and animals 4 13 8 46 131
    DRIV_07 Organic farming provides consumers with safer, healthier foods 7 18 6 60 111
    DRIV_08 The application of the organic method protects my health and that of other agricultural operators 5 14 6 45 132
    DRIV_09 Organic farming allows to make better products 16 23 32 72 59
    DRIV_10 My area is suitable for organic farming 16 20 25 51 90
    DRIV_11 My family members are in favour of adopting organic farming 22 18 42 51 69
    DRIV_12 The presence of an organic certification mark valid throughout Europe offers high guarantees 16 29 43 55 59
    DRIV_13 The demand of organic products is steadily growing 4 5 12 60 121
    DRIV_14 Organic products can be more easily placed on the market than conventional ones 9 25 28 72 68
    DRIV_15 In the organic sector, there are opportunities arising from the creation of forms of integration (cooperatives, consortia, supply chains) 6 11 61 68 56

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    4 One omitted variable.

    Table Supplementary 2.  Descriptive analysis of independent variables: obstacles.
    Variable label Description Totally disagree Partially disagree Neutral Partially agree Totally agree
    OBST_01 Organic production costs are too high 26 43 22 64 47
    OBST_02 The training required for organic is excessive 24 40 56 45 37
    OBST_03 Organic sector needs to be sustained with more public funding 18 21 15 57 91
    OBST_04 Costs (also of transport) of organic fertilizers are too expensive 16 17 53 49 67
    OBST_05 Finding organic raw materials (such as seeds) is very difficult 24 28 43 63 44
    OBST_06 My financial resources are not sufficient to undertake organic farming 63 35 45 32 27
    OBST_07 The administrative requirements needed to undertake organic farming are difficult to manage 12 11 19 49 111
    OBST_08 The technical-agronomic application of organic regulations is difficult 16 8 44 78 56
    OBST_09 Controls for organic certification are too strict 50 41 47 45 19
    OBST_10 I do not have the technical facilities and farm size to undertake organic farming 84 20 42 26 30
    OBST_11 It is possible to efficiently adopt the organic regime only if neighbouring farmers also adhere to it 45 18 43 47 49
    OBST_12 In the organic sector, it is difficult to create partnerships with other producers 34 24 68 35 41
    OBST_13 Selling prices of organic products are excessively expensive 63 37 41 37 24
    OBST_14 The organic system does not allow a sufficiently wide range of products to be offered 49 34 47 38 34
    OBST_15 The commercial channels able to enhance the value of organic products are too limited 19 37 31 54 61
    OBST_16 In the organic sector, the lack of a national brand is strongly perceived 12 11 69 36 74
    OBST_17 In the organic sector, the lack of a regional brand is strongly perceived 12 13 76 50 51
    OBST_18 My fellow farmers make negative comments about organic farming 35 35 63 43 26
    OBST_19 Organic conditions will worsen in the future 72 49 46 23 12

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3.  Descriptive analysis of independent variables: respondent profile.
    Variable label Description Basic statistics
    PROF_01 Gender (n.) Male = 180 Female = 22
    PROF_02 Age (years) Min = 20
    Max = 82
    Median = 54
    Mean = 52.67
    SD = 1.705099
    PROF_07 Education level5 UD = 82 HSD = 17 SS = 18 ES = 85

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    5 UD = University Degree; HSD = High School Diploma; SS = Secondary School; SE = Elementary School.

    Table 4.  Descriptive analysis of independent variables: farm characteristics.
    Variable label Description Basic statistics
    AGRIB_01 Farm size6
    (hectares)
    Min = 1
    Max = 8
    Median = 6
    Mean = 5.562
    SD = 1.705099

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    6 One omitted variable.



    [1] Giorgi G, Lecca LI, Alessio F, et al. (2020) COVID-19-related mental health effects in the workplace: A narrative review. Intl J of Environ Res and Pub H 17: 7857. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217857 doi: 10.3390/ijerph17217857
    [2] Trevino LK (1986) Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Acad Manage Rev 11: 601–617. https://doi.org/10.2307/258313 doi: 10.2307/258313
    [3] Reid G, O'Beirne N, Gibson N (2020) How to reshape results during the COVID-19 crisis E.Y. Ireland. Available from: https://www.ey.com/en_ie/transactions/companies-can-reshape-results-and-planfor-covid-19-recovery.
    [4] Galanakis CM (2020) The food systems in the era of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic crisis. Foods 9: 523. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9040523 doi: 10.3390/foods9040523
    [5] ECDC (2020) COVID-19 clusters and outbreaks in occupational settings in the EU/EEA and the U.K. Stockholm: ECDC.
    [6] Del Rio C, Malani PN (2020) COVID-19-new insights on a rapidly changing epidemic. JAMA 323: 1339–1340. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.3072 doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3072
    [7] Agbugba IK, Agbagwa SK, Anumudu CK, et al. (2022) The evolving state of food security in Nigeria amidst the COVID-19 pandemic review. Open Agric 7: 899–909. https://doi.org/10.1515/opag2022-0149 doi: 10.1515/opag2022-0149
    [8] Boughton D, Goeb J, Lambrecht I, et al. (2021) Impacts of COVID-19 on agricultural production and food systems in late transforming Southeast Asia: The case of Myanmar. Agric Syst 188: 103026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.103026 doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.103026
    [9] Cariappa AA, Acharya KK, Adhav CA, et al. (2021) Impact of COVID-19 on the Indian agricultural system: A 10-point strategy for post-pandemic recovery. Outlook Agric 50: 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727021989060 doi: 10.1177/0030727021989060
    [10] Sers CF, Mughal M (2020) Covid-19 outbreak and the need for rice self-sufficiency in West Africa. World Dev 135: 105071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105071 doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105071
    [11] Devereux S, Béné C, Hoddinott J (2020) I am conceptualizing COVID-19's impacts on household food security. Food Secur 12: 769–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01085-0 doi: 10.1007/s12571-020-01085-0
    [12] Hirvonen K, Abate GT, de Brauw A (2020) Survey suggests the rising food and nutrition insecurity risk in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, as COVID-19 restrictions continue. In: COVID-19 and global food security, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) book chapters, chapter 10, 46–49. Available from: https://ideas.repec.org/h/fpr/ifpric/133822.html.
    [13] Espitia A, Rocha N, Ruta M (2020) Covid-19 and food protectionism: The impact of the pandemic and export restrictions on world food markets. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 9253. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-9253
    [14] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2020) Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC): Food systems and COVID-19 in Latin America and the Caribbean: Health risks; safety of workers and food safety, Bulletin 4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9112en.
    [15] Jha PK, Middendorf G, Faye A, et al. (2023) Lives and livelihoods in smallholder farming systems of Senegal: Impacts, adaptation, and resilience to COVID-19. Land 12: 178. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12010178 doi: 10.3390/land12010178
    [16] U.N. General Assembly International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, A/RES/2200 2023. Available from: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f47924.html.
    [17] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2008) An introduction to the basic concepts of food security. Food security information for action Practical guides. Available from: https://www.fao.org/3/al936e/al936e00.pdf.
    [18] Sridhar A, Balakrishnan A, Jacob MM, et al. (2023). Global Impact of COVID-19 on agriculture: role of sustainable agriculture and digital farming. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30: 42509–42525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19358-w doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-19358-w
    [19] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2023) From Sustainable crop production and COVID-19. Food and Agriculture Organization. Available from: https://www.fao.org/3/ca8807en/CA8807EN.pdf.
    [20] Weersink A, Von Massow M, Bannon N, et al. (2021) COVID-19 and the agri-food system in the United States and Canada. Agric Syst 188: 103039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.103039 doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.103039
    [21] Dagunga G, Ayamga M, Laube W, et al. (2023) Agroecology and resilience of smallholder food security: A systematic review. Front Sustainable Food Syst 7: 1267630. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1267630 doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1267630
    [22] Lawrence M (2023) Reimagining resilient agri-food supply chains. National Institute of Food and Agriculture USDA. Available from: https://www.nifa.usda.gov/about-nifa/impacts/reimagining-resilient-agri-food-supply-chains.
    [23] Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2021). Keep calm and carry on feeding: Agriculture and food policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis, 2023. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/keep-calm-and-carry-on-feeding-agriculture-and-food-policy-responses-to-the-covid-19-crisis-db1bf302/.
    [24] Raptou E, Mattas K, Tsakiridou E, et al. (2022) Assessing the aftermath of COVID-19 outbreak in the agro-food system: An exploratory study of experts' perspectives. Front Nutr 9: 769626. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.769626 doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.769626
    [25] Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg 88: 105906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906 doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906
    [26] Jansen C, van der Merwe P (2015) Teaching practice in the 21st century: Emerging trends, challenges and opportunities. Univers J Educ Res 3: 190–199. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2015.030304 doi: 10.13189/ujer.2015.030304
    [27] Tumin D, Tobias JD (2019) The peer review process. Saudi J Anaesth 13: S52–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_544_18 doi: 10.4103/sja.SJA_544_18
    [28] Organization for Economic and Cooperation Development (OECD) Statistics for coronavirus SARS CoV-2 and COVID-19 disease in country. Gynevra: OECD, 2022. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/economic-outlook/november-2022/.
    [29] Kansiime MK, Tambo JA, Mugambi I, et al. (2021) COVID-19 implications on household income and food security in Kenya and Uganda: Findings from a rapid assessment. World Dev 137: 105199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105199 doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105199
    [30] Janssen M, Chang BP, Hristov H, et al. (2021) Changes in food consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic: Analysis of consumer survey data from the first lockdown period in Denmark, Germany, and Slovenia. Front Nutr 8: 60. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.635859 doi: 10.3389/fnut.2021.635859
    [31] Rudin-Rush L, Michler JD, Josephson A, et al. (2022) Food insecurity during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in four African countries. Food Policy 111: 102306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102306 doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102306
    [32] Tripathi HG, Smith HE, Sait SM, et al. (2021) Impacts of COVID-19 on diverse farm systems in Tanzania and South Africa. Sustainability 13: 9863. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179863 doi: 10.3390/su13179863
    [33] Priyadarshini P, Abhilash PC (2021) Agri-food systems in India: Concerns and policy recommendations for building resilience in post-COVID-19 pandemic times. Global Food Secur 29: 100537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100537 doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100537
    [34] Nchanji EB, Lutomia CK (2021) Regional impact of COVID-19 on the production and food security of common bean smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implication for SDGs. Global Food Secur 29: 100524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100524 doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100524
    [35] Hassen TB, El Bilali H, Allahyari MS, et al. (2021) Food purchase and eating behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey of Russian adults. Appetite 165: 105309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105309 doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105309
    [36] Skalko D, Kalyva ZC (2023) Exploring the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on food choice motives: A systematic review. Sustainability 15: 1606. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021606 doi: 10.3390/su15021606
    [37] de Souza TSP, Miyahira RF, Matheus JRV, et al. (2022) Food services in times of uncertainty: Remodeling operations, changing trends, and looking into perspectives after the COVID-19 pandemic. Trends Food Sci Technol 120: 301–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2022.01.005 doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2022.01.005
    [38] Lombardo M, Guseva E, Perrone MA, et al. (2021) Changes in eating habits and physical activity after COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns in Italy. Nutrients 13: 4522. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13124522 doi: 10.3390/nu13124522
    [39] Rodrigues JF, dos Santos Filho MTC, de Oliveira LEA, et al. (2021) Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on food habits and perceptions: A study with Brazilians. Trends Food Sci Technol 116: 992–1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.09.005 doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2021.09.005
    [40] Kumareswaran K, Jayasinghe GY (2022) A systematic review on ensuring the global food security and COVID-19 pandemic resilient food systems: Towards accomplishing sustainable development goals targets. Discover Sustainability 3: 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00096-5 doi: 10.1007/s43621-022-00096-5
    [41] Njora B, Yilmaz H (2023) The future of food systems and food security in the context of lessons learned from COVID-19 pandemic as a global challenge: insights from a qualitative perspective. AgriLife Sci J 12: 143–157. https://doi.org/10.17930/AGL2023117 doi: 10.17930/AGL2023117
    [42] Fan S, Teng P, Chew P, et al. (2021) Food system resilience and COVID-19–Lessons from the Asian experience. Global Food Secur 28: 100501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100501 doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100501
    [43] Weinkauf K, Everitt T (2023) Food system resilience during COVID-19: The role of local producers in rural Canada. Can Food Stud (La Revue canadienne des études sur l'alimentation) 10: 82–101. https://doi.org/10.15353/cfs-rcea.v10i2.594
    [44] Balistreri E, Baquedano F, Beghin JC (2022) The Impact of COVID‐19 and associated policy responses on global food security. Agric Econ 53: 855–869. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12749 doi: 10.1111/agec.12749
    [45] Nemes G, Chiffoleau Y, Zollet S, et al. (2021) The impact of COVID-19 on alternative and local food systems and the potential for the sustainability transition: Insights from 13 countries. Sustainable Prod Consumption 28: 591–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.06.022 doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.06.022
    [46] Galanakis CM, Rizou M, Aldawoud TM, et al. (2021) Innovations and technology disruptions in the food sector within the COVID-19 pandemic and post-lockdown era. Trends Food Sci Technol 110: 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.02.002 doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2021.02.002
    [47] Sama-Berrocal C, Martínez-Azúa BC (2022) How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected the different branches of the agri-food industry in Extremadura (Spain)? Land 11: 938. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11060938 doi: 10.3390/land11060938
    [48] Ghosh-Jerath S, Kapoor R, Dhasmana A, et al. (2022) Effect of COVID-19 pandemic on food systems and determinants of resilience in indigenous communities of Jharkhand State, India: A serial cross-sectional study. Front Sustainable Food Syst 6: 724321. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.724321 doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.724321
    [49] Manduna K (2023) The implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on South African food security: A paradigmatic turn for building back better. Int J Soc Agric Food 29: 45–64.
    [50] O'Hara S, Toussaint EC (2021) Food access in crisis: Food security and COVID-19. Ecol Econ 180: 106859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106859 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106859
    [51] Manyong V, Bokanga M, Nyamuhirwa DMA, et al. (2022) COVID-19 outbreak and rural household food security in the Western Democratic Republic of the Congo. World Dev Perspectives 28: 100469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2022.100469 doi: 10.1016/j.wdp.2022.100469
    [52] Rahman MT, Akter S, Rana MR, et al. (2022) How COVID-19 pandemic affects achieved food security in Bangladesh: A perspective with required policy interventions. J Agric Food Res 7: 100258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2021.100258 doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2021.100258
    [53] Éliás BA, Jámbor A (2021) Food security and COVID-19: A systematic review of the first-year experience. Sustainability 13: 5294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095294 doi: 10.3390/su13095294
    [54] Béné C, Bakker D, Chavarro MJ, et al. (2021) Global assessment of the impacts of COVID-19 on food security. Global Food Sec 31: 100575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100575 doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100575
    [55] Onyeaka H, Tamasiga P, Nkoutchou H, et al. (2022) Food insecurity and outcomes during COVID-19 pandemic in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Agric Food Sec 11: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-022-00394-1 doi: 10.1186/s40066-022-00394-1
    [56] Gaitán-Rossi P, Vilar-Compte M, Teruel G, et al. (2021) Food insecurity measurement and prevalence estimates during the COVID-19 pandemic in a repeated cross-sectional survey in Mexico. Public Health Nutr 24: 412–421. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980020004000 doi: 10.1017/S1368980020004000
    [57] Kleve S, Bennett CJ, Davidson ZE, et al. (2021) Food insecurity prevalence, severity and determinants in Australian households during the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of women. Nutrients 13: 4262. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13124262 doi: 10.3390/nu13124262
    [58] Lauren BN, Silver ER, Faye AS, et al. (2021) Predictors of households at risk for food insecurity in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health Nutr 24: 3929–3936. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021000355 doi: 10.1017/S1368980021000355
    [59] Agbugba IK, Agbagwa SK, Anumudu CK, et al. (2022) The evolving state of food security in Nigeria amidst the COVID-19 pandemic—A review. Open Agric 7: 899–909. https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2022-0149 doi: 10.1515/opag-2022-0149
    [60] Kakaei H, Nourmoradi H, Bakhtiyari S, et al. (2022) Chapter One—Effect of COVID-19 on food security, hunger, and food crisis. In: Dehghani MH, Karri RR, Roy S (Eds.), COVID-19 and the Sustainable Development Goals, Elsevier, 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91307-2.00005-5
    [61] Tan SP, Ng LC, Lyndon N, et al. (2023) A review on post-COVID-19 impacts and opportunities of the agri-food supply chain in Malaysia. Peer J 11: e15228. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15228 doi: 10.7717/peerj.15228
    [62] Kumar A, Mangla SK, Kumar P, et al. (2021) Mitigate risks in perishable food supply chains: Learning from COVID-19. Technol Forecast Soc Change 166: 120643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120643 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120643
    [63] Cavallo A, Olivieri FM (2022) Sustainable local development and agri-food system in the post-Covid crisis: The case of Rome. Cities 131: 103994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103994 doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2022.103994
    [64] Biazoti AR, Nakamura AC, Nagib G, et al. (2021) The impact of COVID-19 on urban agriculture in São Paulo, Brazil. Sustainability 13: 6185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116185 doi: 10.3390/su13116185
    [65] Coleman-Jensen A, Rabbit M, Gregory C, et al. (2021) Household food security in the United States in 2020. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Report number: ERR-298. Washington, DC.
    [66] O'Hara S, Ivanic M (2022) Food security and lifestyle vulnerabilities as systemic influencers of COVID-19 survivability. Med Res Arch 10: 2989. https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v10i8.2989 doi: 10.18103/mra.v10i8.2989
    [67] Ahmed F, Islam A, Pakrashi D, et al. (2021) Determinants and dynamics of food insecurity during COVID-19 in rural Bangladesh. Food Policy 101: 102066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102066 doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102066
    [68] Amare M, Abay KA, Tiberti L, et al. (2021) COVID-19 and food security: Panel data evidence from Nigeria. Food Policy 101: 102099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102099 doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102099
    [69] Basiron NA, Mazlan M, Adenkunle SM (2022) Consumer's behaviour in the consumption of fresh farm product during Covid-19 pandemic at Alor Gajah, Melaka. AgroTech-Food Sci, Tech Environ 1: 25–32. https://doi.org/10.53797/agrotech.v1i1.4.2022 doi: 10.53797/agrotech.v1i1.4.2022
    [70] Hadi FSA, Yin CF, Ahmad MA (2022) Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on food expenditure in Perak. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci 12: 2703–2712. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i11/15740 doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i11/15740
    [71] Suraya A, Noor Dzuhaidah O, Erni Marlina S, et al. (2021) A review on food security policy on agriculture and food in Sabah, Malaysia. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 1103: 012023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1103/1/012023 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1103/1/012023
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Aasheesh Dixit, Pinakhi Suvadarshini, Dewang Vijay Pagare, Analysis of barriers to organic farming adoption in developing countries: a grey-DEMATEL and ISM approach, 2022, 2044-0839, 10.1108/JADEE-06-2022-0111
    2. Isabell Richter, Nicolas E. Neef, Alireza Moghayedi, Folasade Mary Owoade, Kutemba Kapanji-Kakoma, Francis Sheena, Kaliyadasa Ewon, Willing to be the change: Perceived drivers and barriers to participation in urban smart farming projects, 2023, 0735-2166, 1, 10.1080/07352166.2023.2232060
    3. L. Krasilnikova, D. Balandin, E. Balandin, G. Uzakov, I. Chudov, A. Gibadullin, Z. Zalilova, Monitoring the use of mineral fertilizers in rural areas of the region, 2023, 71, 2117-4458, 01105, 10.1051/bioconf/20237101105
    4. Oksana Bialkovska, Nataliia Poprozman, Andrii Zelenskyi, Nataliia Fedorchuk, Yaroslav Huk, Prospects for the introduction of a green economy in the agricultural sector of Ukraine for the next 10 years, 2024, 27, 2709-8877, 163, 10.48077/scihor6.2024.163
    5. Marilena Gemtou, Konstantina Kakkavou, Evangelos Anastasiou, Spyros Fountas, Soren Marcus Pedersen, Gohar Isakhanyan, Kassa Tarekegn Erekalo, Serafin Pazos-Vidal, Farmers’ Transition to Climate-Smart Agriculture: A Systematic Review of the Decision-Making Factors Affecting Adoption, 2024, 16, 2071-1050, 2828, 10.3390/su16072828
    6. Francesca Monticone, Antonella Samoggia, Unveiling farmers' perspectives on urban food policies: The case of farmers' markets in Bologna (Italy), 2025, 160, 02642751, 105806, 10.1016/j.cities.2025.105806
    7. Selene Righi, Elena Viganò, Innovativeness in organic farming system: The case of the Marche region, 2025, 1126-1668, 137, 10.3280/ecag2024oa17604
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1903) PDF downloads(154) Cited by(10)

Figures and Tables

Figures(4)  /  Tables(5)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog