Next Article in Journal
Multidimensional Evaluation Model for Sustainable and Smart Urban Mobility in Global South Cities: A Citizen-Centred Comprehensive Framework
Previous Article in Journal
Littering Behaviour in Multicultural Slums: A Case Study from Brazil
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 10
10.3390/su17104683
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

The Role That Local Food Plants Can Play in Improving Nutrition Security and Reducing Seasonal Scarcity in Rural Communities: A Multi-Country Study

by
Gea Galluzzi
1,*,
Gisella S. Cruz-Garcia
2,
Konstantina Maria Togka
2,
Bert Visser
2 and
Hilton Mbozi
1
1
Sowing Diversity = Harvesting Security Programme, Oxfam Novib, 2514 HD The Hague, The Netherlands
2
Seeds for Resilience Programme, Oxfam Novib, 2514 HD The Hague, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(10), 4683; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104683
Submission received: 10 February 2025 / Revised: 5 May 2025 / Accepted: 15 May 2025 / Published: 20 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainability, Biodiversity and Conservation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Local food plants contribute to dietary diversity, and hence, to food and nutrition security in rural households of low- and middle-income countries. However, their consumption and use are declining, in favour of simplified diets or industrial foods. This paper presents data from the Sowing Diversity = Harvesting Security programme, which aimed at improving nutrition through better use of local, underused agrobiodiversity in six low- or mid-income countries. Through a Farmer Field School approach, rural communities’ perceptions on nutrition, local food plant use, and food scarcity coping strategies were gathered. Overall, the results showed that farmers recognise the relationship which exists between increasingly impoverished diets and the (declining) use of local food plants. They attributed such a decline to multiple, intertwined factors, being both socioeconomic and cultural, as well as agronomic or environmental. Despite a declining trend, communities still heavily rely on local food plants during food scarcity periods: indeed, turning to local and wild plants emerged as one of the most frequent coping strategies in all countries, and this trend was stronger as the length and severity of the scarcity period increased. In this paper, we discuss the opportunity to further leverage the role of local food plants through integrated (“field to plate”) actions as a way to conserve valuable agricultural biodiversity while enhancing local food and nutrition security.

1. Introduction

An adequate nutrient intake and a well-balanced diet are crucial aspects of proper nutrition, which is essential for a healthy lifestyle and disease prevention [1,2,3,4,5]. When diets are not sufficiently diverse, people may suffer from one or more forms of malnutrition: undernutrition, nutrition deficiencies, obesity, and non-communicable diseases [6,7]. An affordable, sustainable and efficient way to ensure adequate dietary diversity, and hence, combat food insecurity is through the sustainable consumption of local food plants [8,9]. Local food plants can be described as all species that occur in local ecosystems, wild and cultivated, that provide or may provide food items in such communities and complement major and often global staple crops in the local diet. Local food plants in this study were listed by FFS participants, based on their knowledge and perceptions. The lists include species from different groups, including cereals, pulses, and vegetables. Many of these are relatively underutilised, despite having nutritional and health advantages such as being high in fibre, proteins, minerals (e.g., iron and zinc), critical micro-nutrients (vitamins and provitamins), or secondary metabolites with antioxidant properties [10]. Furthermore, these plants tend to be easily accessible, affordable, and well adapted to local environmental conditions or, in the case of domesticated species, to low-input farming systems [11]. Beyond being a nutrition source, many local but underutilised plants yield other useful products, such as animal feed, timber, fibres, or medicines, that contribute to safeguarding rituals, traditions, and biocultural diversity [12,13]. Local food plants are often used as a food supply for emergencies, alleviating communities from seasonal food scarcity or income shortages [14,15,16,17]. Nevertheless, changes in society and in dietary habits have led to increasingly associating the dependency on local plants with poverty, social marginality, and food scarcity (for the purpose of this report, food scarcity is defined as a situation in which locally available food from any source is insufficient to meet the food and nutrition intake needs of a specific community, both in quantitative terms (calories) as in qualitative terms (dietary diversity, nutritional quality), hence stigmatising their consumption in many local communities [18,19,20,21]. Climate change, habitat loss, and environmental degradation are other drivers resulting in the disappearance of local food plants from local diets [22,23,24]. Finally, local crops are increasingly replaced by major global staples as farming systems become more commercially oriented, and breeding efforts fail to address minor species [25,26,27].
The present work builds upon data obtained within the global programme “Sowing Diversity = Harvesting Security” (SD = HS). One of the programme’s main foci is to improve the quality and diversity of the diet in the target communities, contribute to their nutrition security, and reduce the food scarcity periods by promoting the intake of nutritious food through Farmer Field Schools (FFS).
By analysing the data collected during the FFS diagnostic phase, which prepared the season-long FFS activities, we aim at assessing communities’ perceptions about food and nutrition insecurity and local food plant consumption regarding the factors limiting local food plant use and their actual or potential role in supporting households’ food and nutrition security, including in times of seasonal food scarcity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The FFS Approach and Methodology

The activities regarding local food plants and nutrition security within the global SD = HS programme were implemented over a period of 3 years (2019–2021) through the establishment and operation of over 300 FFS, which reached more than 20,000 participants across 6 countries (Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Guatemala, Peru, and Nepal). The present study was based on data collected during the diagnostic phase of 84 FFS conducted in 2021 and included in 8 reports from Guatemala, 15 from Peru, 23 from Uganda, 19 from Zambia, 12 from Zimbabwe, and 7 from Nepal. Around 25–30 people attended each FFS, 68% of whom were women [28]. Details on the location and agroecological contexts of the analysed FFS are given in SI Table S1. The number of participants in each nutrition FFS was between 25 and 30 farmers from the same village. Attention was paid to the good representation of women among the participants, given that they play a key role in the use, preparation, and management of local food plants. The participation of men was also encouraged in order to increase their awareness and to create an enabling environment for behavioural change at household and community levels. Finally, special attention was paid to the inclusion of socially disadvantaged people as well as youth. The implementation of the FFSs was preceded by a diagnostic phase, aimed at obtaining a baseline description of communities’ food and nutrition insecurity, as well as their agroecosystems and their agricultural and household practices concerning local food plants. In this early stage and throughout the implementation of the FFS, participants were organised in small subgroups to encourage all of them to openly express themselves and play an active role [29]. The diagnostic phase encompassed a set of participatory exercises conducted over a number of subsequent meetings, according to the methods outlined in the Facilitators’ Field Guide for Farmer Field Schools on local food plants for nutrition [30]. At the end of this process and based on the outcomes of the exercises, participants defined a list of priority research objectives and related activities to leverage the role of local food plants in supporting the communities’ dietary quality and nutrition security. The following exercises (Table 1), which were conducted in the diagnostic phase of each FFS, provided the data analysed in the study.

2.2. Data Analysis

The raw data from the diagnostic exercises across all countries was checked for quality and completeness. Multiple responses were reorganised into pre-defined categories to enable analysis. In the process, the original responses were maintained alongside the reorganised ones to facilitate the later interpretation of the results. The analyses were performed both on a global scale, aggregating all country results, and on a country-level basis. Frequencies and percentages (rounded to the closest integer) at which specific answers occurred were calculated for all the study variables and, where relevant, Pearson correlations were examined. In the diagnostic phase, FFS participants were asked questions about food scarcity periods, including their prevalence by calendar month and in relation to the cropping season. The scarcity periods by calendar month reported for each country by more than 50% of the responses were considered to be the peak of the scarcity period (months that were mentioned in fewer responses were excluded). Such seasons were put into context by using the Köppen-Geiger climate classes [31] of the FFS locations, combined with the description of the national agroecological zones provided by country partners. When analysing the local food plants listed by FFS participants, duplicate names were removed, and the two features of seasonality and availability during scarcity were summarised for the plant lists of each country. For the coping strategy module, qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses about the strategies adopted in times of scarcity was conducted. Based on this, coping strategies were categorised into four groups [32,33]. A matrix was constructed in which the frequency of the different severity levels associated with each coping strategy was reported. The most frequently mentioned severity level was taken as the consensus severity scenario associated with each strategy, while the average severity score was also calculated. All data handling and analyses were carried out with R (ver 4.5.0) [34].

3. Results

3.1. Changes in Local Food Plant Consumption and Community Nutrition Status over Time

On a global scale, over 93% of the responses reported local plants to be consumed less, and 80% reported that their nutritional status had gotten worse. A modest but positive correlation was detected between the consumption of local food plants and nutritional status (r = 0.3205022, p < 0.005). Breaking down the timeline data by country (Table 2), the most negative scenario in terms of local plant consumption emerged from Guatemala and Peru, where all responses reported a decrease, followed by the African countries (over 90%). Significant positive correlations between declining consumption of local food plants and deteriorating nutritional status were obtained in Uganda and Zimbabwe. The data from the other three countries did not carry sufficient variation to allow for an analysis of the correlation between local food plant consumption and nutritional status.
When asked about what influenced their nutritional status on the one hand and the consumption of local food plants on the other, respondents listed common factors, but their relative influence was different (Figure 1): globalisation and changing habits caused local food plant neglect more than nutritional deteriorations. On the contrary, poverty was much more important in influencing communities’ nutritional status than it was in decreasing their local food plant consumption. Lack of knowledge was equally important in both contexts.
Country-level data, with some differences, reflected the main global patterns: globalisation and changing food habits were the foremost factors that affected the consumption of local food plants in Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Peru, while the lack of suitable seed or starting material was the most important issue in Uganda, Guatemala, and Nepal. Poverty ranked lowest, if at all, among the factors affecting local food plant consumption in the surveyed countries. Yet, poverty was the most or second-most important cause of nutrition status changes.

3.2. The Role of Local Food Plants During Food Scarcity Periods

The scarcity periods reported by the FFS are shown in Figure 2, next to the main harvest months.
Among the African target countries, the longest scarcity period was reported by FFS participants in Zimbabwe, where most responses reported food scarcity over a period of four months between October and January. Zambian FFS reported a partially overlapping, yet slightly shorter, scarcity period (three months between December and February). The scarcity months most frequently reported by FFS participants in these countries coincide with the tail end of the rainy season, immediately before the green harvests of February–March, which are followed by the main harvest from April to June-July. The Ugandan scarcity period was reported to last three months between April and June, with a peak in May. This period, too, falls within the rainy season of the tropical savanna climates of Ugandan FFS and, again, corresponds to the time before the harvests, which are mostly concentrated between June and August. The most frequently reported scarcity months by Guatemalan FFS participants were August and September, towards the end of the rainy season, and just before the main harvest at the end of the year. In the Peruvian high-altitude FFS, the main scarcity period was reported to occur in the early months of the year (January and February), overlapping with the second half of the rainy season and the months preceding the March-June harvest period. In Nepal, three months (June to August), which fall within the monsoon growing season and precede the harvests, were reported as food scarce, but also the dry winter months of January and February were mentioned with similar frequencies. Both periods are traditionally known as agricultural lean seasons, leading to increased risks of food insecurity.

3.3. Food Scarcity Coping Strategies

The coping strategies adopted by communities during the scarcity period, their frequency, and their relation with their severity are presented in Figure 3.
The two most frequently adopted strategy types that emerged from the global analysis were food-seeking and financial coping strategies, with the former significantly surpassing the latter. When grouped by type, the frequency of applied coping strategies and the severity of the food scarcity situation were inversely correlated (r = −0.9844758, p < 0.05), with the more frequent strategy types being associated with the less severe food scarcity periods, and the less practised coping strategies linked to the most severe scarcity conditions. In those countries where a greater number of coping strategy types was used, the average severity of food scarcity experienced by FFS participants (Figure 4) tended to be higher. Indeed, a positive correlation was found between the number of coping strategy types adopted and the average severity reported (r = 0.8773828, p < 0.05).
Food-seeking strategies were most prevalent in all but one of the study countries, the exception being Zambia, where this strategy group was surpassed in frequency by strategies based on financial adjustments. ‘Food rationing’ was mentioned in Guatemala (39%) and Uganda (20%), and to a limited extent in Zambia (6%), but not in the other countries. Changes to household management and relations were a set of coping strategies only applied in Uganda and Zimbabwe, where the reported level of food scarcity was relatively heavy, and all coping strategies were applied.
Within the food-seeking strategies, the consumption of local and wild plants was mentioned by FFS in all countries, except Peru. It was also the most frequent food-seeking strategy in three out of the five countries that mentioned it (Uganda, Zambia, and Guatemala) and the second-most frequent in the other two (Zimbabwe and Nepal). Analysing the local food plant lists, the proportion of plants reported to be available during the scarcity period (either directly and/or through preservation) correlated both with the length of the scarcity period (r = 0.899, p < 0.05) and with the average severity of the scarcity period (r = 0.972, p < 0.05).

4. Discussion

This study aimed to improve our understanding of the role of local food plants in enhancing communities’ food and nutrition security. Our data are based on the perceptions of FFS participants rather than on systematic measurements of food and nutrition security, dietary diversity, and local plant use. Although the FFS methodology was designed to generate a clear and comprehensive picture of reality, in interpreting our results, we must keep in mind the qualitative and subjective nature of the participants’ answers. With the above in mind, we discuss the most important findings emerging from our global analysis in light of the existing literature on nutrition and local food plants.
One of the most important perceptions gathered among FFS participants concerned the relation between the decline in local food plant consumption and the deterioration in communities’ nutritional status. Indeed, linkages between local agrobiodiversity (wild or cultivated) and nutrition are reflected in the literature: a number of studies have described this relation through a systematic analysis based on accurate sampling populations, the collection of anthropometric measurements, the calculation of dietary diversity scores, the administration of recall surveys, or a combination of these methods [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. Other authors have gone further, showing that the potential of a farm to deliver a wide range of nutrition functions to its owners increases with increasing on-farm agrobiodiversity [43]. Despite recognising a link between LFP consumption and nutrition, farmers acknowledge that the latter is determined by numerous other factors, among which poverty is the most relevant. Indeed, the vital relationship that exists between economic standing and nutritional status is well described: malnutrition adversely affects the physiological and mental capacity of individuals, which in turn hampers productivity levels and health, making them and their respective communities more susceptible to poverty and thus creating a vicious cycle [44].
While poverty is the foremost driver of malnutrition, its impact on the decline in local food plant consumption is not necessarily straightforward, and other social and cultural changes driven by globalisation and changing habits, as well as market-based preference shifts, come into play. Indeed, it has been observed that when income levels are low and healthy foods cannot be afforded on the market, households turn to local or traditional crops and foods, thus ensuring the intake of important micronutrients [32,45,46,47,48,49,50]. On the contrary, when household incomes increase, and families move away from sheer economic poverty, they tend to consume fewer local plants and foods. Following this pattern, local food plants seem to behave, in economic terms, as inferior goods, the demand for which decreases as income levels grow and dietary transitions occur. This trend is well known to affect high-, mid-, and low-income countries [8,25,51,52,53,54], and is ever more accelerated by massive marketing and advocacy, social media influences, and greater availability of cheap fats [55]. Seed system disruptions also hamper the use of local food crops [56]: the development and availability of planting material from minor, underutilised species depends almost entirely on on-farm conservation and on healthy and dynamic local seed systems [57,58]; however, these tend to be highly vulnerable to acute stresses (conflicts, disasters) or chronic problems relating to social inequalities, inefficiencies, lack of coordination, or inappropriate regulatory frameworks [59]. Lack of seeds progressively causes the abandonment of traditional crops, which in turn may lead to genetic erosion [60] and loss of knowledge on the associated management practices [51,61,62,63,64].
Despite a declining trend in the use of local food plants, the continued reliance on some of these species during scarcity periods has previously been observed [65,66,67,68,69]. Across our target countries, the correspondence between the late stages of the cropping season(s) and the reported food scarcity period confirms the well-known fact that food shortages mostly occur when food stocks from the previous growing season have been depleted and the products of the new harvest are not yet available (crops are still standing), a time when food prices also tend to be high and compensating employment opportunities are scarce [68,69,70,71]. In Africa, for example, traditional vegetables like Amaranthus or Solanum spp. come into production within a short time soon after the onset of rains and can be harvested three to four weeks later, still allowing the planting of subsequent crops (e.g., beans) that can be harvested some weeks after [72]. The increasing proportion of scarcity-relevant plants that farmers report as their experience of scarcity and severity increases further supports the role that local food plants can play in harsh times [73,74,75,76].
The capacity of local food plants to satisfy communities’ needs in times of food scarcity varied according to the severity of the scarcity that farmers experienced, again a pattern that has been observed in other studies [32,33,77,78]. It is indeed common to witness how, at lower levels of food scarcity, food-seeking strategies, including the use of local food plants, tend to prevail. Only at higher levels of distress are communities forced to diversify their coping strategies from leaning on collective forms of support through friends and neighbours [8,79,80], and ultimately shifting to food rationing and household restructuring approaches [33,77]. Interestingly, in our study, as the number of coping strategies increased with the severity of experienced food scarcity, the share of scarcity-relevant local food plants over the total plants mentioned in the lists increased as well. These resources seem to play an accompanying and perhaps increasing role, even as farmers turn to higher-impact coping strategies.
Our data provide insights into smallholder farmers’ perceptions and decision-making regarding the role of local food plants in achieving dietary diversity and maintaining food security in times of scarcity. The picture that emerges shows that farmers are aware of the potential value of local food plants, as well as of the multiple, intertwined factors that hamper their continued use and influence communities’ nutrition. Such a picture suggests the opportunity for integrated research and policy actions that contribute to further leveraging the potential role of these resources both at the farm/field level and in people’s diets.
Of course, any intervention focusing on local food plants must keep in mind that they will not, in isolation, solve deeply rooted and multifaceted malnutrition patterns. In many areas of the world, including our focus countries, malnutrition existed even when communities were more deeply dependent on local crops and traditional foods and long before globalisation, increasing market pressure, and dietary transitions changed their consumption patterns and brought forward the new malnutrition patterns (including the so-called double burden of malnutrition) we see today [81]. Furthermore, many local food plants, despite their potential, suffer from productivity, agronomic management, processing, or taste issues, limiting their actual, sustained capacity to contribute to past, present, or future diets [48,82]. In this scenario, interventions aimed at fostering the use of local food plants would most likely be successful if integrated into interdisciplinary national programmes spanning the agricultural, environmental, economic, and health departments [83]. A set of priority species (the initial criteria could be their nutritional value, their local adaptation [84], and their availability in times of scarcity [85]) could be carefully assessed in terms of the main bottlenecks affecting their use and of the determinants (cultural, biological), which underlie the choice of each species. Knowledge sharing, awareness-raising, and capacity-building activities tailored to different target groups, from men and women farmers to school children [86,87,88,89], would be essential cross-cutting measures to deliver appropriate messages about the importance of diversified agroecosystems, rich in local species, and in support of healthy diets and lifestyles.
This evidence should be made available to decision-makers so that more enabling policies for conservation, enhancement consumption, and, where appropriate, marketing can be promoted [82,90,91].

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17104683/s1, Table S1: Details on the location and HLZ and Coppen climatic zones of the FFS described in this paper.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.G. and G.S.C.-G.; methodology, G.G.; software, G.G.; validation, G.G., K.M.T., H.M. and B.V.; formal analysis, G.G.; investigation, G.S.C.-G. and H.M.; data curation, G.G.; writing—original draft preparation, G.G.; writing—review and editing, G.G., K.M.T., H.M. and B.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency Sida (grant number 1001534) and fits in the Funding Strategy of the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to it being part of a developmental intervention and not a research project. The data collection followed all the ethical rules and policies in place at Oxfam.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was verbally obtained from all participants and facilitators of the Farmer Field Schools, who were well informed of the purpose of the data collection and recording. Their participation was voluntary and they could withdraw at any time.

Data Availability Statement

The data analysed for the study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the SD = HS implementing partners in the target countries. These partner organizations are: the Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) and the Eastern and Southern Africa Small Scale Farmers’ Forum (ESAFF) in Uganda; the Zambia Alliance for Agroecology and Biodiversity (ZAAB) in Zambia; the Community Technology Development Trust (CTDT) in Zambia and Zimbabwe; the Asociación de Organizaciones de los Cuchumatanes (ASOCUCH) in Guatemala; the Fomento de la Vida (FOVIDA) in Peru; the Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (Li Bird) in Nepal. They also wish to gratefully acknowledge the generous inputs by the smallholder seed producers who participated in the Farmer Field Schools and provided the responses used in this publication. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed here are those of the authors alone.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
FFSFarmer Field Schools
NUSNeglected and Underutilized Species

References

  1. Micha, R.; Mannar, V.; Afshin, A.; Allemandi, L.; Baker, P.; Battersby, J.; Dolan, C. Global Nutrition Report: Action on Equity to End Malnutrition; Development Initiatives: Bristol, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Dwivedi, S.L.; Lammerts van Bueren, E.T.; Ceccarelli, S.; Grando, S.; Upadhyaya, H.D.; Ortiz, R. Diversifying Food Systems in the Pursuit of Sustainable Food Production and Healthy Diets. Trends Plant Sci. 2017, 22, 842–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lachat, C.; Raneri, J.E.; Smith, K.W.; Kolsteren, P.; Van Damme, P.; Verzelen, K.; Penafiel, D.; Vanhove, W.; Kennedy, G.; Hunter, D.; et al. Dietary Species Richness as a Measure of Food Biodiversity and Nutritional Quality of Diets. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. World Health Organization. Diet, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases: Report of a Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003; ISBN 924120916X.
  6. WHO. The Double Burden of Malnutrition; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  7. FAO; IFAD; UNICEF; WFP; WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. Safeguarding Against Economic Slowdowns and Downturns; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019.
  8. Kuhnlein, H.V.; Erasmus, B.; Spigelski, D. Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems: The Many Dimensions of Culture, Diversity and Environment for Nutrition and Health; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2009.
  9. Roche, M.L.; Creed-Kanashiro, H.M.; Tuesta, I.; Kuhnlein, H.V. Traditional Food System Provides Dietary Quality for the Awajún in the Peruvian Amazon. Ecol. Food Nutr. 2007, 46, 377–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Singh, R.K.; Sreenivasulu, N.; Prasad, M. Potential of Underutilized Crops to Introduce the Nutritional Diversity and Achieve Zero Hunger. Funct. Integr. Genom. 2022, 22, 1459–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Padulosi, S.; Heywood, V.; Hunter, D.; Jarvis, A. Underutilized Species and Climate Change: Current Status and Outlook. In Crop Adaptation to Climate Change; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 507–521. ISBN 9780470960929. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cámara-Leret, R.; Raes, N.; Roehrdanz, P.; De Fretes, Y.; Heatubun, C.D.; Roeble, L.; Schuiteman, A.; van Welzen, P.C.; Hannah, L. Climate Change Threatens New Guinea’s Biocultural Heritage. Sci. Adv. 2023, 5, eaaz1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bélanger, J.; Pilling, D. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2019; ISBN 9251312702.
  14. Sõukand, R. Perceived Reasons for Changes in the Use of Wild Food Plants in Saaremaa, Estonia. Appetite 2016, 107, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Quave, C.L.; Pieroni, A. Fermented Foods for Food Security and Food Sovereignty in the Balkans: A Case Study of the Gorani People of Northeastern Albania. J. Ethnobiol. 2014, 34, 28–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cruz-Garcia, G.S.; Price, L.L. Gathering of Wild Food Plants in Anthropogenic Environments across the Seasons: Implications for Poor and Vulnerable Farm Households. Ecol. Food Nutr. 2014, 53, 363–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ocho, D.L.; Struik, P.C.; Price, L.L.; Kelbessa, E.; Kolo, K. Assessing the Levels of Food Shortage Using the Traffic Light Metaphor by Analyzing the Gathering and Consumption of Wild Food Plants, Crop Parts and Crop Residues in Konso, Ethiopia. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2012, 8, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cruz García, G.S. The Mother—Child Nexus. Knowledge and Valuation of Wild Food Plants in Wayanad, Western Ghats, India. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2006, 2, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Malaza, M. Modernization and Gender Dynamics in the Loss of Agrobiodiversity in Swaziland’s Food System. In Women and Plants: Gender Relations in Biodiversity Management and Conservation; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2003; pp. 243–257. [Google Scholar]
  20. Somnasang, P.; Moreno-Black, G. Knowing, Gathering and Eating: Knowledge and Attitudes about Wild Food in an Isan Village in Northeastern Thailand. J. Ethnobiol. 2000, 20, 197–216. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cruz-Garcia, G.S.; Price, L.L. Ethnobotanical Investigation of “wild” Food Plants Used by Rice Farmers in Kalasin, Northeast Thailand. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2011, 7, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nyakoojo, C.; Tugume, P. Traditional Use of Wild Edible Plants in the Communities Adjacent Mabira Central Forest Reserve, Uganda. Ethnobot. Res. Appl. 2020, 20, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  23. Penafiel, D.; Vanhove, W.; Espinel, R.L.; Van Damme, P. Food Biodiversity Includes Both Locally Cultivated and Wild Food Species in Guasaganda, Central Ecuador. J. Ethn. Foods 2019, 6, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Schunko, C.; Li, X.; Klappoth, B.; Lesi, F.; Porcher, V.; Porcuna-Ferrer, A.; Reyes-García, V. Local Communities’ Perceptions of Wild Edible Plant and Mushroom Change: A Systematic Review. Glob. Food Sec. 2022, 32, 100601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Khoury, C.K.; Bjorkman, A.D.; Dempewolf, H.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Guarino, L.; Jarvis, A.; Rieseberg, L.H.; Struik, P.C. Increasing Homogeneity in Global Food Supplies and the Implications for Food Security. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 4001–4006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chaudhary, P.; Bhatta, S.; Aryal, K.; Joshi, B.K.; Gauchan, D. Threats, Drivers, and Conservation Imperative of Agrobiodiversity. J. Agric. Environ. 2020, 21, 44–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Padulosi, S.; Oliver King, I.E.D.; Hunter, D.; Swaminathan, M.S. (Eds.) Orphan Crops for Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security: Promoting Neglected and Underutilized Species, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  28. Oxfam Novib. SeedsGrow 2021 Annual Report; Oxfam Novib: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  29. Oxfam Novib. Starting with Farmer Field Schools; Oxfam Novib: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  30. Oxfam Novib. Facilitators’ Field Guide for Farmer Field Schools on Local Food Plants for Nutrition. In Module: Diagnostic Phase; Oxfam Novib: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2022; p. 34. [Google Scholar]
  31. Beck, H.E.; Zimmermann, N.E.; McVicar, T.R.; Vergopolan, N.; Berg, A.; Wood, E.F. Present and Future Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Maps at 1-Km Resolution. Sci. Data 2018, 5, 180214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dil Farzana, F.; Rahman, A.S.; Sultana, S.; Raihan, M.J.; Haque, M.A.; Waid, J.L.; Choudhury, N.; Ahmed, T. Coping Strategies Related to Food Insecurity at the Household Level in Bangladesh. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0171411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kruger, R.; Schönfeldt, H.C.; Owen, J.H. Food-Coping Strategy Index Applied to a Community of Farm-Worker Households in South Africa. Food Nutr. Bull. 2008, 29, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sibhatu, K.T.; Krishna, V.V.; Qaim, M. Production Diversity and Dietary Diversity in Smallholder Farm Households. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 10657–10662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Kumar, N.; Harris, J.; Rawat, R. If They Grow It, Will They Eat and Grow? Evidence from Zambia on Agricultural Diversity and Child Undernutrition. J. Dev. Stud. 2015, 51, 1060–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jones, A.D. On-Farm Crop Species Richness Is Associated with Household Diet Diversity and Quality in Subsistence- and Market-Oriented Farming Households in Malawi. J. Nutr. 2017, 147, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ekesa, B.; Walingo, M.K.; Abukutsa-Onyango, M. Influence of Agricultural Biodiversity on Dietary Diversity of Preschool Children in Matungu Division, Western Kenya. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 2009, 8, 391–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Oduor, F.O.; Boedecker, J.; Kennedy, G.; Termote, C. Exploring Agrobiodiversity for Nutrition: Household on-Farm Agrobiodiversity Is Associated with Improved Quality of Diet of Young Children in Vihiga, Kenya. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0219680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Carletto, G.; Ruel, M.; Winters, P.; Zezza, A. Farm-Level Pathways to Improved Nutritional Status: Introduction to the Special Issue. J. Dev. Stud. 2015, 51, 945–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gillespie, S.; van den Bold, M. Agriculture, Food Systems, and Nutrition: Meeting the Challenge. Glob. Chall. 2017, 1, 1600002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rosin, C.; Stock, P.; Campbell, H. (Eds.) Food Systems Failure: The Global Food Crisis and the Future of Agriculture, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  43. DeClerck, F.A.J.; Fanzo, J.; Palm, C.; Remans, R. Ecological Approaches to Human Nutrition. Food Nutr. Bull. 2011, 32, S41–S50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Siddiqui, F.; Salam, R.A.; Lassi, Z.S.; Das, J.K. The Intertwined Relationship Between Malnutrition and Poverty. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Adhikari, L.; Hussain, A.; Rasul, G. Tapping the Potential of Neglected and Underutilized Food Crops for Sustainable Nutrition Security in the Mountains of Pakistan and Nepal. Sustainability 2017, 9, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bar-El Dadon, S.; Abbo, S.; Reifen, R. Leveraging Traditional Crops for Better Nutrition and Health—The Case of Chickpea. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 64, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jaenicke, H.; Dawson, I.K.; Guarino, L.; Hermann, M. Impacts of Underutilized Plant Species Promotion on Biodiversity. Acta Hortic. 2009, 806, 621–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Li, X.; Yadav, R.; Siddique, K.H.M. Neglected and Underutilized Crop Species: The Key to Improving Dietary Diversity and Fighting Hunger and Malnutrition in Asia and the Pacific. Front. Nutr. 2020, 7, 593711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Talabi, A.O.; Vikram, P.; Thushar, S.; Rahman, H.; Ahmadzai, H.; Nhamo, N.; Shahid, M.; Singh, R.K. Orphan Crops: A Best Fit for Dietary Enrichment and Diversification in Highly Deteriorated Marginal Environments. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 839704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ruel, M.T.; Minot, N.; Smith, L. Patterns and Determinants of Fruit and Vegetable Consumption in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Multicountry Comparison; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005; ISBN 9241592834.
  51. Reyes-García, V.; Guèze, M.; Luz, A.C.; Paneque-Gálvez, J.; Macía, M.J.; Orta-Martínez, M.; Pino, J.; Rubio-Campillo, X. Evidence of Traditional Knowledge Loss among a Contemporary Indigenous Society. Evol. Hum. Behav. 2013, 34, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Corbera, E.; Reyes-García, V. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Global Environmental Change: Research Findings and Policy Implications. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Meybeck, A.; Gitz, V. Sustainable Diets within Sustainable Food Systems. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2017, 76, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Springmann, M.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Robinson, S.; Garnett, T.; Godfray, H.C.J.; Gollin, D.; Rayner, M.; Ballon, P.; Scarborough, P. Global and Regional Health Effects of Future Food Production under Climate Change: A Modelling Study. Lancet 2016, 387, 1937–1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Uusitalo, U.; Pietinen, P.; Puska, P. Dietary Transition in Developing Countries: Challenges for Chronic Disease Prevention. In Globalization, Diets and Noncommunicable Diseases; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  56. McMullin, S.; Stadlmayr, B.; Mausch, K.; Revoredo-Giha, C.; Burnett, F.; Guarino, L.; Brouwer, I.D.; Jamnadass, R.; Graudal, L.; Powell, W.; et al. Determining Appropriate Interventions to Mainstream Nutritious Orphan Crops into African Food Systems. Glob. Food Sec. 2021, 28, 100465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Meldrum, G.; Padulosi, S.; Lochetti, G.; Robitaille, R.; Diulgheroff, S. Issues and Prospects for the Sustainable Use and Conservation of Cultivated Vegetable Diversity for More Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture. Agriculture 2018, 8, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ulian, T.; Diazgranados, M.; Pironon, S.; Padulosi, S.; Liu, U.; Davies, L.; Howes, M.R.; Borrell, J.S.; Ondo, I.; Pérez-Escobar, O.A. Unlocking Plant Resources to Support Food Security and Promote Sustainable Agriculture. Plants People Planet 2020, 2, 421–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Westengen, O.T.; Dalle, S.P.; Mulesa, T.H. Navigating toward Resilient and Inclusive Seed Systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2023, 120, e2218777120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Clement, C.R. 1492 and the Loss of Amazonian Crop Genetic Resources. II. Crop Biogeography at Contact. Econ. Bot. 1999, 53, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Leal, M.L.; Alves, R.P.; Hanazaki, N. Knowledge, Use, and Disuse of Unconventional Food Plants. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2018, 14, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Benz, B.F.; Cevallos, J.; Santana, F.; Rosales, J.; Graf, S. Losing Knowledge about Plant Use in the Sierra de Manantlan Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. Econ. Bot. 2000, 54, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nolan, J.; Robbins, M. Cultural Conservation of Medicinal Plant Use in the Ozarks. Hum. Organ. 1999, 58, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Reyes-García, V.; Vadez, V.; Huanca, T.; Leonard, W.; Wilkie, D. Knowledge and Consumption of Wild Plants: A Comparative Study in Two Tsimane’villages in the Bolivian Amazon. Ethnobot. Res. Appl. 2005, 3, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Paumgarten, F.; Shackleton, C.M. The Role of Non-Timber Forest Products in Household Coping Strategies in South Africa: The Influence of Household Wealth and Gender. Popul. Environ. 2011, 33, 108–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Harvey, C.A.; Rakotobe, Z.L.; Rao, N.S.; Dave, R.; Razafimahatratra, H.; Rabarijohn, R.H.; Rajaofara, H.; MacKinnon, J.L. Extreme Vulnerability of Smallholder Farmers to Agricultural Risks and Climate Change in Madagascar. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2014, 369, 20130089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pascual-Mendoza, S.; Saynes-Vásquez, A.; Pérez-Herrera, A. Traditional Knowledge of Edible Plants in an Indigenous Community in the Sierra Norte of Oaxaca, Mexico. Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. All Asp. Plant Biol. 2022, 156, 515–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lugo-Morin, D.R. Indigenous Communities and Their Food Systems: A Contribution to the Current Debate. J. Ethn. Foods 2020, 7, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jacob, M.C.M.; Araújo de Medeiros, M.F.; Albuquerque, U.P. Biodiverse Food Plants in the Semiarid Region of Brazil Have Unknown Potential: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0230936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Blackmore, I.; Rivera, C.; Waters, W.F.; Iannotti, L.; Lesorogol, C. The Impact of Seasonality and Climate Variability on Livelihood Security in the Ecuadorian Andes. Clim. Risk Manag. 2021, 32, 100279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Devereux, S.; Sabates-Wheeler, R.; Longhurst, R. (Eds.) Seasonality, Rural Livelihoods and Development, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  72. Rubaihayo, E.B. Conservation and Use of Traditional Vegetables in Uganda. In Proceedings of the Proceedings on Genetic Resources of Traditional Vegetables in Africa: Options for Conservation and Use, ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya, 29–31 August 1996. [Google Scholar]
  73. Burlingame, B. Wild Nutrition. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2000, 2, 99–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Minnis, P.E. Famine Foods: Plants We Eat to Survive; University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ, USA, 2021; ISBN 0816542252. [Google Scholar]
  75. Ravaoarisoa, L.; Rakotonirina, J.; Randriamanantsaina, L.; de Dieu Marie Rakotomanga, J.; Dramaix, M.W.; Donnen, P. Food Consumption and Undernutrition Variations among Mothers during the Post-Harvest and Lean Seasons in Amoron’i Mania Region, Madagascar. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Dukpa, W. Minor Cereals and Food Security in the Marginal Areas of Bhutan. J. Renew. Nat. Resour. Bhutan 2006, 2, 73–92. [Google Scholar]
  77. Torres-Vitolas, C.A.; Harvey, C.A.; Cruz-Garcia, G.S.; Vanegas-Cubillos, M.; Schreckenberg, K. The Socio-Ecological Dynamics of Food Insecurity among Subsistence-Oriented Indigenous Communities in Amazonia: A Qualitative Examination of Coping Strategies among Riverine Communities along the Caquetá River, Colombia. Hum. Ecol. 2019, 47, 355–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Drysdale, R.E.; Moshabela, M.; Bob, U. Adapting the Coping Strategies Index to Measure Food Insecurity in the Rural District of ILembe, South Africa. Food Cult. Soc. 2019, 22, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. FAO. Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems and Well-Being: Interventions and Policies for Healthy Communities; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013.
  80. Kuhnlein, H.V. Food System Sustainability for Health and Well-Being of Indigenous Peoples. Public Health Nutr. 2014, 1, 2415–2424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Schrecker, T.; Labonté, R.; De Vogli, R. Globalisation and Health: The Need for a Global Vision. Lancet 2008, 372, 1670–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Borelli, T.; Hunter, D.; Padulosi, S.; Amaya, N.; Meldrum, G.; de Oliveira Beltrame, D.M.; Samarasinghe, G.; Wasike, V.W.; Güner, B.; Tan, A.; et al. Local Solutions for Sustainable Food Systems: The Contribution of Orphan Crops and Wild Edible Species. Agronomy 2020, 10, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Baldermann, S.; Blagojević, L.; Frede, K.; Klopsch, R.; Neugart, S.; Neumann, A.; Ngwene, B.; Norkeweit, J.; Schröter, D.; Schröter, A.; et al. Are Neglected Plants the Food for the Future? CRC Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2016, 35, 106–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Conti, M.V.; De Giuseppe, R.; Monti, M.C.; Mkindi, A.G.; Mshanga, N.H.; Ceppi, S.; Msuya, J.; Cena, H. Indigenous Vegetables: A Sustainable Approach to Improve Micronutrient Adequacy in Tanzanian Women of Childbearing Age. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2021, 75, 1475–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Corbett, J. Famine and Household Coping Strategies. World Dev. 1988, 16, 1099–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Grasso, A. School Gardening in Busia County, Kenya. A Case Study. Available online: http://www.b4fn.org/from-the-field/stories/school-gardening-in-busia-county-kenya (accessed on 5 May 2023).
  87. Tan, A.; Adanacioğlu, N.; Tuğrul Ay, S. Students in Nature, in the Garden and in the Kitchen, Turkey. A Case Study. Available online: http://www.b4fn.org/case-studies/case-studies/students-in-nature-in-the-garden-and-in-the-kitchen (accessed on 20 August 2023).
  88. Hunter, D.; Moura de Oliveira Beltrame, D. Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition in Brazil; IFPRI: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; Available online: https://www.a4nh.cgiar.org/files/2014/03/BFN-in-Brazil_-final-12.17.15.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2024).
  89. Wineman, A.; Ekwueme, M.C.; Bigayimpunzi, L.; Martin-Daihirou, A.; de Gois VN Rodrigues, E.L.; Etuge, P.; Warner, Y.; Kessler, H.; Mitchell, A. School Meal Programs in Africa: Regional Results from the 2019 Global Survey of School Meal Programs. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 871866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Hunter, D.; Borelli, T.; Beltrame, D.M.O.; Oliveira, C.N.S.; Coradin, L.; Wasike, V.W.; Wasilwa, L.; Mwai, J.; Manjella, A.; Samarasinghe, G.W.L. Potential of Orphan Crops for Improving Diets and Nutrition. Planta 2019, 250, 709–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Gee, E.; Borelli, T.; Beltrame, D.; Oliveira, C.; Coradin, L.; Wasike, V.; Manjella, A.; Güner, B.; Tan, A.; Özbek, K.; et al. The ABC of Mainstreaming Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition. In Biodiversity, Food and Nutrition; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; pp. 85–186. ISBN 9780429030574. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 17 04683 g001
Figure 1. The relative influence of different factors on the consumption of local food plants (blue bars) and on nutrition (grey bars), based on the percentage of answers (horizontal axis) across study countries.
Figure 1. The relative influence of different factors on the consumption of local food plants (blue bars) and on nutrition (grey bars), based on the percentage of answers (horizontal axis) across study countries.
Sustainability 17 04683 g001
Sustainability 17 04683 g002
Figure 2. Seasonal distribution of the scarcity periods most frequently reported by FFS participants in each study country and positioning of the harvest period. Each country has been assigned a different colour for ease of interpretation.
Figure 2. Seasonal distribution of the scarcity periods most frequently reported by FFS participants in each study country and positioning of the harvest period. Each country has been assigned a different colour for ease of interpretation.
Sustainability 17 04683 g002
Sustainability 17 04683 g003
Figure 3. Types of coping strategies, in decreasing the order of frequency and increasing levels of severity and their detailed breakdown (in decreasing order of frequency).
Figure 3. Types of coping strategies, in decreasing the order of frequency and increasing levels of severity and their detailed breakdown (in decreasing order of frequency).
Sustainability 17 04683 g003
Sustainability 17 04683 g004
Figure 4. The relationship between the number (N) of coping strategy types mentioned by countries (full-colour bars on the left) and the average severity scores (corresponding dotted bars on the right) attributed to each strategy type.
Figure 4. The relationship between the number (N) of coping strategy types mentioned by countries (full-colour bars on the left) and the average severity scores (corresponding dotted bars on the right) attributed to each strategy type.
Sustainability 17 04683 g004
Table 1. Diagnostic exercises in chronological order that provided the data analysed.
Table 1. Diagnostic exercises in chronological order that provided the data analysed.
Exercise NameContent
Preparation of the local food plant listFFS participants agree on a list of local food plants occurring in the community, whether in the wild, in farmers’ fields or in home gardens. Species listed belong to different plant groups, from cereals to vegetables and pulses. Farmers are asked questions on properties of the listed plants, including in terms of their seasonality and their relevance in the scarcity period.
Timeline analysis of local food plants and nutritionIn this exercise, farmers assess how consumption patterns of local food plants and the quality of the nutrition in the communities changed in the past three decades, identifying the factors underlying such trends.
Seasonal calendar and coping strategiesFFS participants prepare a seasonal calendar of the community’s agroecosystem, indicating the food scarcity period. They also list the main strategies they adopt for coping with food scarcity and subsequently sort the strategies according to how severe the scarcity period is (from 1 to 3, corresponding to low, medium, or high severity). In the same exercise, participants recall the plants from the local food plant list and describe which of these are either available during the scarcity period or can be preserved to be made available as food during the scarcity period, or both.
Table 2. Responses to the timeline questions about changes in the consumption of local food plants and nutritional status over the past 30 years. Pearson correlation coefficients between consumption and nutrition variables and the relative p-values are shown in the last two columns to the right.
Table 2. Responses to the timeline questions about changes in the consumption of local food plants and nutritional status over the past 30 years. Pearson correlation coefficients between consumption and nutrition variables and the relative p-values are shown in the last two columns to the right.
CountryChanges in Consumption of Local Food PlantsChanges in NutritionCorrelation
Decreased (%)Same or Increased (%)Worsened (%)Same or Improved (%)rp
Uganda9199191<2.2 × 10−16 ***
Zambia10008416NANA
Zimbabwe92883170.670.0162 *
Guatemala10005050NANA
Peru10008713NANA
Nepal57434357−0.420.35
Significant values: p < 0.001 ***, p < 0.05 *. NA: not available.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Galluzzi, G.; Cruz-Garcia, G.S.; Togka, K.M.; Visser, B.; Mbozi, H. The Role That Local Food Plants Can Play in Improving Nutrition Security and Reducing Seasonal Scarcity in Rural Communities: A Multi-Country Study. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4683. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104683

AMA Style

Galluzzi G, Cruz-Garcia GS, Togka KM, Visser B, Mbozi H. The Role That Local Food Plants Can Play in Improving Nutrition Security and Reducing Seasonal Scarcity in Rural Communities: A Multi-Country Study. Sustainability. 2025; 17(10):4683. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104683

Chicago/Turabian Style

Galluzzi, Gea, Gisella S. Cruz-Garcia, Konstantina Maria Togka, Bert Visser, and Hilton Mbozi. 2025. "The Role That Local Food Plants Can Play in Improving Nutrition Security and Reducing Seasonal Scarcity in Rural Communities: A Multi-Country Study" Sustainability 17, no. 10: 4683. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104683

APA Style

Galluzzi, G., Cruz-Garcia, G. S., Togka, K. M., Visser, B., & Mbozi, H. (2025). The Role That Local Food Plants Can Play in Improving Nutrition Security and Reducing Seasonal Scarcity in Rural Communities: A Multi-Country Study. Sustainability, 17(10), 4683. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104683

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop