Next Article in Journal
Spatio-Temporal Patterns and Regional Differences in Carbon Emission Intensity of Land Uses in China
Previous Article in Journal
Synergistic and Trade-Off Influences of Combined PM2.5-O3 Pollution in the Shenyang Metropolitan Area, China: A Comparative Land Use Regression Analysis
 
 
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 17
10.3390/su17178047
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:
Systematic Review

Short Food Supply Chain Status and Pathway in Africa: A Systematic Literature Review

by
Evance Hlekwayo Moyo
1,2,* and
Noleen Pisa
1,2
1
Department of Transport and Supply Chain Management, College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, Kingsway Campus, Cnr Kingsway and University Road Auckland Park, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa
2
Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies (Africa), University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(17), 8047; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17178047
Submission received: 23 July 2025 / Revised: 2 September 2025 / Accepted: 5 September 2025 / Published: 7 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Food)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study reviews the status and direction of Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) in Africa, examining their potential to enhance food security, resilience, and smallholder empowerment. Synthesising 69 peer-reviewed studies from 25 African countries, the analysis identifies nine recurring themes consolidated into four clusters: governance, resilience and sustainability; urbanisation and participation; innovation and logistics; and inclusion and equity. The findings show that research is concentrated in South Africa, Ghana, and Kenya, but also highlight emerging diversity across the continent. SFSCs strengthen local resilience and urban food system integration, yet remain limited by weak digital infrastructure, policy fragmentation, and underdeveloped equity measures, especially regarding youth and gender. The review contributes to debates on food sovereignty, political ecology, and sustainability transitions by situating African SFSCs within broader food system transformations. It proposes a policy roadmap prioritising participatory governance, digital market innovation, and inclusive procurement as pathways for institutionalising SFSCs in Africa.

1. Introduction

The global food system is increasingly challenged to ensure food security and meet the nutritional needs of a growing human population while simultaneously preserving environmental resources [1,2,3]. Long and complex supply chains within this system have been widely criticised for prioritising the economic interests of dominant stakeholders over ecological stewardship and social equity, particularly at the production end of the supply chain, where smallholder farmers operate [4,5,6,7]. Despite contributing the majority of global food output, the smallholder farmers remain structurally disadvantaged and excluded from equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms [8].
Furthermore, the uneven spatial and economic distribution of food access has led to the emergence of food deserts—geographic areas often inhabited by low-income or marginalised populations, where access to affordable, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food is limited due to the absence of nearby supermarkets or healthy food retailers [9]. As a result, hunger and malnutrition persist in these communities, even as large quantities of food are lost or wasted across the global supply chain [10].
Short food supply chains (SFSCs) have emerged as viable alternative food networks (AFNs) for local food security and the sustainability of local economies. SFSCs connect local food producers directly with consumers, ensuring transparency and trust and, arguably, mitigating carbon emissions through shorter transportation distances [11,12,13]. They are implemented to address food insecurity, particularly in marginalised urban and rural areas, where smallholder farmers encounter resource limitations and restricted market access [14]. At the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, SFSCs attracted much focus as buffers against the shocks that revealed vulnerabilities in global long food supply chains [15]. With robust policy support, especially in the Global North, SFSCs demonstrated resilience and enhanced the well-being of local smallholder farmers [16].
These advantages make SFSC a viable avenue for addressing the supply chain challenges encountered in Africa. However, the extent of SFSC implementation and effectiveness in Africa remains underexplored. While international reviews of SFSCs exist for Europe, Latin America, and Asia, continent-wide synthesis has not yet been conducted for Africa, despite the high dependence on smallholder farming and distinct challenges of limited infrastructure, policy fragmentation, and digital divides on the continent [17,18,19,20]. This gap underpins the rationale for this review. Therefore, this study is scoped to African literature to provide a context-specific synthesis considering the diverse socio-economic and environmental contexts in Africa [21]. Three research questions foreground the review:
  • How have SFSCs been conceptualised and implemented in Africa relative to their stated objectives?
  • What are the main thematic domains in African SFSC research, and how do they interrelate?
  • What gaps and opportunities exist for institutionalising SFSCs in the food systems in Africa?
In answering these questions, the review makes four unique contributions. First, it provides a systematic, continent-wide review of SFSC literature in Africa. Second, it identifies and maps thematic clusters that shape the African research on SFSCs. Third, it develops a policy and practice roadmap tailored to African development priorities. Fourth, it advances theoretical insights by situating SFSCs within debates on food sovereignty, political ecology, and sustainability transitions.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 outlines the methodology and criteria for literature selection. Section 3 provides results and analysis of the key insights. Section 4 presents a discussion, detailing study implications, limitations and avenues for future research. The conclusion is given in Section 5.

2. Materials and Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted within the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology framework to ensure transparency and rigour [22]. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, the review process consisted of four stages: (1) identification, (2) screening, (3) eligibility, and (4) inclusion. Thematic analysis was then applied to classify and interpret the final set of peer-reviewed articles, aiming to uncover dominant research themes, patterns of conceptual focus, and future research gaps. The thematic analysis followed established steps of qualitative research: data familiarisation, open coding, axial coding, and theme development [23,24].

2.1. Search Strategy

A literature search was undertaken across six databases: Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCOHost, CABI, AJOL, and AGRIS. Search keywords included “short food supply chain,” “local food system,” and “Africa”. The full Boolean strings used are presented in Appendix A (Table A1). The initial search retrieved 440 articles, which were subjected to a systematic eligibility screening. As detailed in Table 1, the inclusion criteria required peer-reviewed articles in English, published up to May 2025, with either a full or partial connection to SFSCs [25]. The review was limited to English-language publications due to feasibility constraints, which is acknowledged as a limitation.
During the initial abstract screening, 201 articles were excluded, resulting in a narrowed remainder of 239 articles for detailed examination. Six articles were inaccessible despite efforts to retrieve them (see Table A2 in Appendix A). Following PRISMA bias-mitigation guidelines [22], these were documented transparently and excluded (see Table A2 in Appendix A). As their thematic focus (e.g., digital agriculture, rural–urban migration, food sovereignty) was addressed by other included studies, their exclusion is not expected to bias the findings. After the full eligibility test, 69 articles met all the criteria for inclusion and analysis (Figure 1). A bibliographic overview of the articles is presented next.

2.2. Publication Statistics

Key bibliographic data of the articles were extracted for descriptive data analysis. Figure 2 shows the publication trends, revealing distinct phases over time. Between 2007 and 2014, research activity remained flat and minimal. The period from 2015 to 2019 exhibited low and unstable activity with no consistent upward trend. However, from 2020 to 2024, a strong growth trend emerged, with research activity peaking in 2024. The sharp decline observed in 2025 reflects incomplete data, since the number of articles published in 2025 did not comprise a full year. The general direction for the full 2025 is for the trend to continue upward, as indicated by the polynomial line plotted on the graph (dotted line).
The statistics on study location, as indicated by the location heatmap in Figure 3, show that South Africa, with 21 articles, is a dominant SFSC research contributor. Ranking second with nine articles is Ghana, with Kenya closely following with eight. There are several countries with low to moderate publication frequency, including Nigeria (5), Zimbabwe (4), Uganda (3), Egypt (2), and Benin (1). Six studies took a transnational approach, with some crossing continents (e.g., South Africa with Spain and the USA; Kenya with the UK; Kenya with Brazil, Guatemala and India), visually presented in Figure 4.
The articles were published in a wide range of both international and regionally focused journals (Table 2). The majority were published in high-impact journals, with 67% Scopus-classified as first quartile (Q1) and 19% as second quartile (Q2) (Figure 5).

2.3. Data Classification

Qualitative data retrieved from the articles were classified to allow for thematic analysis and to extract insights and patterns. First, terms from the article titles, abstracts, keyword lists and quotations from the full texts were analysed using Atlas.Ti software version 25. Atlas.Ti was selected because it enables efficient management of large quantities of literature, providing many options for data processing, organisation, and visual representation through network views. The functionality provided advantages over alternatives such as NVivo for constructing co-occurrence matrices and thematic clusters. To enhance reliability, two coders worked independently on the dataset. Inter-coder reliability was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa (κ = 0.83), indicating substantial agreement, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion.
A word cloud was created, revealing a visual summary of the prevailing concepts, actors, and possible thematic priorities shaping the research discourse. As Figure 6 shows, the core term in the studies is food surrounded by associated terms, such as farmers, production, urban, systems, supply, local, community, and market.
Second, using the initial picture emerging from the word cloud, the predominant concepts were grouped, resulting in a thematic direction towards sustainability, governance, participation, consumer behaviour, and logistical practices. For instance, terms like urban, rural, and local suggest interest in the spatial dynamics of food systems, particularly the localisation of food in response to vulnerabilities in the globalised supply chain [26]. Sustainability, access, and security reveal the normative goals that SFSCs are often positioned to achieve, especially in relation to governance, food justice and community empowerment [27]. Terms relating to key stakeholders such as farmers, women, consumers, and households indicate the grounding in actor-oriented research, which often emphasises inclusion, equity, and participatory governance. Markets, interventions, policy, and development reflect both practical concerns and strategic pathways for scaling and institutionalising SFSC models.
Thus, the thematic picture depicts engagement with sustainability, equity, local empowerment, and systemic transformation, all of which converge on the shared aspiration of food systems transformation toward greater responsiveness, proximity, and justice. To confirm the emerging themes, a thematic coding process was undertaken.

2.4. Coding and Thematic Matrix Construction

Open coding was first applied inductively to identify discrete concepts across article titles, abstracts, keywords and quotations using Atlas.Ti. Codes were then refined and clustered through axial coding to identify relationships and broader thematic categories. For instance, codes related to biodiversity, conservation, environment, organic, and soil were integrated under sustainability and agroecology. Equity, gender, inclusion, inequality, marginalised, women, and youth were consolidated under youth, gender and inclusion. To ensure transparency, codes were exported to Excel and transformed into a binary indicator matrix (1 = theme present, 0 = absent). Thematic clusters were derived using both software-assisted co-occurrence mapping in Atlas.Ti and manual researcher validation for conceptual coherence.
The full list of themes includes digital and market innovation; transport, infrastructure and logistics; consumer preferences and trust; resilience and food security; governance, ethics and justice; farmer participation and empowerment; and urban and local food systems.
As shown in Figure 7 and Table 3, the most prevalent is urban and local food systems, represented in 68 of 69 studies (98%), followed by farmer participation and empowerment (93%). Themes such as digital and market innovation (38%) and youth, gender and inclusion (48%), and transport, infrastructure, and logistics (48%) were less frequent, underscoring gaps in research attention. For each theme, a supporting list of contributing codes was compiled to ensure that thematic classification was grounded in text-based evidence. The full list of contributing articles is presented in Table A3 in Appendix A.
The classification matrix enabled the construction of thematic visualisations such as heatmaps and co-occurrence graphs (see Figure 8 and Figure 9). Further, it allowed for a structured narrative synthesis of how each article aligned with broader research trends.
The heatmap and co-occurrence network reveal four dominant thematic clusters. The first is the governance–resilience–sustainability cluster. The second is urbanisation and participation, comprising the intersection of three themes: urban food systems, farmer empowerment, and consumer preference and trust. The third is innovation and logistics, clustering the themes digital and market innovation and transport, infrastructure and logistics. The final one is the inclusion and equity cluster. Table 4 shows a summary of the theme clusters with the rationale based on the co-occurrence graph and heatmap.

3. Results and Analysis

3.1. Literature Overview

3.1.1. Publication Trends over Time

The trajectory of SFSC research in Africa from 2007 to 2025 reveals distinct phases of growth (see Figure 2). Initially, the field had minimal academic output, with only sporadic publications before 2013. A modest growth phase occurs between 2013 and 2019, followed by a sharp and sustained increase after 2020. This post-2020 surge, coinciding with pandemic-induced disruptions and global rethinking of food supply chains, marks a turning point in research focus. The upward trend continues through 2024, indicating a consolidation of SFSCs as a significant subject in food system discourse.

3.1.2. Publishing Landscape

The studies are widely published in high-impact journals, with 67% Scopus ranked in the first quartile (Q1), 19% ranked in Q2, and 4% in Q3 (see Figure 5). This position reflects mainstream publishing disciplinary interest, particularly in journals like Sustainability (10%) and Agrekon (6%) (Table 2). It further illustrates that SFSC topics intersect with global sustainability debate, food justice, and rural development economics [27,30,70].

3.1.3. Geographic Distribution of Research

Research on SFSCs has been conducted in 25 African countries. While many of these countries are represented by only one or two studies, South Africa, Ghana, and Kenya dominate the research landscape. South Africa accounts for 21 articles (30%), with sustained attention since 2007 and peaks of three publications in 2015, 2021, 2024, and 2025. Ghana has nine studies (13%), seven of which were published between 2023 and 2024, reflecting its recent rise as a focal research location. Kenya has eight contributions, six appearing after 2020.
The prominence of these three hubs reflects both research concentration and practical leadership. South Africa’s relatively advanced digital infrastructure has enabled e-commerce pilots and mobile-enabled delivery services that link peri-urban farmers with consumers [63]. Ghana has pioneered climate-smart agriculture practices and household-level home gardening initiatives supported by local institutions [35,64]. Kenya has piloted blockchain-enabled traceability systems and fostered youth cooperative participation in local food networks [52]. These cases demonstrate that publication counts mirror both research investment and hubs of SFSC practice and innovation. Beyond these dominant locations, countries such as Nigeria (five studies) and Zimbabwe (four studies) are also emerging as sites of growing SFSC research interest.
A range of studies covers Africa together with non-African countries, including the USA, Canada in North America, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Portugal, UK, Denmark in Europe, India, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Indonesia in Asia, Brazil, Guatemala, Saint Lucia in Latin America and the Caribbean, and Papua New Guinea in Oceania (see Figure 4). This trans-continental spread demonstrates that SFSCs resonate with countries at various stages of agricultural innovation. The inclusion of less frequently co-researched countries like Papua New Guinea and Saint Lucia adds granularity to global SFSC mapping and expands the discourse beyond Western-dominated narratives. For instance, Sutcliffe et al. [52] found smallholder farming communities impacted differently by post-COVID-19 policies in Kenya, Papua New Guinea, and Saint Lucia due to differences in local contexts.

3.2. Thematic Overview

Thematic analysis of the literature revealed an uneven research landscape, reflecting diverse epistemological orientations and contextual emphases. Through open and axial coding, nine core themes emerged from the inductive synthesis of the studies (see Figure 7). The themes were further organised into four thematic clusters based on co-occurrence and conceptual alignment. The clusters articulate the evolution of the SFSC framework across intersecting needs in governance, sustainability, spatial dynamics, innovation, and inclusion in Africa, as detailed next.

3.2.1. Governance, Resilience, and Sustainability

The triad of the integrated cluster theme comprising governance, ethics and justice; resilience and food security; and sustainability and agroecology reflects a growing consensus that SFSCs go beyond logistical or market-based innovations. The clustering indicates that SFSCs are embedded in institutional, ethical, and ecological frameworks. Governance, as a central mediating construct, shapes how justice, accountability, and rights are negotiated within localised food systems [34]. Resilience is closely aligned with responses to environmental and socio-economic shocks, particularly in vulnerable contexts. The codes under agroecology and sustainability (see Table 3) align with ecological regeneration, biodiversity, and low-impact practices [71]. This alignment underscores the essential role of agroecological approaches in enhancing system-wide resilience, as biodiversity and regenerative practices mitigate environmental shocks while fostering long-term socio-economic stability within localised food systems.
Boillat et al. [49] and Hakimi et al. [28] typify this convergence, emphasising the need for resilient institutions that support long-term food security grounded in justice and ecological sustainability. Overall, the co-occurrence of the themes suggests that SFSCs are increasingly conceptualised as levers for transformation rather than isolated interventions.

3.2.2. Urbanisation and Participation

The second cluster centres on the three themes: urban and local food systems, farmer participation and empowerment, and consumer preferences and trust. This clustering presents an urbanisation nexus, illustrating the growing spatial and social proximity that characterises SFSC development [72,73]. Urban settings serve as both the hotspot of demand and the site for innovation in governance and distribution models. Within this nexus, farmer cooperatives and empowerment are frequently associated with consumer trust and preferences. When farmers actively shape production, marketing, and distribution, consumers perceive their choices as more ethical, resilient, and aligned with sustainability and equity principles [27,36].
These themes further reinforce a circular relationship between production and consumption. As Pereira et al. [44] and Steenkamp et al. [33] argue, participatory processes and proximity-based systems contribute to consumer confidence, which leads to legitimising farmer-led initiatives. The consumer trust integration indicates that trust is a behavioural outcome as well as a structural requirement for the co-production of food system change in urban contexts [57]. Hence, this cluster underscores the co-dependence between social capital and spatial restructuring in SFSCs.

3.2.3. Innovation and Logistics

A less integrated cluster comprises digital and market innovation alongside transport, infrastructure, and logistics, with only moderate co-occurrence weight (see Table 4 and Figure 8). These themes function as operational pillars of SFSCs but appear less frequently in co-occurrence with governance or inclusion in the reviewed literature.
Digital platforms, information systems, and technological tools are typically discussed in relation to market access, traceability, and real-time communication between producers and consumers [28,74]. Similarly, logistics and infrastructure are often framed around bottlenecks, such as poor storage, transport gaps, and fragmented distribution networks, that limit the viability of localised food chains [59,75]. While studies, such as Sithole et al. [63] and Rosengren et al. [68], highlight the enabling potential of innovation, the relative thematic isolation of these works underscores an analytical gap: the interaction between technical enablers and institutional or social dimensions of SFSC governance is not adequately theorised.
Emerging evidence nevertheless shows digital innovation advancing SFSC practice. In Ghana, climate-smart agriculture information platforms and household-level e-commerce are extending producer reach and consumer access [35,64]. In Kenya, blockchain-based traceability pilots are enhancing transparency and trust, while youth cooperatives increasingly experiment with digital marketplaces [52]. In South Africa, mobile-enabled delivery networks and e-commerce initiatives link peri-urban producers to urban consumers but remain constrained by infrastructure gaps [63].
The examples demonstrate that digitalisation and logistics are more than peripheral support tools but are emerging arenas of systemic transformation. However, their potential is unevenly realised due to weak infrastructure, fragmented regulation, and limited institutional buy-in continues. Addressing these barriers is critical if digital and logistical innovations are to shift from isolated projects into embedded, scalable components of African SFSC governance.

3.2.4. Inclusion and Equity

Despite their normative significance, the concepts of youth, gender, and inclusion remain marginal within the co-occurrence network. Codes related to these themes are underrepresented, and while they intersect with multiple clusters, the connections are moderate and dispersed (see Figure 8). This thematic isolation suggests that inclusion and equity are acknowledged in principle but rarely integrated in SFSC conceptualisations or empirical frameworks. There are notable but sparse exceptions. Asante et al. [64] and Kanosvamhira [50] examine participation barriers and empowerment strategies linked to governance and sustainability. Bannor et al. [56] show that women rice processors in Ghana achieve measurable income and welfare gains from SFSC participation. In Kenya, youth cooperatives and women’s groups are beginning to leverage digital platforms for cooperative marketing [52,68].
The findings expose a persistent tension between the inclusive promise of SFSCs and their limited institutionalisation. While SFSCs are often described as inherently inclusive, evidence shows that structural barriers limit the translation of this promise into practice. Therefore, there is a need to move beyond rhetorical commitments and examine how equity and inclusion can be institutionalised through supportive policy, financing mechanisms, and gender- and youth-sensitive governance frameworks.

3.3. Thematic Relevance to Food Supply Chains in Africa

Table 5 maps the thematic clusters to the core development needs of Africa to illustrate the practical and strategic alignment of SFSCs to continental priorities. These development challenges are widely acknowledged in the literature. For instance, Antwi-Agyei et al. [35] highlight climate vulnerability and institutional constraints in adopting climate-smart agriculture. Boillat et al. [49] emphasise labour rights and governance gaps in conventional food systems. Asante et al. [64] draw attention to gendered land access and food insecurity in low-income households. Sithole et al. [63] point to infrastructural and digital limitations in cross-border food logistics. Carlos Bezerra et al. [36] illustrate urban food insecurity and the importance of community-based models. These studies reinforce the importance of tailoring SFSC interventions to meet the diverse development needs of various African countries.
This thematic mapping underscores SFSCs as complex, systemic interventions that transcend conventional logistical efficiencies, embedding themselves within the broader institutional, ethical, and ecological architectures of food systems governance. By integrating sustainability and resilience strategies, participatory governance mechanisms, and intersectional equity considerations, SFSCs emerge as transformative pathways for addressing the multifaceted food security challenges in Africa. Their alignment with sustainability principles and localised empowerment frameworks reinforces their role in long-term socio-ecological stability to ensure that food system transitions are both equitable and structurally strong.

4. Discussion

This discussion interprets the findings of the review in relation to the three guiding research questions, highlighting how they advance current knowledge on SFSCs in Africa. The section commences by addressing the research questions to align results with the study objectives, then elaborates on the theoretical, practical, and policy implications of the findings, and finally reflects on the limitations and avenues for future research.

4.1. SFSC Conceptualisation and Implementation in Africa

The findings confirm that SFSCs in Africa are conceptualised primarily as mechanisms for strengthening food security, enhancing resilience, and empowering smallholder farmers. Rather than being perceived as narrow logistical adjustments, SFSCs are embedded in governance and ethical discourses that link food access to sustainability and justice. For example, Pereira et al. [44] and Odame et al. [42] highlight how SFSCs are framed as instruments of food sovereignty, empowering producers and consumers through decentralised market arrangements. Similarly, Antwi-Agyei et al. [35] and Asante et al. [64] demonstrate how SFSC adoption is closely tied to climate-smart agriculture and localised responses to global food price volatility.
However, implementation patterns reveal that SFSCs are largely localised and community-driven, reflecting the limited infrastructure and policy support in many African contexts. Mensah and Karriem [38] and Musazura and Odindo [26] show how farmer cooperatives and producer–consumer alliances play a central role in creating trust-based exchanges that underpin SFSC viability. Crises such as COVID-19 further illuminated their importance: Bannor et al. [56,57], Struik et al. [76], and Sutcliffe et al. [52] emphasise that during periods of global supply chain disruption, local networks maintained access to essential food, demonstrating the adaptive resilience of SFSCs in Africa.

4.2. Thematic Domains in African SFSC Research and Their Interrelations

The thematic analysis highlighted four domains: Governance–resilience–sustainability; Urbanisation and participation; Digital and market innovation; and Youth, gender, and inclusion. African research tends to emphasise governance and resilience strongly, reflecting the vulnerability of food systems to climate shocks, weak state capacity, and persistent market failures [64,77].
Urbanisation and participation also emerge as central. Studies such as Oloko and Ekpo [78], Olumba et al. [32], and Paganini et al. [74] underline how consumer trust and farmer empowerment are structurally interlinked, with urban food councils, producer–consumer platforms, and municipal agriculture initiatives being key in shaping participation. While these strengthen local resilience, they also reveal the risks of uneven governance when participatory models are not institutionalised at scale.
At the same time, the innovation and logistics cluster remains less integrated with governance and inclusion. Nchanji and Lutomia [31,72] and Wongnaa et al. [75] note that digitalisation and infrastructure development are often treated as technical fixes rather than embedded within governance frameworks. This disconnect underlines a limitation in current conceptualisations, where digital platforms, logistics hubs, and cold chain development are not yet consistently framed as enablers of inclusion and equity.

4.3. Gaps, Contradictions, and Institutionalisation Opportunities for SFSCs in Food Systems

Three gaps emerge from the literature. First, inclusion and equity remain peripheral despite their normative importance. Women and youth are frequently absent from leadership roles in SFSC initiatives, making equity more often a rhetorical commitment than a structural reality [28,79,80]. Second, while there is evidence of digitalisation being embraced, it is usually confined to narrow applications such as e-commerce and traceability, without integration into systemic governance frameworks [34,40,81]. The narrow application risks reinforcing inequalities if digital platforms are not coupled with equity-focused policies. Third, logistics and infrastructure are often framed as technical bottlenecks rather than as systemic enablers. Studies highlight weak cold chains, limited storage, and fragmented distribution systems as barriers to SFSC viability [63,68], but these are seldom conceptualised alongside governance, participation, and equity. The gaps constrain the ability of SFSCs to transition from fragmented initiatives to fully institutionalised food system innovations.
The evidence base further exhibits a geographic paradox. Research is heavily concentrated in South Africa, Ghana, and Kenya, reflecting both their leadership in SFSC practice and the availability of stronger research platforms. However, this concentration risks obscuring diverse experiences in underrepresented regions where institutional and socio-political conditions differ markedly [33,69,75]. Addressing these gaps requires comparative and inclusive research that captures the full continental spectrum of SFSC practice.
Opportunities to close the gaps lie in scaling participatory governance models, mainstreaming gender-sensitive procurement, investing in youth-led cooperatives, strengthening logistics and cold-chain systems, and entrenching digital equity within food governance. Such interventions would broaden inclusiveness, enhance operational viability, and accelerate the institutionalisation of SFSCs across the food systems.

4.4. Theoretical Implications

This review extends three theoretical perspectives. First, it contributes to food sovereignty theory by demonstrating how African SFSCs can reintegrate smallholders into food governance, countering corporate concentration and dependency on global chains [42,44]. Second, it strengthens insights from political ecology, showing how SFSCs emerge as adaptive responses to structural inequalities, including land access, gender, and market marginalisation [31,72].
Third, it advances sustainability transitions theory by positioning SFSCs as systemic innovations capable of transforming food systems through resilience and justice-oriented governance [64,68]. However, the weak integration of digitalisation and inclusion indicates a theoretical gap in explaining how technological and social enablers intersect in African contexts.

4.5. Practical Implications

The findings point to four practical priorities. First, institutional procurement strategies such as school feeding and hospital food supply chains can anchor SFSCs in formal markets while supporting food security and rural livelihoods [56,57]. Second, municipal-level interventions such as food councils, urban agriculture zoning, and participatory cooperatives can enhance consumer trust and producer autonomy [26,38]. Third, digital and logistical enablers, including blockchain traceability, cooperative logistics hubs, and mobile-based trading platforms, can close operational gaps and expand access to urban markets [40,81]. Finally, inclusive financing and equity programmes, particularly women- and youth-led enterprises, can make inclusion a tangible pillar of SFSC institutionalisation rather than a rhetorical aspiration [28,80].

4.6. Policy Implications

To activate the practical priorities, at the national level, ministries of agriculture and urban development should entrench SFSC principles in food security strategies, supported by dashboards that track accessibility, carbon footprints, and inclusion [33,64]. At the local level, municipal authorities can institutionalise food councils, cooperative financing, and participatory governance platforms to build community trust [26,38]. At the continental level, Regional Economic Communities (RECs) can harmonise certification standards, facilitate cross-border trade, and strengthen regional knowledge hubs for capacity-building and policy learning [69,70]. Across all levels, equity-sensitive policies, such as gender-responsive procurement, youth-led cooperatives, and inclusive land governance, are essential to ensure SFSCs contribute to justice-oriented transitions.

4.7. Limitations

This review has limitations that also point to avenues for future inquiry. First, the reliance on English-language studies may have excluded contributions from francophone and lusophone contexts, which could provide valuable comparative insights. Second, a small number of inaccessible articles were also noted. Although their core themes were represented elsewhere and are unlikely to have biassed the synthesis, the limitation is acknowledged. Methodologically, the study employed qualitative thematic analysis rather than quantitative modelling, which limits the capacity to measure SFSC resilience or impact numerically. Finally, while themes of inclusion and equity were coded, they remain underdeveloped in the reviewed literature, highlighting an area where more systematic engagement is required.

4.8. Directions for Future Research

Building on the limitations, future research should expand geographic coverage to underrepresented regions such as North and Central Africa, where empirical evidence remains sparse. Longitudinal and comparative designs are needed to assess SFSC resilience over time and across diverse contexts, complementing qualitative insights with quantitative modelling. There is scope for predictive analytics and simulation tools to strengthen the understanding of SFSC efficiency under conditions of uncertainty. Further research should also interrogate the nexus between SFSCs, gendered land access, youth participation, and digital governance, ensuring that inclusion becomes structurally embedded rather than rhetorically acknowledged. Finally, examining the role of RECs in certification harmonisation, policy learning, and cross-border trade facilitation would strengthen integration of SFSCs into continental food security strategies.

5. Conclusions

This review provides a continent-wide synthesis of SFSC research in Africa, drawing on 69 studies across 25 countries. It identifies four thematic domains: governance, resilience and sustainability; urbanisation and participation; innovation and logistics; and inclusion and equity, that shape how SFSCs are conceptualised and implemented. Rather than being limited to logistical adjustments, African SFSCs are emerging as systemic innovations that reconfigure food governance, foster ecological justice, and place smallholder empowerment at the centre of food system transformation.
However, three domains remain underdeveloped. Equity and inclusion often feature as a rhetorical commitment rather than a structural practice, digitalisation is narrowly applied to e-commerce and traceability, and logistics is often treated as a technical fix rather than a systemic enabler. Further, the evidence base is shaped by a concentration of studies in a few countries, leaving other regions comparatively underexplored.
The study contributes theoretically by extending food sovereignty, political ecology, and sustainability transitions frameworks in African contexts. Practically, it highlights the importance of institutional procurement, municipal food councils, and digital platforms for strengthening SFSC adoption. At the policy level, it calls for reforms across national, local, and regional scales, including gender-sensitive procurement, youth-led cooperatives, and REC support for certification and cross-border trade.
Looking ahead, institutionalising SFSCs is a continental priority for achieving food security, climate resilience, and inclusive development. By integrating and reinforcing equity, logistics, and digital enablers into governance frameworks, SFSCs can evolve from fragmented initiatives into integral pillars of sustainable food systems in Africa.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.H.M. and N.P.; methodology, E.H.M. and N.P.; software, E.H.M.; validation, E.H.M. and N.P.; formal analysis, E.H.M.; investigation, E.H.M.; resources, E.H.M.; data curation, E.H.M.; writing—original draft preparation, E.H.M.; writing—review and editing, E.H.M. and N.P.; visualisation, E.H.M.; supervision, N.P.; project administration, N.P.; funding acquisition, N.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analysed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Boolean strings for article searching.
Table A1. Boolean strings for article searching.
DatabaseString
ScopusTITLE-ABS-KEY(“short food supply chain*” OR “local food system*” OR “local food network*” OR “alternative food network*” OR “community supported agriculture”)
Web of Science(“short food supply chain*” OR “local food system*” OR “local food network*” OR “alternative food network*” OR “community supported agriculture”) AND (Africa)
EBSCOHost(TI “short food supply chain*” OR AB “short food supply chain*” OR SU “short food supply chain*” OR TI “local food system*” OR AB “local food system*” OR SU “local food system*” OR TI “local food network*” OR AB “local food network*” OR SU “local food network*” OR TI “alternative food network*” OR AB “alternative food network*” OR SU “alternative food network*” OR TI “community supported agriculture” OR AB “community supported agriculture” OR SU “community supported agriculture”) AND (TI Africa OR AB Africa OR SU Africa)
Table A2. List of articles that could not be accessed.
Table A2. List of articles that could not be accessed.
Article DetailsDatabaseReason
Sowunmi, F. A. & Adeduntan, F. L. (2020). Impact of Rural-Urban Migration on the Food Consumption Pattern of Farming Households in Ibadan/Ibarapa Agricultural Zone of Oyo State, Nigeria. In A. Obayelu & O. Obayelu (Eds.), Developing Sustainable Food Systems, Policies, and Securities (pp. 216–238). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2599-9.ch013SCOPUSNot available through the institution’s database subscription
Sowunmi, F. A. & Adeduntan, F. L. (2022). Impact of Rural-Urban Migration on the Food Consumption Pattern of Farming Households in Ibadan/Ibarapa Agricultural Zone of Oyo State, Nigeria. In I. Management Association (Ed.), Research Anthology on Strategies for Achieving Agricultural Sustainability (pp. 1130–1153). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-5352-0.ch060SCOPUSNot available through the institution’s database subscription
Shava, E. (2022). Survival of African Governments in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In: Benyera, E. (eds) Africa and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Advances in African Economic, Social and Political Development. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87524-4_7SCOPUSNot available through the institution’s database subscription
Ndhlovu, E., Mhlanga, D. (2024). Towards a Functional Food System in Africa. In: Mhlanga, D., Ndhlovu, E. (eds) The Russia-Ukraine Conflict and Development in Africa. Contributions to Political Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-63333-1_21SCOPUSNot available through the institution’s database subscription
Lamanna, C., Namoi, N., Kimaro, A.A. et al. (2016). Evidence-based opportunities for out-scaling climate-smart agriculture in East AfricaAGRISView and download link not found.
Kanosvamhira, T.P. (2021). Urban Agriculture and the Organisation of Urban Farmers in African Cities: The Experiences of Cape Town and Dar es Salaam. In: Halberstadt, J., Marx Gómez, J., Greyling, J., Mufeti, T.K., Faasch, H. (eds) Resilience, Entrepreneurship and ICT. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78941-1_10SpringerLinkNot available through the institution’s database subscription
Table A3. Summary of themes, determinant terms and contributing articles.
Table A3. Summary of themes, determinant terms and contributing articles.
ThemeDeterminant TermsAuthors
Urban and Local Food Systemscity, community, local, local food, neighbourhood, proximity, short supply, urban[26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92]
Farmer Participation and Empowermentagency, collaboration, cooperation, decision-making, empowerment, engagement, farmer, inclusion, initiative, involvement, leadership, participation, representation, voice[26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,49,51,52,53,56,57,58,59,60,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,71,72,73,74,75,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,86,87,88,89,90,91,92]
Sustainability and Agroecologyagroecology, biodiversity, conservation, ecological, environment, organic, soil, sustainability[26,28,30,31,32,33,34,35,37,38,39,41,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,57,58,60,64,66,67,68,70,71,72,73,74,76,80,84,86,87,88,89,90]
Governance, Ethics and Justiceaccountability, ethics, governance, institution, justice, policy, regulation, rights[26,27,28,29,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,42,43,44,45,46,49,50,51,52,53,54,58,61,62,63,64,66,68,70,71,72,74,75,78,79,80,81,82,83,86,87,93]
Resilience and Food Securityavailability, crisis, food security, nutrition, resilience, shock, stability, vulnerability[27,28,29,30,31,33,34,36,37,38,39,44,45,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,58,60,62,63,64,66,67,68,69,70,72,74,76,78,80,82,83,84,85,86,88,89]
Consumer Preferences and Trustawareness, behaviour, confidence, consumer, demand, perception, preference, trust[27,28,30,31,34,36,37,40,43,44,45,46,47,49,51,52,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,64,67,68,69,70,72,73,74,75,76,77,79,80,83,85,86,88,90,92]
Infrastructure and Logisticsdelivery, distribution, facilities, infrastructure, logistics, storage, supply chain, transport[28,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,39,40,43,44,45,46,48,49,50,51,52,54,59,62,63,72,74,75,77,81,82,83,84,88,90]
Youth, Gender and Inclusionempowerment, equity, gender, inclusion, inequality, marginalised, women, youth[26,27,28,31,33,34,38,42,44,49,50,51,52,55,56,58,60,61,64,65,66,68,72,74,75,76,83,86,90,92]
Digital and Market Innovationdigital, information, innovation, market, platform, technology[27,28,29,31,34,42,49,52,53,59,60,63,64,67,68,69,71,72,74,75,76,82,83,87,90,94]

References

  1. Fanzo, J.; Bellows, A.L.; Spiker, M.L.; Thorne-Lyman, A.L.; Bloem, M.W. The Importance of Food Systems and the Environment for Nutrition. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2021, 113, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Araújo, R.G.; Chavez-Santoscoy, R.A.; Parra-Saldívar, R.; Melchor-Martínez, E.M.; Iqbal, H.M.N. Agro-Food Systems and Environment: Sustaining the Unsustainable. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2023, 31, 100413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Marshall, Q.; Fanzo, J.; Barrett, C.B.; Jones, A.D.; Herforth, A.; McLaren, R. Building a Global Food Systems Typology: A New Tool for Reducing Complexity in Food Systems Analysis. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 746512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Betts-Davies, S.; Barrett, J.; Brockway, P.; Norman, J. Is All Inequality Reduction Equal? Understanding Motivations and Mechanisms for Socio-Economic Inequality Reduction in Economic Narratives of Climate Change Mitigation. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2024, 107, 103349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Méjean, A.; Collins-Sowah, P.; Guivarch, C.; Piontek, F.; Soergel, B.; Taconet, N. Climate Change Impacts Increase Economic Inequality: Evidence from a Systematic Literature Review. Environ. Res. Lett. 2024, 19, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Laar, A.; Tagwireyi, J.; Hassan-Wassef, H. From Dialogues to Action: Commitments by African Governments to Transform Their Food Systems and Assure Sustainable Healthy Diets. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2023, 65, 101380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Malaker, T.; Meng, Q. Urban Disparity Analytics Using GIS: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hazvinei Vhumbunu, C. Staple Crops Processing Zones, Food Security and Restoration of Local Food Systems in Zimbabwe. Afr. Dev. 2022, 47, 197–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Walker, R.E.; Keane, C.R.; Burke, J.G. Disparities and Access to Healthy Food in the United States: A Review of Food Deserts Literature. Health Place 2010, 16, 876–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Vilar-Compte, M.; Burrola-Mendez, S.; Lozano-Marrufo, A.; Ferre-Eguiluz, I.; Flores, D.; Gaitan-Rossi, P.; Teruel, G.; Perez-Escamilla, R. Urban Poverty and Nutrition Challenges Associated with Accessibility to a Healthy Diet: A Global Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Equity Health 2021, 20, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. O’Connor, G.; Reis, K.; Desha, C.; Burkett, I. Valuing Farmers in Transitions to More Sustainable Food Systems: A Systematic Literature Review of Local Food Producers’ Experiences and Contributions in Short Food Supply Chains. Agric. Hum. Values 2024, 42, 565–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kapari, M.; Hlophe-Ginindza, S.; Nhamo, L.; Mpandeli, S. Contribution of Smallholder Farmers to Food Security and Opportunities for Resilient Farming Systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1149854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vittersø, G.; Torjusen, H.; Laitala, K.; Tocco, B.; Biasini, B.; Csillag, P.; de Labarre, M.D.; Lecoeur, J.-L.; Maj, A.; Majewski, E.; et al. Short Food Supply Chains and Their Contributions to Sustainability: Participants’ Views and Perceptions from 12 European Cases. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hart, T.G.; Davids, Y.D.; Rule, S.; Tirivanhu, P.; Mtyingizane, S. The COVID-19 Pandemic Reveals an Unprecedented Rise in Hunger: The South African Government Was Ill-Prepared to Meet the Challenge. Sci. Afr. 2022, 16, e01169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Manfouo, N.C.F. Monitoring Commercial and Smallholder Production Inequalities During South Africa’s Lockdown Using Remotely Sensed Data. Agrosystems Geosci. Environ. 2024, 7, e20460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Misselhorn, A.; Hendriks, S.L. A Systematic Review of Sub-National Food Insecurity Research in South Africa: Missed Opportunities for Policy Insights. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0182399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. De Rosa, M.; Charatsari, C.; Lioutas, E.D.; Vecchio, Y.; Masi, M. Staging Value Creation Processes in Short Food Supply Chains of Italy. Agric. Food Econ. 2024, 12, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cui, Y.; Diarrassouba, I.; Joncour, C.; Michel Loyal, S. Optimization and Analysis of the Impact of Food Hub Location on GHG Emissions in a Short Food Supply Chain. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Charatsari, C.; Kitsios, F.; Lioutas, E.D. Short Food Supply Chains: The Link Between Participation and Farmers’ Competencies. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2019, 35, 643–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Feurich, M.; Kourilova, J.; Pelucha, M.; Kasabov, E. Bridging the Urban–Rural Digital Divide: Taxonomy of Best Practice and Critical Reflection on the EU Countries’ Approach. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2023, 32, 483–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Deka, N.; Goswami, K. Analysing Alternative Food Networks in Highly-Globalised and Standardised Agrifood Systems to Attain Sustainability for Small-Scale Growers: Inferences from the Tea Sector. Local Environ. 2024, 29, 317–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ahmed, S.K.; Mohammed, R.A.; Nashwan, A.J.; Ibrahim, R.H.; Abdalla, A.Q.; Ameen, B.M.M.; Khdhir, R.M. Using Thematic Analysis in Qualitative Research. J. Med. Surg. Public Health 2025, 6, 100198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Naeem, M.; Ozuem, W.; Howell, K.; Ranfagni, S. A Step-by-Step Process of Thematic Analysis to Develop a Conceptual Model in Qualitative Research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2023, 22, 5789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Michel-Villarreal, R.; Vilalta-Perdomo, E.; Hingley, M.; Canavari, M. Rethinking Alternative Food Networks: Unpacking Key Attributes and Overlapping Concepts. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024, 49, 415–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Musazura, W.; Odindo, A.O. Characterisation of Selected Human Excreta-Derived Fertilisers for Agricultural Use: A Scoping Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 339, 130516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Paganini, N.; Lemke, S. “There Is Food We Deserve, and There Is Food We Do Not Deserve”: Food Injustice, Place, and Power in Urban Agriculture in Cape Town and Maputo. Local Environ. 2020, 25, 1000–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hakimi, F.; Sehli, S.; Hashem, A.; Avila-Quezada, G.D.; Abd_Allah, E.F. Comparative Analysis of Organic and Conventional Farm Sustainability in Peri-Urban Zones of Rabat, Morocco: Insights and Perspectives. Cogent Food Agric. 2025, 11, 2463562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Malan, N. Urban Farmers and Urban Agriculture in Johannesburg: Responding to the Food Resilience Strategy. Agrekon 2015, 54, 51–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mulvany, P.; Murphy, B. Sustaining Local Food Webs: Insights from Kenya and the UK. Food Chain 2015, 5, 181–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nchanji, E.B.; Lutomia, C.K. Regional Impact of COVID-19 on the Production and Food Security of Common Bean Smallholder Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implication for SDGs. Glob. Food Sec. 2021, 29, 100524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Olumba, C.C.; Olumba, C.N.; Alimba, J.O. Constraints to Urban Agriculture in Southeast Nigeria. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2021, 8, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Steenkamp, J.; Cilliers, E.J.; Cilliers, S.S.; Lategan, L. Food for Thought: Addressing Urban Food Security Risks through Urban Agriculture. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tinarwo, J. Strengthening Local Food Systems in the Context of COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons from Zimbabwe. In COVID-19 in Zimbabwe; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 45–58. [Google Scholar]
  35. Antwi-Agyei, P.; Atta-Aidoo, J.; Asare-Nuamah, P.; Stringer, L.C.; Antwi, K. Trade-Offs, Synergies and Acceptability of Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices by Smallholder Farmers in Rural Ghana. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2023, 21, 2193439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Carlos Bezerra, J.; Nqowana, T.; Oosthuizen, R.; Canca, M.; Nkwinti, N.; Mantel, S.K.; New, M.; Ford, J.; Zavaleta-Cortijo, C.C.; Galappaththi, E.K.; et al. Addressing Food Insecurity Through Community Kitchens During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study from the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Urban Sci. 2025, 9, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Freidberg, S.; Goldstein, L. Alternative Food in the Global South: Reflections on a Direct Marketing Initiative in Kenya. J. Rural Stud. 2011, 27, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mensah, C.; Karriem, A. Harnessing Public Food Procurement for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods in South Africa through the National School Nutrition Programme: A Qualitative Assessment of Contributions and Challenges. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mukhovi, S.M.; Kiteme, B.; Mwangi, J.; Wambugu, G. Transdisciplinary Knowledge Co-Production as a Catalyst for Community-Led Innovation: A Case Study of Farmers’ Milk Cooperative in Laikipia, Kenya. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024, 8, 1494692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nalubowa, W.; Moruzzo, R.; Scarpellini, P.; Granai, G. The Potential of Farmers’ Markets: The Uganda Case. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nel, E.; Binns, T.; Bek, D. ‘Alternative Foods’ and Community-Based Development: Rooibos Tea Production in South Africa’s West Coast Mountains. Appl. Geogr. 2007, 27, 112–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Odame, H.S.; Okeyo-Owuor, J.B.; Changeh, J.G.; Otieno, J.O. The Role of Technology in Inclusive Innovation of Urban Agriculture. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 43, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ortmann, G.F.; King, R.P. Research on Agri-Food Supply Chains in Southern Africa Involving Small-Scale Farmers: Current Status and Future Possibilities. Agrekon 2010, 49, 397–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pereira, L.; Drimie, S.; Zgambo, O.; Biggs, R. Planning for Change: Transformation Labs for an Alternative Food System in Cape Town, South Africa. Urban Transform. 2020, 2, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Doernberg, A.; Piorr, A.; Zasada, I.; Wascher, D.; Schmutz, U. Sustainability Assessment of Short Food Supply Chains (SFSC): Developing and Testing a Rapid Assessment Tool in One African and Three European City Regions. Agric. Hum. Values 2022, 39, 885–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.S.; Hassan, S.S.; Fayyad, S. Farm-to-Fork and Sustainable Agriculture Practices: Perceived Economic Benefit as a Moderator and Environmental Sustainability as a Mediator. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Góralska-Walczak, R.; Stefanovic, L.; Kopczynska, K.; Kazimierczak, R.; Bugel, S.G.; Strassner, C.; Peronti, B.; Lafram, A.; El Bilali, H.; Srednicka-Tober, D. Entry Points, Barriers, and Drivers of Transformation Toward Sustainable Organic Food Systems in Five Case Territories in Europe and North Africa. Nutrients 2025, 17, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Muñoz Torres, M.J.; Fernández-Izquierdo, M.Á.; Ferrero-Ferrero, I.; Escrig-Olmedo, E.; Rivera-Lirio, J.M. Transitioning the Agri-Food System: Does Closeness Mean Sustainability? How Production and Shipping Strategies Impact Socially and Environmentally—Comparing Spain, South Africa, and U.S. Citrus Fruit Productions. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 46, 540–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Boillat, S.; Bottazzi, P.; Sabaly, I.K. The Division of Work in Senegalese Conventional and Alternative Food Networks: A Contributive Justice Perspective. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1127593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kanosvamhira, T.P. Beyond the Blueprint: Rethinking Governance and Sustainability in Cape Town’s Community Gardens. J. Urban Aff. 2025, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kesselman, B. Transforming South Africa’s Unjust Food System: An Argument for Decolonisation. Food Cult. Soc. 2023, 27, 792–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sutcliffe, S.; Lau, J.; Barnes, M.; Mbaru, E.; Wade, E.; Hungito, W.; Muly, I.; Wanyonyi, S.; Muthiga, N.; Cohen, P.; et al. COVID-19 Impacts on Food Systems in Fisheries-Dependent Island Communities. Ecol. Soc. 2023, 28, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Murungweni, C.; van Wijk, M.T.; Giller, K.E.; Andersson, J.A.; Smaling, E.M.A. Adaptive Livelihood Strategies Employed by Farmers to Close the Food Gap in Semi-Arid South Eastern Zimbabwe. Food Secur. 2014, 6, 313–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Odozi, J.C. Dynamic Food Insecurity and Resilience of Smallholder Households in a Local Food System: The Pandemic Experience in Nigeria. Int. J. Food Sci. Agric. 2022, 6, 394–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tora, T.T. Production Preference Barriers and Lowland-Appropriate Strategies of Sustaining Local Food Systems in Drought-Affected Southern Ethiopia. Discov. Sustain. 2024, 5, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bannor, R.K.; Oppong-Kyeremeh, H.; Boateng, A.O.; Bold, E.; Gruzah, B. Short Supply Chain Choice and Impact Amongst Rice Processors in Rural Ghana. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2023, 15, 150–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bannor, R.K.; Boateng, A.O.; Oppong-Kyeremeh, H.; Bold, E. Direct, Indirect and Mediation Effects of Consumer Ethnocentrism on the Willingness to Pay Premium Price for Locally Produced Honey. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2024, 37, 296–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Borelli, T.; Hunter, D.; Padulosi, S.; Amaya, N.; Meldrum, G.; Beltrame, D.M.d.O.; 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]
  59. Nabagou, M.; Kpotchou, K. Analysis of Household Food Procurement Practices from a Sustainability Perspective in Grand Lomé, Togo. Edelweiss Appl. Sci. Technol. 2024, 8, 830–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Noort, M.W.J.; Renzetti, S.; Linderhof, V.; du Rand, G.E.; Marx-Pienaar, N.; de Kock, H.L.; Magano, N.; Taylor, J.R.N. Towards Sustainable Shifts to Healthy Diets and Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa with Climate-Resilient Crops in Bread-Type Products: A Food System Analysis. Foods 2022, 11, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Saeed, H.A.M.; Adam, Y.O.; Donkor, E.; Mithöfer, D. Consumers Behavior, Attitudes, and Beliefs Regarding Baobab (Adansonia digitata L.) Fruit and Pulp Consumption in Sudan. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1118714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bini, V. Food Security and Food Sovereignty in West Africa. Afr. Geogr. Rev. 2018, 37, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sithole, S.T.; Tevera, D.; Dinbabo, M.F. Feeding Hope: Zimbabwean Migrants in South Africa and the Evolving Landscape of Cross-Border Remittances. Glob. Food Secur. 2025, 44, 100843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Asante, I.S.; Aidoo, M.; Prah, S.; Sam Hagan, M.A.; Sackey, C.K. Achieving Food Security: Household Perception and Adoption of Home Gardening Techniques in Ghana. J. Agric. Food Res. 2024, 18, 101329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Obeng, E.; Desczka, S.; Tsvetkov, B.; Kumar, I.; Galema, S. Rapid Co-Creative Assessment for Actionable Circular Food Systems. J. Agric. Food. Syst. Community. Dev. 2025, 14, 231–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Willis, J.; Losch, B.; Pereira, L.M. NUS So Fast: The Social and Ecological Implications of a Rapidly Developing Indigenous Food Economy in the Cape Town Area. Sustain. Sci. 2024, 19, 1595–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bojang, B.; Emang, D. Can Cashew Value Chain Industry Improve Food Security: An Empirical Study from The Gambia. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rosengren, L.M.; Schinko, T.; Sendzimir, J.; Mohammed, A.-R.; Buwah, R.; Vihinen, H.; Raymond, C.M. Interlinkages Between Leverage Points for Strengthening Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change. Sustain. Sci. 2023, 18, 2199–2218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zivhave, M.; Kornienko, K. Urban Agriculture’s ‘Invisible’ Short Food Value Chain: How Small-scale Farming Contributes to Johannesburg Food Security. Urban Forum 2024, 36, 91–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kanosvamhira, T.P. Cultivating Food Justice: Redefining Harvest Sales for Sustainable Urban Agriculture in Low-Income Cape Town Post COVID-19. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2024, 48, 280–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pereira, L.M.; Kushitor, S.B.; Cramer, C.; Drimie, S.; Isaacs, M.; Malgas, R.; Phiri, E.; Tembo, C.; Willis, J. Leveraging the Potential of Wild Food for Healthy, Sustainable, and Equitable Local Food Systems: Learning from a Transformation Lab in the Western Cape Region. Sustain. Sci. 2022, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Nchanji, E.B.; Lutomia, C.K. COVID-19 Challenges to Sustainable Food Production and Consumption: Future Lessons for Food Systems in Eastern and Southern Africa from a Gender Lens. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 2208–2220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Van den Berg, H.; Mearns, K. An Exploration of Guesthouse Fresh Produce Purchasing Behaviour and Supply Chains in Johannesburg. J. Transp. Supply Chain. Manag. 2021, 15, a557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Paganini, N.; Adinata, K.; Buthelezi, N.; Harris, D.; Lemke, S.; Luis, A.; Koppelin, J.; Karriem, A.; Ncube, F.; Nervi Aguirre, E.; et al. Growing and Eating Food during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Farmers’ Perspectives on Local Food System Resilience to Shocks in Southern Africa and Indonesia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wongnaa, C.A.; Ansah, R.O.; Akutinga, S.; Azumah, S.B.; Acheampong, R.; Nana, S.Y.; Mensah, G.A.; Gidisu, S.; Awunyo-Vitor, D. Profitability, Market Outlets and Constraints to Ghana’s Pig Production. Clean. Circ. Bioeconomy 2023, 6, 100068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Struik, P.C.; Klerkx, L.; Hounkonnou, D. Unravelling Institutional Determinants Affecting Change in Agriculture in West Africa. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2014, 12, 370–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zhou, A.C.; Hendriks, S.L. Does Food Assistance Improve Recipients’ Dietary Diversity and Food Quality in Mozambique? Agrekon 2017, 56, 248–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Oloko, M.; Ekpo, R. Effects of the COVID-19 Lockdown on the Livelihood and Food Security of Street Food Vendors and Consumers in Nigeria. J. Afr. Stud. Dev. 2021, 13, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Dumas, S.E.; Lewis, D.; Travis, A.J. Small-Scale Egg Production Centres Increase Children’s Egg Consumption in Rural Zambia. Matern. Child Nutr. 2018, 14 (Suppl. 3), e12662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zakariah-Akoto, S.; Armar-Klemesu, M.; Ankomah, A.; Torpey, K.; Aryeetey, R. Socio-Cultural Norms in the Local Food System and Potential Implications for Women’s Dietary Quality in Rural Northern Ghana. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 2024, 24, 25052–25077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Tröger, K.; Lelea, M.A.; Hensel, O.; Kaufmann, B. Re-Framing Post-Harvest Losses Through a Situated Analysis of the Pineapple Value Chain in Uganda. Geoforum 2020, 111, 48–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hanel, T.; Miller, B.; Aboul-Enein, B.; Benajiba, N.; Kruk, J. Farm-to-School Nutrition Programs with Special Reference to Egypt and Morocco. North. Afr. J. Food Nutr. Res. 2021, 5, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Haysom, G. Food and the City: Urban Scale Food System Governance. Urban Forum 2015, 26, 263–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Huang, Z. Rwanda Market in Addis Ababa: Between Chinese Migrants and a Local Food Network. China Perspect. 2019, 2019, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Hussayn, J.A.; Gulak, D.M. Realising Sustainable Food Systems Among Organic Farmers in Nigeria: Evidence from Community Supported Agriculture. Sci. Pap. Ser.—Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2020, 20, 267–273. [Google Scholar]
  86. Kesselman, B. The Contribution of Community Food Gardens to Food Sovereignty in Johannesburg, South Africa: A Look at Localisation and Democratisation. In Envisioning a Future Without Food Waste and Food Poverty: Societal Challenges; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 323–329. [Google Scholar]
  87. Mokoena, O.P.; Ntuli, T.S.; Ramarumo, T.; Seeletse, S.M. Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Thematic Content Analysis to Assess Sustainability Among Small-Scale Dairy Farmers. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rahmann, G.; Grimm, D.; Kuenz, A.; Hessel, E. Combining Land-Based Organic and Landless Food Production: A Concept for a Circular and Sustainable Food Chain for Africa in 2100. Org. Agric. 2019, 10, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Rapinski, M.; Raymond, R.; Davy, D.; Herrmann, T.; Bedell, J.-P.; Ka, A.; Odonne, G.; Chanteloup, L.; Lopez, P.J.; Foulquier, É.; et al. Local Food Systems under Global Influence: The Case of Food, Health and Environment in Five Socio-Ecosystems. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Souissi, A.; Dhehibi, B.; Oumer, A.M.; Mejri, R.; Frija, A.; Zlaoui, M.; Dhraief, M.Z. Linking Farmers’ Perceptions and Management Decision Toward Sustainable Agroecological Transition: Evidence from Rural Tunisia. Front. Nutr. 2024, 11, 1389007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Thom, A.; Conradie, B. Urban Agriculture’s Enterprise Potential: Exploring Vegetable Box Schemes in Cape Town. Agrekon 2013, 52 (Suppl. 1), 64–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Tian, X.; Zhang, R.; Wang, Z.; Kang, X.; Yang, Z. Exploring Community-Supported Agriculture through Maslow’s Hierarchy: A Systematic Review of Research Themes and Trends. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Wegerif, M.C.A.; Martucci, R. Milk and the City: Raw Milk Challenging the Value Claims of Value Chains. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 43, 1077–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Dentoni, D.; Bijman, J.; Bossle, M.B.; Gondwe, S.; Isubikalu, P.; Ji, C.; Kella, C.; Pascucci, S.; Royer, A.; Vieira, L. New Organizational Forms in Emerging Economies: Bridging the Gap Between Agribusiness Management and International Development. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2020, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 08047 g001
Figure 1. Systematic literature review flow diagram (Source: author-created based on the PRISMA guidelines [22]).
Figure 1. Systematic literature review flow diagram (Source: author-created based on the PRISMA guidelines [22]).
Sustainability 17 08047 g001
Sustainability 17 08047 g002
Figure 2. Publication trends over the years. The decline in 2025 reflects partial-year data (January to May) and not an actual reduction in research activity.
Figure 2. Publication trends over the years. The decline in 2025 reflects partial-year data (January to May) and not an actual reduction in research activity.
Sustainability 17 08047 g002
Sustainability 17 08047 g003
Figure 3. Location heatmap of the research location in Africa.
Figure 3. Location heatmap of the research location in Africa.
Sustainability 17 08047 g003
Sustainability 17 08047 g004
Figure 4. Cross-continental research locations.
Figure 4. Cross-continental research locations.
Sustainability 17 08047 g004
Sustainability 17 08047 g005
Figure 5. Percentage of articles by Scopus journal ranking.
Figure 5. Percentage of articles by Scopus journal ranking.
Sustainability 17 08047 g005
Sustainability 17 08047 g006
Figure 6. Word cloud illustrating frequently occurring terms in the literature.
Figure 6. Word cloud illustrating frequently occurring terms in the literature.
Sustainability 17 08047 g006
Sustainability 17 08047 g007
Figure 7. Distribution of articles by thematic coverage.
Figure 7. Distribution of articles by thematic coverage.
Sustainability 17 08047 g007
Sustainability 17 08047 g008
Figure 8. Thematic co-occurrence in SFSC research mapping key relationships. Node shapes and colours reflect thematic categories and cluster alignment. Line thickness and numeric labels indicate the strength and frequency of co-occurrence between themes.
Figure 8. Thematic co-occurrence in SFSC research mapping key relationships. Node shapes and colours reflect thematic categories and cluster alignment. Line thickness and numeric labels indicate the strength and frequency of co-occurrence between themes.
Sustainability 17 08047 g008
Sustainability 17 08047 g009
Figure 9. Heatmap of thematic co-occurrence in SFSC research. Values indicate the number of co-coded instances across studies, while the colour gradient (yellow to dark green to red) reflects the relative strength of the thematic relationships.
Figure 9. Heatmap of thematic co-occurrence in SFSC research. Values indicate the number of co-coded instances across studies, while the colour gradient (yellow to dark green to red) reflects the relative strength of the thematic relationships.
Sustainability 17 08047 g009
Table 1. Article selection criteria.
Table 1. Article selection criteria.
CategoryInclusion CriteriaExclusion Criteria
LanguagePeer-reviewed articles published in English.Articles published in languages other than English or without an available English translation.
Publication PeriodStudies published up to 31 May 2025.None.
Research FocusStudies with a strong or partial link to SFSCs. Partial links must explicitly demonstrate relevance to one or more SFSC attributes (e.g., proximity, sustainability, direct producer-consumer relationships).Studies that lacked a clear or demonstrable connection to SFSCs or their defining attributes.
Food Systems and ActivitiesResearch addressing food security, sustainable food practices, or related activities where SFSCs have a demonstrable or potential role.Studies focused exclusively on industrial or globalised food supply chains without relevance to SFSCs or local food systems.
Geographical LocationStudies conducted in African countries, with a focus on SFSCs.Research focused on SFSCs outside Africa.
Table 2. Number of articles by Scopus journal ranking.
Table 2. Number of articles by Scopus journal ranking.
PublisherScopus RankingTotalPercent
SustainabilityQ1710%
AgrekonQ246%
Frontiers in Sustainable Food SystemsQ134%
Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging EconomiesQ134%
Sustainability ScienceQ134%
Agroecology and Sustainable Food SystemsQ123%
Global Food SecurityQ123%
International Journal of Agricultural SustainabilityQ123%
Urban ForumQ223%
African Geographical ReviewQ311%
African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and DevelopmentNot ranked11%
AgricultureQ111%
Agriculture and Human ValuesQ111%
AgronomyQ111%
Applied GeographyQ111%
China PerspectivesQ111%
Cleaner and Circular BioeconomyQ211%
Cogent Food & AgricultureQ211%
Current Opinion in Environmental SustainabilityQ111%
Discover SustainabilityQ111%
Ecology and SocietyQ111%
Edelweiss Applied Science and TechnologyQ311%
Food ChainNot ranked11%
Food SecurityQ111%
Food, Culture & SocietyQ111%
FoodsQ111%
Frontiers in NutritionQ111%
GeoforumQ111%
Humanities and Social Sciences CommunicationsQ111%
International Journal of Food Science and AgricultureNot ranked11%
International Journal of Urban and Regional ResearchQ111%
Journal of African Studies and DevelopmentNot ranked11%
Journal of Agriculture and Food ResearchQ111%
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community DevelopmentQ211%
Journal of Cleaner ProductionQ111%
Journal of International Food & Agribusiness MarketingQ211%
Journal of Rural StudiesQ111%
Journal of Transport and Supply Chain ManagementQ211%
Journal of Urban AffairsQ111%
Local EnvironmentQ111%
Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentNot ranked11%
Maternal & Child NutritionQ111%
North African Journal of Food and Nutrition ResearchQ311%
NutrientsQ111%
Organic AgricultureQ211%
Second International Conference on Agriculture in an Urbanizing SocietyConference Paper11%
Springer, ChamBook Section11%
Sustainable Production and ConsumptionQ111%
Urban ScienceQ111%
Urban TransformationsQ211%
Table 3. Thematic categorisation of SFSC studies based on determinant codes.
Table 3. Thematic categorisation of SFSC studies based on determinant codes.
ThemeDeterminant CodesSample Contributing ArticlesFrequency (No. of Articles)Percentage
Urban and Local Food SystemsCity, community, local, local food, neighbourhood, proximity, short supply, urban.[28,29,30,31,32,33,34]6899%
Farmer Participation and EmpowermentAgency, collaboration, cooperation, decision-making, empowerment, engagement, farmer, inclusion, initiative, involvement, leadership, participation, representation, voice.[35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44];6493%
Sustainability and AgroecologyAgroecology, biodiversity, conservation, ecological, environment, organic, soil, sustainability.[28,45,46,47,48]5275%
Governance, Ethics and JusticeAccountability, ethics, governance, institution, justice, policy, regulation, rights.[32,39,44,49,50,51,52]4870%
Resilience and Food SecurityAvailability, crisis, food security, nutrition, resilience, shock, stability, vulnerability.[33,34,53,54,55]4870%
Consumer Preferences and TrustAwareness, behaviour, confidence, consumer, demand, perception, preference, trust.[56,57,58,59,60,61]4565%
Transport, Infrastructure and LogisticsDelivery, distribution, facilities, infrastructure, logistics, storage, supply chain, transport.[28,35,36,40,45,49,50,62,63]3348%
Youth, Gender and InclusionEmpowerment, equity, gender, inclusion, inequality, marginalised, women, youth[28,50,64,65,66]3348%
Digital and Market InnovationDigital, information, innovation, market, platform, technology[28,34,49,52,59,63,64,67,68,69]2638%
Table 4. Thematic clusters of SFSC research.
Table 4. Thematic clusters of SFSC research.
Cluster NameThemesRationale
Governance–Resilience–SustainabilityGovernance, Ethics and Justice; Resilience and Food Security; Sustainability and Agroecology.High co-occurrence (Resilience–Sustainability = 48, Governance–Resilience = 48.
They form a core institutional, ethical, and ecological orientation.
Conceptually, themes reinforce system-level stability and long-term sustainability.
Urbanisation and ParticipationUrban and Local Food Systems; Farmer Participation and Empowerment; Consumer Preferences and Trust.Visual triangular core with strong co-occurrence edges (Urban–Farmer = 65, Urban–Consumer = 46, Farmer–Consumer = 43).
Reflection of SFSCs’ social dynamics (consumer behaviour, local production, and empowerment)
Central in both structure and conceptual logic.
Innovation and LogisticsDigital and Market Innovation; Transport, Infrastructure and Logistics.Spatially adjacent themes linked to concepts of trust and participation.
Conceptual relevance despite moderate co-occurrence edges (Innovation–Transport = 21).
Technical enablers of SFSC functionality.
Inclusion and EquityYouth, Gender, and Inclusion.Moderately connected to multiple themes but positioned at the peripheral, indicating that although acknowledged, themes are weakly integrated.
Although grouped in isolation, themes are a critical dimension of equity in the system.
Table 5. Thematic map of SFSC interventions to African development challenges.
Table 5. Thematic map of SFSC interventions to African development challenges.
Thematic ClusterAfrican Challenged TargetedSFSC Interventions
Governance–Resilience–SustainabilityClimate vulnerability, institutional fragility, food system instability.Localised agroecological practices, resilience planning, and community governance models.
Urbanisation and Participatory DynamicsRapid urbanisation, loss of rural power for development, and consumer detachment from local products.Community-supported agriculture; farmer-led urban markets; trust-based consumer networks.
Innovation and LogisticsInadequate infrastructure, market exclusion, and poor cold chain development.Smart logistics hubs; mobile-based traceability systems; cooperative digital marketplaces.
Inclusion and EquityYouth unemployment, gendered land access, marginalisation.Gender-sensitive SFSC programmes; youth co-operatives; inclusive policy design rooted in intersectional equity.
CrosscuttingInstitutional fragmentation, inequity in participation, and weak digital readiness.Strengthened governance frameworks; mainstreaming gender and youth equity; digital innovation for coordination, traceability, and market access.
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

Moyo, E.H.; Pisa, N. Short Food Supply Chain Status and Pathway in Africa: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 8047. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17178047

AMA Style

Moyo EH, Pisa N. Short Food Supply Chain Status and Pathway in Africa: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. 2025; 17(17):8047. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17178047

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moyo, Evance Hlekwayo, and Noleen Pisa. 2025. "Short Food Supply Chain Status and Pathway in Africa: A Systematic Literature Review" Sustainability 17, no. 17: 8047. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17178047

APA Style

Moyo, E. H., & Pisa, N. (2025). Short Food Supply Chain Status and Pathway in Africa: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 17(17), 8047. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17178047

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