Evaluating Food Resilience Initiatives Through Urban Agriculture Models: A Critical Review

Abstract

As global food demand rises, urban agriculture models, such as vertical and terrace farming, have gained traction, especially amid crises like the Ukraine war and COVID-19 pandemic. Climate change remains the most significant threat to global food security. According to the latest FAO analysis, which encompasses assessments from 1990 to 2023, approximately 40% of economic losses resulting from climate-related hazards, including droughts and floods, have impacted the agriculture sector. This has reduced yields, increased production costs, and worsened food insecurity, affecting millions. Urban gardens offer a solution, enhancing food resilience. A systematic PRISMA-based review analyzed studies from Scopus and reports from organizations like the FAO. Over 3329 documents were reviewed. Publications on food resilience grew by 50% in four years, with the US leading with 700 projects. Agricultural and biological sciences dominate research (45%). Urban gardens focus on educating communities about food security and improving food systems. Mobile gardens with portable labs maximize urban spaces, turning rooftops and terraces into productive areas. These initiatives empower communities to grow food, promote nutrition education, and foster social connections. Urban gardens, though not fully sustainable, as they can consume up to 35% more energy per kg of food than optimized traditional farms and generate a 20–40% higher carbon footprint if using imported substrates or plastics, are key for resilient food systems, yielding up to 20 kg/m²/year, reducing transport emissions by 68% (vs. 2400 km supply chains), and using 90% less water than conventional agriculture.

1. Introduction

Malnutrition remains a significant problem in the world. According to a report from the United Nations in 2021, 56.5 million people suffered from hunger, and an additional 268 million faced food insecurity [1]. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) has shown that hunger has doubled in most regions, including Latin America and Africa, since 2015. These alarming figures are the result of numerous social, environmental, and economic problems [2]. To measure the origins and impact of these issues, it is crucial to analyze the food system. This concept encompasses the interactions and activities related to food production, processing, distribution, and consumption. It also includes the socio-economic and environmental contexts and actors involved in these activities [3,4]. These interactions and activities constitute the system through which food is supplied to the population. As this system has expanded on a global scale, it has become increasingly dependent on worldwide economic, political, and natural circumstances [5,6]. Therefore, nations largely rely on connectivity between them for the proper functioning of their economic systems. For example, countries in Latin America, such as Colombia, whose economies partially depend on agricultural production, often do not generate the necessary inputs to meet the demand. They depend on imported fertilizers and pesticides, with Colombia producing only 5% of the fertilizers it needs to meet its demand [7,8]. As a result, the country heavily depends on Western European fertilizers, which introduces currency exchange factors such as the weak currency of some countries for purchasing the required inputs or the devaluation of certain regional products in the international market. Therefore, our current food system calls for greater local participation and reduced dependence on foreign nations. Particularly, Colombia is vulnerable to the fluctuations of the US dollar, and the Colombian oil industry has been losing significance in the international market. Urban agriculture seems to be a possible solution in this regard. The world’s urban population surpassed the rural population in 2007, and it is projected that, by 2050, 68% of the world’s population will live in urban areas [9]. As a result, there are fewer people dedicated to agriculture and a limited amount of land available for farming [10]. As a result, the emergence of urban agriculture has gained prominence as a solution, making use of previously unused spaces like rooftops and terraces. Numerous innovative cultivation methods have been developed, encompassing expansive urban agriculture, covered urban agriculture, high-tech vertical and indoor farming, aquafarming, aquaponics, insect farming, molecular agriculture, and many more [11]. These methods offer possibilities to nourish the local population, aiming for local food sovereignty and equal access to food. However, the successful adaptation of the food system comes with a series of challenges. The food market would need to undergo changes, leading to the reorganization of production chains. Therefore, the entire process of food generation and the risks associated with it, including environmental issues and natural disasters, must be considered [8,12]. Transformative changes in the structures of food systems are emerging, offering new opportunities for resilient transformations. As a logical response, new opportunities are emerging for transformative changes in the structures of food systems, paving the way for resilient transformations [13]. This system is presented as a socio-ecological framework that seeks to be adaptable to economic, political, and environmental changes [14]. Urban agriculture models are gaining recognition as solutions to modern city challenges. These include food security, environmental sustainability, and efficient land use. This has sparked interest in analyzing existing models and assessing their socio-economic and environmental impacts. Understanding these models is crucial. It helps shape future strategies and enhances their effectiveness across diverse urban settings.

This study examines how climate change affects food resilience and urban agriculture. It focuses on innovative urban food production models. A systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. It analyzed 2510 articles from Scopus and FAO reports. This critical review highlights key trends in urban agriculture projects, assessing their environmental, social, and economic impacts. It also examines their role in enhancing urban food security. Community-driven urban agriculture initiatives are expected to promote stronger social cohesion and nutritional education compared to large-scale technocentric models, although they may encounter greater challenges in achieving economic viability.

1.1. Theoretical Framework

The study is anchored in an interdisciplinary synthesis of socio-ecological systems theory, food resilience paradigms, agroecological principles, and adaptive governance frameworks, which collectively provide a robust foundation for analyzing urban agriculture’s role in mitigating systemic vulnerabilities. Socio-ecological systems theory posits that resilience emerges from dynamic equilibria between efficiency, adaptability, and transformability, enabling systems to absorb shocks while maintaining core functions [5]. This lens is critical for evaluating how urban agriculture decentralizes production, reduces dependence on global supply chains, and reconfigures underutilized urban spaces (e.g., rooftops, brownfields) into adaptive nodes of food security [15,16]. Complementing this, other authors define food system resilience as the capacity to sustain nutritional security through diversification, polycentric governance, and equitable resource access concepts operationalized in this study to assess models such as vertical farms and community gardens during crises like pandemics or geopolitical conflicts [15,17]. Agroecological principles further inform the analysis by emphasizing closed-loop metabolic design, exemplified by hydroponic systems achieving 85% water efficiency through recirculation, albeit with energy trade-offs requiring rigorous life-cycle assessments. Simultaneously, adaptive governance frameworks stress the necessity of institutional flexibility and community agency in creating “political, intellectual, and economic spaces” for localized food systems, particularly in regions like Latin America where structural dependencies (e.g., Colombia’s 95% reliance on imported fertilizers) exacerbate vulnerabilities [18,19]. By integrating these theories, the study establishes criteria to holistically evaluate urban agriculture’s capacity to: (1) buffer climate risks via hyperlocalized production, minimizing exposure to rural crop failures from droughts or floods; (2) enhance nutritional equity by shortening supply chains and lowering costs for fresh produce; and (3) harmonize technological innovation with traditional practices (e.g., urban agroforestry) to avoid technocratic oversimplification [20].

1.2. Agricultural Model

With the increasing demand for food, urban farming models have emerged as a solution to meet local needs. Urban agriculture involves cultivating vegetables, greens, and even raising livestock within cities. However, the roots of these models can be traced back to ancient times, as seen in the Ancient City of Xuanhua, China, which boasts an urban agricultural heritage that not only preserves farming traditions but also supports local food production and strengthens the cultural identity of cities [21]. In the present context, these models have gained significant prominence due to the urgent need to ensure a stable food supply chain. Among the various urban farming models, community gardens stand out as spaces for cultivation managed and maintained by the local community. Residents of a neighborhood come together to grow food in shared plots. This model fosters community participation, promotes education, and provides access to fresh and healthy produce [22]. Another notable model is rooftop agriculture, which involves cultivating plants and vegetables on the rooftops of urban buildings. Through techniques such as container farming, vertical gardens, or hydroponics, rooftops are transformed into productive spaces [23]. This practice optimizes unused areas, improves air quality, and promotes urban biodiversity. A less common but innovative approach is the establishment of large-scale rooftop farms on buildings. These farms can incorporate high-yield crops, small-scale animal husbandry, and the production of fresh food. By utilizing rooftops, these farms can provide agricultural products to the local community, reducing the need for long-distance food transportation from rural areas [24]. Additionally, other models such as indoor farming or commercial vertical urban farms exist, contributing to the diversity of urban agriculture practices. However, it is important to note that each of these models requires specific conditions and a strong community for their successful implementation and sustainability. The social element is significant in these models due to the need for immediate consumption of perishable produce. As a result, regional distribution might not always be the most effective choice. Additionally, these models present environmental hurdles concerning water usage, energy consumption, and soil maintenance.

1.3. Systematic Problems in Urban Agriculture

Urban agriculture, while a promising strategy for enhancing food resilience, faces systemic challenges that vary across geographies but share global relevance. Environmental constraints, such as soil contamination with heavy metals such as lead with concentrations exceeding 350 mg/kg in Chicago community gardens or high energy demands in vertical farms (2.3–4.1 kg CO₂eq/kg, 35% above traditional methods), underscore trade-offs between productivity and sustainability [25,26]. Economically, technician systems require prohibitive upfront costs (USD 2500–4000/m²), exacerbating inequalities in low-income regions, while reliance on subsidies as seen in Quito’s Urban Agriculture Plan (70% funded by municipal grants) threatens long-term viability [27,28]. Socially, participatory gaps persist: only 18% of projects in the Global South engage communities in design phases, marginalizing vulnerable groups like informal settlers in Addis Ababa [29]. Politically, fragmented governance evidenced by the absence of urban agriculture laws in 88% of Latin American nations and regulatory voids in Chinese megacities impedes scalability [30,31]. These interconnected issues highlight the urgency of systemic analyses to balance innovation with equity, a gap this study addresses through a global, interdisciplinary lens [32].

1.4. Food Resilience

In response to the multifaceted challenges of modernity, various concepts have emerged to steer us towards sustainable and socially responsible practices [9]. It is crucial to differentiate between the food system and food resilience. The food system pertains to the infrastructure and accessibility of food, while food resilience embodies the food system’s ability to adapt and thrive in the face of diverse political, environmental, or economic circumstances [22]. The food system encompasses the interactions and activities involved in food production, processing, distribution, and consumption. It includes the actors, contexts, and processes that contribute to the overall availability and accessibility of food to the population. On the other hand, food resilience focuses on the ability of the food system to withstand and recover from various shocks and stresses, such as political instability, environmental disasters, or economic fluctuations [24]. Food resilience involves building a system that can adapt and respond effectively to these changing conditions. It requires strategies and practices that enhance the system’s flexibility, diversity, and efficiency, ensuring the continued provision of food even in challenging circumstances. By incorporating elements like local production, diversified sourcing, sustainable agricultural practices, and robust supply chains, a resilient food system can mitigate risks and maintain food security.

The concept can be traced back to the 1970s, when the term resilience was adopted for ecological systems [13], although the definition may vary according to discipline. During the 2007–2008 crisis, food prices skyrocketed throughout the world. Since then, it has been a fundamental concept for managing food supply chains [33]. For this reason, this concept is directly related to food security and food sovereignty. As such, food security focuses on access to and availability of food, food sovereignty focuses on control and autonomy in food production, and food resilience focuses on the ability of food systems to resist and recover from disturbances.

1.5. Food Resilience Challenges

To grasp the foundations of food resilience, it is crucial to understand the key factors that destabilize the food systems in different regions.

1.5.1. Climate Change and Natural Disasters

Climate change is a factor that weakens food systems. This is a result of human activity in industries with environmental impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) or the destruction of protected habitats, leading to infertile crops due to deforestation or acid rain, among other reasons [34,35]. Additionally, this human activity has contributed to the increased frequency of natural hazards, including droughts, floods, storms such as cyclones and hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions [36]. From 1991 to 2021, these hazards have seen a 13% rise in occurrence, while the economic damage has surged by 82%. Notably, global flood disasters were the most prevalent in 2021, accounting for 48% of all events [37]. Asia takes the lead among the most affected continents, followed by Africa. These regions have suffered significant losses in crop and livestock production, amounting to billions of dollars between 2008 and 2018 [38,39]. In Colombia, for example, over the past decade, there has been a notable increase in the La Niña phenomenon, resulting in heightened rainfall. This, in turn, has led to frequent flooding, making it the most recurring natural disaster, accounting for 45% of such events between 1980 and 2022. Consequently, this has resulted in the destruction of approximately 8000 homes each year, causing damage to over 400,000 other properties and leaving 3.5 million people affected [40].

1.5.2. Policy Instability and Economic Crisis

Developed countries use their economic power and advanced infrastructure to design effective protocols or adopt those established by global organizations. An example is the FAO’s 2014 Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries, which aim to address food insecurity and poverty. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive food safety strategies. These must integrate factors like infections, environmental impacts, and human behaviors, including dietary habits and urban management. Additionally, political instability in many countries worsens these challenges. According to the World Bank and the Global Economy Report, 51% of nations score below 0 (on a scale of −2 to 2) in corruption control, and 49% have political stability levels at or below critical thresholds. These issues emphasize the complexity of building resilient food systems in an increasingly volatile global context [41]. Furthermore, more than 32 countries are engaged in internal conflicts, such as civil wars, terrorist insurgencies, wars between countries, or conflicts with drug traffickers [42]. These conflicts, economic downturns (1.9% GDP drop in Sub-Saharan Africa), climate disasters (23 million affected by Horn of Africa drought, FAO), systemic inequalities (poorest 10% hold <2% of global income), and supply chain disruptions (30% food cost surge post-Ukraine war, WFP) have pushed 139 million people into food insecurity [43,44,45]. Adding to these challenges is the economic crisis, as mentioned earlier. Globalization has exposed local industries to competition from foreign multinational corporations. This can become problematic when currency fluctuations directly affect a country’s purchasing power for acquiring food or agricultural inputs. The war between Russia and Ukraine exemplifies these points. Not only has this conflict impacted the food security of the citizens of the warring countries but it has also increased food insecurity in other countries [46]. Both Ukraine and Russia are major producers of essential agricultural commodities such as soybeans, corn, and sunflower oil, which are necessary for the agricultural production of other countries [47]. The FAO defines a nutritious diet as one that meets daily calorie needs and provides balanced nutrients, including carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins, and minerals. Affordability is assessed by comparing these costs to national income levels, focusing on the proportion of people unable to afford such a diet. A nutritious diet is considered unaffordable if its cost exceeds 52% of a country’s average annual income. These affordability challenges are further complicated by regional disparities, as geographic location significantly affects access to balanced diets, illustrated in Figure 1.

In the previous graph, the cost of a healthy diet in Latin America is greater than in other regions. The cost of a healthy diet per day in North America and Europe is over USD 3.19, in Oceania it is USD 3.07, and overall the average cost in the world is USD 3.54. But, in Latin America, it is over USD 3.89 [1]. By itself, the average income in the region is low compared to the other sectors, therefore if we take the example of the minimum wages of countries like France, Colombia, and Argentina, we determine that not only is the daily cost of a healthy diet higher than that of the northern regions but the purchasing power of the region is also much lower. Colombia, for example, has a minimum monthly salary of USD 241.43 compared to the USD 1823.1 of France, then we can determine that, each month, with a minimum salary, in Colombia one can only have 70 balanced lunches a day, while with a French minimum salary one can have 364 balanced lunches, Figure 1.

1.6. Food Resilience Initiative

Urban agriculture is redefining food production by integrating innovative practices that optimize resource use and promote sustainability within urban environments. In the Asia-Pacific region, Singapore leads with groundbreaking initiatives such as the Sky Greens Tower Project (2012), a vertical hydroponic system utilizing aluminum rotating towers within a closed-loop water recycling circuit. This system enables harvests every 28 days and has earned multiple sustainability awards. Similarly, Citiponics (2020) operates vertical farms on parking lot rooftops, producing 4 tons of vegetables monthly using advanced hydroponic technology. Another notable initiative, the Hi-Tech Agri-Cluster (2020), aims to transform a traditional farming area in Singapore into a high-tech agricultural hub, tripling production capacity. In India, the Dream Grove project (2018) exemplifies community collaboration, converting an 800-square-foot public park into a farm cultivating over 50 varieties of edible plants, supported by local communities, farmers, and government authorities. In Europe and the Americas, projects leverage advanced technologies and sustainable strategies to address food security challenges. In Germany, Infarm (2017) has developed modular farms installed in supermarkets and restaurants, allowing local production of fresh herbs and vegetables while reducing transportation-related emissions. The Eden Green Technology project (UK, 2019) employs automated systems for hydroponic cultivation on urban rooftops, optimizing water and energy use. In North America, AeroFarms (USA, 2011) uses aeroponic technology in vertical farms in New Jersey, achieving up to 95% water savings and maximizing spatial efficiency. In Canada, Lufa Farms (2009) has constructed rooftop greenhouses in Montreal, enabling year-round production of fruits and vegetables through hydroponic systems [23]. In Latin America, Huertas Urbanas de Medellín (Colombia, 2015) engages local communities in producing food in public spaces to enhance self-sufficiency, while Mexico’s Cultiva Ciudad (2016) promotes educational urban gardens to tackle food insecurity in metropolitan areas. These initiatives demonstrate the transformative potential of urban agriculture to address global challenges such as food security, environmental sustainability, and the demands of increasing urbanization, offering scalable and innovative solutions for the future [48,49].

1.7. Relationship Between Food Resilience Initiatives and Urban Agriculture

Food resilience, defined as the ability of food systems to ensure stable access to nutrients amid systemic disruptions, finds a technological and socio-ecological catalyst in urban agriculture to mitigate vulnerabilities [1]. Urban agriculture functions as critical infrastructure for decentralized production, shortening supply chains and reducing exposure to global crises, as demonstrated by quantitative resilience models applied to logistics networks [50]. From an agricultural systems engineering perspective, closed-loop hydroponics and automated vertical farms achieve water efficiencies of 8–12 L/kg of biomass—85% higher than conventional methods—thanks to IoT sensors optimizing irrigation and nutrient recycling [51]. These controlled environment agriculture systems integrate machine learning algorithms to predict plant stress through hyperspectral data analysis, reducing pathogen-related losses by 30–40% [25]. Urban agriculture also enhances functional redundancy through urban germplasm banks, preserving heat-stress-tolerant crop varieties, while native pollinator biofactories counteract bee population declines [31,52]. Recent metabolomic studies show that urban crops grown in biochar-enriched substrates achieve nutritional profiles comparable to rural systems, benefiting from micronutrient bioaccumulation under phytoremediation conditions [53]. From a social engineering perspective, blockchain-based community farming platforms enable P2P crop exchange systems, strengthening community adaptability during extreme events [54]. However, scaling urban agriculture requires integration with circular economy policies: computational simulations indicate that cities dedicating over 15% of their surface area to UA could recycle 40% of organic waste into compost, while urban digital twins help map resilient agroproductive corridors [55]. The convergence of urban bioeconomy and disruptive technologies (nanosensors, algal photobioreactors) is redefining urban agriculture as an antifragile system, capable of transforming disruptions into adaptive innovation [56].

2. Methodology

In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a search plan has been formulated to include gray literature, specifically government reports and materials from the FAO, focusing on food resilience projects (Figure 2) [57]. This plan outlines the resources, search terms, websites, and limitations that will be utilized for assessing the subsequent environmental impact. The impact categories focused on in this study were identified based on some authors’ definitions of food resilience [5,58,59].

2.1. Literature Search Strategy

This research followed a PRISMA approach and employed the eligibility criteria presented in

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the literature review.

Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Available in Spanish, French, or English	Unavailable in Spanish, French, or English
Indexed in Scopus® or Web of Science® or governmental reports or those of world organizations	Published as a generic blog or in Google Scholar without any kind of indexing
Related to identified impact categories	Unrelated to identified impact categories
Related to urban agriculture projects	Unrelated to urban agriculture projects

. The review was carried out in Scopus^®, then with reports from the FAO or from other government agencies.

The investigations and the areas of interest of the investigations reflect the applicability and the general objectives of the present time and, in turn, the nature of the investigations can be traced. In this case, the generating case is observed in the first instance and later it is focused on the Latin region. For this, the information reported in Scopus^® from 2008–2024 is used. The following search equation was used: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“resilience food” OR “food resilience” OR “resilience agriculture” OR “agriculture resilience” OR “resilience farming” OR “farming resilience” OR “resilience crop” OR “crop resilience” OR “resilience nutrition” OR “nutrition resilience” OR “resilience diet” OR “diet resilience” OR “resilience food security” OR “food security resilience” OR “sustainable agriculture” OR “sustainable food systems” OR “climate-smart agriculture” OR “food sovereignty” OR “local food systems” OR “food justice” OR “food democracy” OR “food equity” OR “food access”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“resilience” OR “resilient” OR “resiliency” OR “sustainability” OR “sustainable”)) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“project” OR “program” OR “initiative” OR “intervention” OR “interventions” OR “intervene” OR “intervening” OR “implementation” OR “implementing”)).

A total of 3242 articles were initially evaluated during the study. Following the application of the defined selection criteria, a final set of 2510 articles was extracted for detailed analysis (Figure 3).

2.2. Study Selection and Screening

A three-stage screening process ensured methodological rigor. Two reviewers with expertise in environmental science, sociology, and economics conducted the screening independently. Discrepancies arose in 12% of cases and were resolved by a third reviewer. Inter-rater reliability was measured using Cohen’s kappa (κ = 0.82), indicating strong agreement. While kappa has limitations in subjective contexts, its reliability here was strengthened by pre-screening calibration sessions. During these sessions, reviewers aligned on definitions (e.g., “economic viability”) and evaluation criteria to reduce variability in interpretation.

Quality assessment tools were customized to study designs. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used for quantitative research, the JBI Checklist for qualitative studies, and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for hybrid approaches. Studies scoring below 6/10 in methodological rigor were excluded unless they provided unique contextual insights, such as case studies from conflict zones. Data extraction followed a standardized template, organizing outcomes into environmental, social, and economic categories.

2.3. Data Extraction and Categorization

The outcomes of this study focused on understanding the effectiveness and impact of urban agriculture models in promoting food resilience. Food resilience metrics included the ability of urban agriculture projects to adapt to environmental, economic, or political disruptions, prioritizing indicators such as yield stability, crop diversity, and local food availability.

Environmental Impact: covering sustainability aspects such as water use efficiency, soil quality maintenance, biodiversity preservation, and greenhouse gas reduction.

Social and Community Benefits: including community engagement, food security education, and social cohesion improvements.

Economic Viability: considering cost-effectiveness, financial sustainability, and economic benefits such as employment opportunities and reduced food costs.

Each article was classified based on its coverage of these aspects, allowing us to analyze their interrelations. Approximately 40% of the reviewed studies addressed food resilience, 35% analyzed environmental impact, and 25% focused on the social and economic benefits of these projects.

The analysis explored additional variables to contextualize findings. Participant characteristics included demographics like age, gender, and socio-economic background, as well as roles in urban agriculture, such as farmers, community organizers, or policymakers. Intervention characteristics covered implementation scale, crop types, and technologies like hydroponics or vertical farming. Financial aspects examined funding sources, including public grants, private investments, NGO contributions, and partnerships supporting projects. Geographic and environmental variables, such as urban density, climate conditions, and local infrastructure, were analyzed to assess adaptability. Policy frameworks, including regulations and institutional support, were reviewed to understand governance impacts. Gaps in data were addressed through assumptions. Missing participant demographics were inferred using trends from comparable studies. Projects with unclear funding sources were assumed to rely on institutional support if large-scale or tech-driven. Undocumented intervention methodologies were filled in with regional best practices. Bias risk was systematically evaluated. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and JBI Checklist assessed quantitative and qualitative studies, respectively. Three reviewers independently appraised each study, resolving discrepancies through discussion or third-party arbitration. To address missing results, funnel plots and statistical tests (Egger’s regression, Begg’s correlation) detected publication bias. Gray literature, like government reports and theses, supplemented peer-reviewed data. Sensitivity analyses tested the impact of excluded studies, ensuring findings remained robust. Statistical analyses included descriptive trends, bibliometric mapping (VOSviewer^® version 1.6.20 and ScientoPY^® version 2.1.3), and meta-analyses for quantitative metrics (e.g., water savings, emission reductions). Qualitative themes (e.g., “policy barriers”) were identified through iterative coding and validated via peer debriefing with external experts. Limitations, such as geographic bias toward US/European studies, were mitigated by weighting Latin American gray literature, while temporal biases (e.g., COVID-19-era dominance) were addressed through subgroup comparisons.

2.4. Main Articles

Among the key articles and reports included in this systematic review,

Table 2. Summary of Key Studies and Reports on Urban Agriculture and Food Resilience in Latin America.

Authors/Organization	Country/Region	Methodology	Key Findings	Source
Nagib and Nakamura (2020)	Brazil	Mixed methods (interviews, spatial analysis)	Urban agriculture improves access to healthy food but faces land-use conflicts and policy gaps. Highlights the role of community gardens in reducing food insecurity.	[60]
García Bustamante and Gracia (2022)	Mexico	Case studies, participatory observation	Short supply chains enhance local resilience post-disaster (e.g., hurricanes). Seed exchange networks increased by 150%, preserving native crops and reducing dependency on external inputs.	[62]
Mercado et al. (2018)	Ecuador	Ethnographic fieldwork, interviews	Small-scale indigenous farmers navigate conflicting regulations to maintain market access. Agroecological practices improve resilience but require institutional support.	[63]
FAO (2021)	Latin America and Caribbean	Regional data analysis, policy review	Forty percent of the population faces moderate or severe food insecurity. Urban agriculture and agroecology are critical for reducing vulnerability, especially post-COVID-19.	[30]
Souza et al. (2022)	Brazil	Quantitative analysis (soil permeability, water capture systems)	Urban gardens in São Paulo reduce stormwater runoff by 35% and enhance soil absorption. Rainwater harvesting systems improve irrigation sustainability in dense urban areas.	[61]
Merçon et al. (2012)	Mexico	Participatory action research	School-based urban gardens increase student engagement in agroecology (85% participation rate) and foster intergenerational knowledge transfer.	[64]
Patra and Babu (2020)	Cross-regional analysis	Comparative case studies, policy evaluation	Climate-smart practices (e.g., drought-resistant crops, organic nitrogen) adopted in India show potential for Latin America. Recommendations include integrating local knowledge into policy frameworks.	[65]
Clay and Zimmerer (2020)	Rwanda/Latin America	Mixed methods (household surveys, spatial modeling)	Top-down agricultural intensification reduced climate resilience in Rwanda. Advocates for context-specific agroecology in Latin America to avoid similar pitfalls.	[27]
2811 and EAN University	Colombia	Living labs, educational toolkits	School-based “living labs” in Bogotá and Manizales increased community participation by 60%. Toolkit adoption improved adaptive capacity to urban mobility challenges.	Academic–community partnership report

, pivotal studies from Latin America formed the foundation of the analysis. For instance, the evaluation of Medellín Urban Gardens (Colombia) revealed a 70% increase in community engagement and reduced food insecurity in vulnerable neighborhoods. The FAO’s 2021 report emphasized that 40% of the regional population faces food insecurity, while initiatives like Cultiva Ciudad (Mexico) achieved a 45% reduction in reliance on imported vegetables through urban farming. Academic research, such as Nagib and Nakamura’s 2020 [60] study in São Paulo, identified heavy metal contamination in 57% of urban gardens, underscoring public health risks. Technical interventions, including rainwater harvesting systems in Brazil [61], decreased potable water use by 40%, and policy reforms in Colombia boosted municipal support for urban agriculture by 35%. These studies, alongside cases like Brazil’s Landless Workers’ Movement and Mexico’s short food supply chains, highlight both the potential and challenges of urban agricultural models in strengthening food resilience. They integrate quantitative evidence, community-driven practices, and institutional frameworks to address systemic vulnerabilities in food systems.

3. Results

It is important to note that there may be a bias in the extracted information, as gray literature, such as local project reports that have not been subject to studies by agencies allowing their publication in indexed journals, has not been considered. Additionally, during the separation of articles based on the mentioned criteria, there may be relevant data that were not considered during the process.

3.1. Global Situation

The selection of studies between 2008 and 2024 is based on historical data and empirical evidence drawn from various academic investigations. For example, data extracted from Scopus indicate that, in 2008, 76 documents were published on food resilience and urban agriculture, while in 2022, 573 publications were reported—representing a 654.2% increase in just 14 years, as shown in Figure 4. This growth coincides with critical events such as the 2007–2008 food crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, which prompted a reevaluation of food systems and spurred research analyzing the transition from traditional models to more sustainable and innovative approaches. This period also encompasses the progressive incorporation of new methodologies, technologies, and public policies that have transformed the way food security is addressed in urban contexts, reinforcing the relevance of focusing the review on these years to capture the evolution and advancements in the field.

The countries with the highest interest in food resilience projects are the United States, with 789 publications (21%), followed by India with 332 (9.2%), the United Kingdom with 330 (9.3%), and Italy with 245 publications, as shown in Figure 5. Notably, less than 15% of the publications originate from Latin America. The data also highlight the comparative share of publications between India and the United Kingdom, with India accounting for 9.2% of the total publications during the study period, slightly below the 9.3% reported for the UK. These findings are based on the search equation and the documents indexed in the Scopus database, which include projects identified through selected keywords related to food resilience.

As per the findings shown in Figure 6, the main sources of resources for food resilience projects are the European Commission, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Science Foundation, the Horizon 2020 Framework Program, the Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These organizations have played a vital role in funding and supporting research related to food resilience, highlighting the global importance of this issue.

Scopus data analysis revealed that the main areas of interest in food resilience projects include agricultural and biological sciences, with 1469 publications, environmental science with 1347, social sciences with 986, and engineering with 460. These findings suggest that there is a multidisciplinary approach to tackling the issue of food resilience (show Figure 7), with research spanning various fields. This multidisciplinary approach highlights the importance of collaboration and the need for experts from different areas to come together to address the challenges of food security and resilience.

Analyzing the keywords associated with relevant publications is a valuable approach to observing global trends in food resilience initiatives. In Figure 8, we identify five main areas of interest, with sustainable agriculture being the most prominent and represented by the red color. Sustainable agriculture is linked to words such as crop protection, biocontrol, and nanotechnology, indicating a focus on developing innovative and sustainable approaches to agricultural practices. The brown color represents the climate change sector, highlighting the growing recognition of the impacts of climate change on food resilience and the need for climate-smart solutions. The purple color represents the food security sector, highlighting the importance of ensuring that all people have access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food. The blue color represents the sustainable food system sector, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to creating a more sustainable and resilient food system. Finally, the green color represents the precision agriculture sector, reflecting the increasing use of technology and data-driven approaches to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of agricultural practices.

Zooming in, worldwide, food resilience projects are following certain trends, with the main one being a focus on human labor; 25% of the total research is related to this topic. In most of these projects, there is a significant emphasis on addressing issues related to childhood and adulthood, such as education and employment opportunities. Additionally, sustainability goals are a major trend, with a focus on sustainable urban agriculture, more efficient agricultural processes, and the use of green technologies (15%). Emerging trends include new forms of agriculture, such as vertical farming and hydroponics, as well as new crop varieties and innovative farming techniques. By keeping up with these trends, researchers and policymakers can identify potential solutions to the challenges of food security and sustainability and ensure that food resilience initiatives are effective and relevant to the needs of communities around the world (Figure 9).

Finally, Figure 9 and Figure 10 provides a visual representation of the trends in food resilience projects over the last five years. Sustainable goals and the impact of climate change are among the most prominent trends. More than 100 documents were published during this period, and the number of publications increased more than 50%, reflecting a growing recognition of the need for more environmentally friendly and sustainable practices in agriculture. At the same time, human-centered projects and crop-related research remain areas of strong interest, underscoring the ongoing importance of addressing issues related to education, employment, and food production. More than 300 resilience project documents have been published dealing with these issues.

3.2. Rising Interest in Food Resilience

Over the past decade, there has been a significant surge in the enthusiasm for food resilience initiatives. This heightened interest can be attributed to various factors, including the economic crises experienced during that period, as well as notable peaks in 2020 and 2021 when the highest number of publications pertaining to food resilience emerged. The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic further underscored the inherent fragility of our food systems, sparking a profound interest in the development of innovative solutions to navigate and overcome adversity [34]. This resulted in a 20% increase in the number of projects reported in Scopus^® worldwide. In the Latin American region, research on resilience represented only 5% of the total research conducted worldwide in 2008. From 2009 to 2010, there was only one research project on this topic. However, the participation of Latin America in the generation of resilience projects began to increase from 2013, reaching up to 11% of the total projects in that year. This could be attributed to the overall increase in investment, particularly in research investment during the 2013–2014 period, which saw a 3% higher growth compared to previous years [66]. From then on, the total participation of Latin America in research projects fluctuated between 12% and 8% until 2022.

3.3. Leading Countries in Food Resilience Projects

At the beginning of the last decade, Latin America did not show a strong interest in food resilience projects. However, due to the nutritional challenges the region faces, it is proposed to take on an increasingly leading role. The region has vast potential in arable land and has suffered from the pandemic, economic crisis, and the current conflict in Ukraine. Thus, it must begin to take a leading role in generating these projects. It is expected that publications on resilience projects will account for 15% of the total publications in 2025. In-depth analysis shows that developed countries and members of BRICS are the most interested in food resilience projects. The United States leads with 23% of publications on food resilience initiatives, followed by India and England with 10% each and Italy and Germany with 7% and 6%, respectively. This is not surprising since the primary agencies that fund such projects are from these countries, such as the European Commission, National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Science Foundation, Horizon 2020 Framework Program, Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These countries have a vested interest in ensuring food security, given their strong and adaptable food systems. However, the Latin American region’s situation is concerning, as only 10% of food resilience research is conducted in the region. Moreover, 37% of these projects are not initiated by local countries but rather by foreign countries like the United States or member countries of the European Union. Brazil has the most publications on the subject with 46%, indicating that the rest of the region contributes only 17%. This could be due to a lack of investment and financing for these projects. While the main backers are of Brazilian origin, including the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers, and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, there are also other international agencies such as the United States Agency for International Development, the National Council of Science and Technology, and the European Commission. While the scarcity of resources may play a role, it is abundantly clear that governments in the region have shown a notable lack of initiative in fostering the development of such projects. In terms of countries with the highest number of documents on food resilience projects, the United States leads with 30% of the publications, reflecting a strong emphasis on the social aspect of research in this field.

3.4. Notable Projects in Food Resilience

Among the notable projects identified through Scopus^®, one stands out: “Education Lessons for the Creation of Community Spaces for Sustainable Food Generation” stands out as a key initiative that collaborates with communities pioneering alternative food and agricultural systems to counter unsustainable trends like globalization imbalances, economic consolidation, and environmental degradation. These systems aim to holistically integrate ecological resilience, economic equity, and social well-being within specific local contexts, emphasizing solutions tailored to each region. This is achieved by developing and protecting social spaces (for collective action and dialogue), political spaces (for inclusive policy advocacy), intellectual spaces (for agroecological innovation and education), and economic spaces (for fair trade and regenerative practices). Three core principles guide this work, active public participation, multisectoral partnerships, and a justice-centered approach prioritizing equity for marginalized groups; ecosystem regeneration; and community self-determination. By anchoring efforts in local realities, the project strives to transform food systems into sustainable, equitable, and resilient models for the future [67,68]. Another noteworthy project is the districtwide sustainable food system implemented in the Austin Independent School District [69]. This initiative showcases successful integration of sustainable food practices across an entire district, providing valuable insights for other regions. In India, which accounts for 15% of the published projects, the focus lies in reviving traditional farming practices and making them environmentally friendly, following the concept of being climate smart. For instance, projects in sub-alpine settlements of Uttarakhand in the Himalayas aim to engage socio-culturally active individuals and conduct extensive outreach programs to establish sustainable local food systems in vulnerable Himalayan valleys [70]. Additionally, the northeastern region of India has implemented climate-smart agriculture practices while addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation [65]. These projects propose strategies to accelerate the adoption of climate-smart agriculture and employ technical measures such as improving rice productivity per unit area, increasing the cultivation of leguminous crops, emphasizing organic sources of nitrogen, and utilizing climate-smart technology. Furthermore, efforts have been made to develop inventories and databases to support these initiatives. Moreover, projects worldwide prioritize adapting to climate change with resilient processes, climate-smart agriculture, and water productivity systems. Additionally, there is a strong focus on necessary policies to enhance or adapt regional food systems and create circular economies. Consequently, the primary keywords pertain to populations at risk, such as women and children, with a focus on food resilience projects that address supply and pest control. Urban agriculture and its diverse models constitute a strong line of alternative agricultural media. In the last four years, sustainable crop production has emerged as a response to climate change, and there is an increasing interest in the use of carbon, which is related to the catering service industry. With Scopus^® it is possible to observe various documents based on subject areas.

3.5. Global Trends in Food Resilience Projects

Globally, the field with the highest prominence is “agriculture and biological science”, which accounts for 23.6% of the total. This area is characterized by sustainable agricultural practices and their implementation in various parts of the world, such as Ethiopia, as well as smart farming projects, including Agriculture 4.0. Another area that is in high demand is environmental science, representing 20.5%. This field focuses on understanding environmental needs and the impacts of projects, such as the mitigation of potentially toxic components and the recovery of unused crop nutrients. Furthermore, social science has gained significant momentum and represents a crucial area, given its strong human factor. This area includes policies and philosophies surrounding food systems and cultivation practices, as well as the impact of different agriculture models on human communities. Such projects aim to raise awareness about vulnerable communities, besides having an economic focus. Engineering and energy, at 6.3% and 5.3%, respectively, are other considerable areas. Thus, globally, the interest in food resilience projects centers on three aspects: sustainable agriculture generation, climate change adaptability, and both public and private governance policies regarding food systems. In Latin America, the trend seems to follow the global pattern, with agriculture and biological science accounting for 23.8% of the total interest. The region has dedicated 20.2% of its efforts to environmental science and 14.1% to social science, with a focus on three areas: agricultural sustainability, development sustainability, and alternative agriculture. There are several projects in place to adapt and improve agriculture in the region. For example, a program using spectroscopy to analyze soil and promote the use of technology to increase crop efficiency and minimize environmental impact.

3.6. Promoting Social Sustainability and Policy Initiatives

Furthermore, there is a strong emphasis on social sustainability (referring to the long-term ability of a society to meet the needs of its current and future members while fostering social cohesion, equity, and well-being), with a need to involve all stakeholders in the productive process, including consumers and at-risk populations [63]. To address this challenge, the region has initiated a project aimed at formulating public policies that bolster local producers. The primary goal of enhancing food resilience involves fostering motivation and knowledge regarding agricultural production methods, with a strong emphasis on education. Consequently, efforts are being made to support local producers and urban initiatives in optimizing agricultural processes. An exemplary initiative in this context is the “Living Laboratories” within the Como con ECO project, which strives to encourage the adoption of sustainable practices within schools for urban crop cultivation. In the realm of social resilience, projects are focused on enhancing food security by making balanced nutrition more accessible through various social channels. Latin America demonstrates a substantial commitment to alternative agricultural methods. This commitment extends to achieving food sovereignty while simultaneously mitigating environmental impacts and preserving the region’s biodiversity and diverse ecosystems. For instance, Latin American regions have successfully implemented regenerative agriculture and agroecology to restore biodiversity, enhance soil quality, and ultimately boost productivity and resilience against climate and economic fluctuations. Permaculture, too, has gained significant traction, particularly in rural and peri-urban areas. These communities have leveraged permaculture design techniques to establish self-sustaining and eco-friendly food systems. These systems have not only enabled communities to cultivate their own food but also reduce their reliance on external food markets, thereby increasing food security. Furthermore, Latin America has witnessed numerous social and political movements advocating for sustainable agriculture and alternative farming practices. In Brazil, for instance, the Landless Farmers’ Movement has ardently fought for land access and promoted agroecological agriculture as a form of resistance against agribusiness and monocultures.

4. Discussion

Food resilience depends on flexible production systems that can adapt to environmental, economic, or social crises. In this context, urban agriculture plays a crucial role in reducing cities’ vulnerability to supply chain disruptions. According to our bibliometric analysis, food resilience research has gained increasing attention, with a 50% rise in scientific publications on this topic in recent years. Urban gardens and vertical farms have proven effective in maximizing urban spaces and providing access to fresh, nutritious food, especially in food-insecure regions. Projects such as Huertas Urbanas in Medellín and Cultiva Ciudad in Mexico have promoted food education and community participation, strengthening social cohesion and food autonomy. However, implementing these models presents challenges. Environmental concerns, such as soil contamination with heavy metals and the need for optimized water use, remain critical. Studies suggest that irrigation with recycled water and hydroponic technologies can mitigate these issues. Additionally, economic sustainability is a challenge, as initial and operational costs can be high. In cities such as Hyderabad and Burkina Faso, urbanization has increased agricultural input costs by 25–30% [71,72]. Despite these challenges, the development of public policies that support urban agriculture and the integration of new technologies could enhance its contribution to global food resilience.

4.1. Environmental Impact

Urban gardens play a crucial role in ensuring food resilience, particularly in urban settings. These gardens are designed for local consumption and aim to adapt urban spaces, such as terraces or parks. While urban gardens are typically associated with small-scale family or community projects, there are also larger-scale endeavors known as agropolises [73]. Agropolises represent ambitious, large-scale initiatives undertaken by English companies and universities to promote social enterprise and innovative food solutions. These projects are characterized by their collaborative nature, driven by a dedicated steering committee. Their primary focus lies in addressing environmental concerns within the framework of food resilience guidelines, which encompass principles such as diversifying food sources and promoting sustainable agriculture and environmental stewardship. However, concerns arise regarding land use and contamination in urban gardens, with chemicals like lead and arsenic being problematic [74,75]. For instance, lead contamination in soils outside urban areas typically ranges around 20 mg/kg, but concentrations exceeding 350–400 mg/kg have been documented in 57 urban gardens in Chicago and up to 380 mg/kg in community gardens in Santiago de Chile and Mexico City, far surpassing the WHO safety limit of 100 mg/kg [75,76]. This poses risks to human health and biodiversity. Another concern in these projects is the use of water for these crops. It is estimated that the agricultural sector consumes 87% of the potable water in the United States, with urban farms alone requiring 8–12 L/kg of biomass for hydroponic systems, compared to 50–70 L/kg in conventional agriculture [25,49]. Therefore, it is necessary to question how potable water will be used in these crops. If fresh water is used, it presents a new challenge for cities, as it would increase water consumption in these areas and exacerbate water stress in certain regions [71,72]. This could limit access to water for other citizens, as was the case in Monterrey, Mexico, in 2022, where a drought reduced water availability by 40%, impacting food resilience projects and prompting the search for alternative solutions [77,78,79]. On the other hand, if non-potable water can be used, the method and type of water for it can be more profitable than using fresh water. A study carried out in the city of Panaji, India, revealed that utilizing and recycling 1.2 million liters of wastewater daily for urban green spaces (UGSs) reduced irrigation costs by 47% compared to tanker transport, while lowering land surface temperatures by 2–3 °C [80]. Therefore, recycled water is allocated for crop irrigation, which helps limit the water footprint of these projects. However, using recycled water presents its own challenges. Typically, harvested rainwater contains microbial biodiversity that needs to be eliminated or treated. Water collected from rooftops has been found to contain bacteria such as Escherichia coli in 45–79% of samples, with Salmonella spp. detected in 12–30% of cases, posing significant biological risks [60,81]. Additionally, rainwater in industrial zones may contain heavy metals like cadmium (0.8–1.5 mg/L) and lead (0.3–0.9 mg/L), exceeding WHO guidelines [76]. Urban garden projects need to develop strategies to ensure sustainable cultivation, such as rainwater treatment, alternative water collection methods (e.g., using recycled water from daily use), and improving water use efficiency through technological methods or specific types of gardens like hydroponics [82]. However, it is worth noting that these processes have positive environmental impacts. Urban gardens are primarily tools for promoting sustainable drainage in spaces. For example, in São Paulo, a study on six urban gardens found permeability rates of 85–90%, with rainwater capture systems reducing stormwater runoff by 35% and enhancing soil absorption capacity by 25% [58,62]. Additionally, these gardens can enhance biodiversity in urban areas by supporting pollinator populations, with studies showing a 20–30% increase in bee diversity in cities with community gardens [83]. Alternative pest control methods, such as using plants that release chemical compounds acting as repellents or attracting social wasp colonies (which reduce pest populations by 60–80%), can be employed [78]. From the perspective of environmental food resilience, urban gardens are still vulnerable to environmental changes and are not yet entirely sustainable [29,79]. The main barrier lies in the underlying contamination surrounding these environments. Additionally, water usage can be limiting due to either limited access or poor water quality. However, urban gardens present an opportunity for improving environmental impact by generating new biodiversity and acting as a method of impermeability. While highlighting environmental advantages and potentially challenging impacts, the above highlights a balance between transformative potential and necessary caution. Among environmental benefits, key aspects include water recycling, which optimizes water resources through treatment systems for irrigation, promoting sustainability and resilience in the face of scarcity. Urban biodiversity is also enhanced by creating habitats for pollinators, birds, and small mammals. Innovative methods such as vertical farming and hydroponics transform underused spaces into productive areas. In addition, high permeability rates of urban soil improve drainage, reducing waterlogging and protecting root health. On the other hand, challenging impacts include water demand pressures, which can deplete resources in vulnerable regions. The use of pesticides in densely populated areas risks contaminating soil and water systems, with urban soils in some regions showing pesticide residues exceeding 1.2 mg/kg, far above safe thresholds [26]. Urban soils, often historically contaminated by industrial activities or waste, pose risks to crop safety due to heavy metals. Finally, food grown in urban areas may face contamination from pathogens or pollutants in urban environments. This can be seen in Figure 11.

4.2. Food Chain Impact

An example of this is the Christchurch Farmers Market at the Riccarton House in New Zealand [28]. This market is made up of local farmers and a significant portion (30–25%) of the products come from home gardens. The success of this practice lies in cultivating a range of seasonal vegetables and local products like wine, which improves household resilience [84]. Additionally, growing fuelwood in peripheral areas of the garden intensifies the use of garden space, making it potentially more economically sustainable over time. Regarding the food system model, urban backyard production provides a direct link between growers and consumers as nodes of the food system. Educational and practical aspects, similar to community gardens, contribute to resilience, and a wide variety of foods can be grown. The distance between growers and consumers is effectively zero in this pattern. Depending on consumers’ consumption patterns and available space, this pattern has the potential for high levels of utilization, as researchers have determined utilization potential to be above 90% [85]. On the other hand, post-pandemic food systems have attempted to adapt and generate new resilient strategies. An example of this is the development of NeuENV (new strategies to ensure sufficient food provisions in the case of a crisis) in Germany [86,87]. This project identified two critical aspects for crisis food supply. First, restructuring supply chains to reduce dependency on single nodes and then aligning population behavior with adaptive practices. Post-implementation, NeuENV reduced supply chain bottlenecks by 40% through diversifying suppliers across 15 regional hubs, while increasing cold storage capacity by 25% to buffer disruptions [88,89]. Behavioral studies under NeuENV revealed that 68% of German households adopted crisis-preparedness practices, such as pantry stocking (30% increase in non-perishable food reserves) and participation in urban farming initiatives, which grew by 18% between 2020 and 2023. Climate resilience metrics are also integrated, showing a 22% rise in extreme weather events in Germany from 2015 to 2022, which damaged 12% of annual crop yields. By leveraging predictive analytics, NeuENV reduced climate-related agricultural losses by 15% in pilot regions, while community-led programs trained 45,000 farmers in climate-smart techniques [90,91]. These efforts highlight the necessity of contextualizing population behavior such as shifting dietary preferences toward locally sourced produce (a 35% uptake in urban areas) and embedding adaptive governance to counter compounding crises.

In 2015 a case study presents the significance of long food chains during natural disasters such as the flooding in Queensland, Australia. During the 2010–2011 floods (a comparable event), which caused economic losses exceeding USD 2.38 billion and affected over 200,000 people, long food chains facilitated the import of 12,000 metric tons of emergency food supplies through intergovernmental partnerships. In contrast, centralized distribution systems experienced a 70% operational disruption when key hubs like the Brisbane Distribution Centre were inundated, leaving 1.2 million residents reliant on external aid for 3–4 weeks. This underscores the vulnerability of centralized models, where 85% of perishable stocks in flooded warehouses were lost, compared to the resilience of decentralized networks that maintained 60% of supply continuity during the crisis [92,93]. Plus, short supply chains were able to utilize their smaller size and local knowledge to maintain food supply during the floods [94]. The authors emphasize the importance of coordination among multiple actors at the local and state levels, as well as the need to promote diversity and align business goals with food security and community well-being. Not considering the population can lead to cases like the Green Revolution in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), specifically in Rwanda, where unintended consequences arose [27]. The agricultural intensification in Rwanda has led to a decrease in resilience to climate impacts among small-scale food producers. It suppressed local agricultural practices and risk management strategies, forcing farmers to grow crops that may not be suitable for their lands and resource access [95]. This resulted in decreased agricultural productivity and food security, highlighting the ineffectiveness of Green Revolution land-use policies in buffering risks. It is essential to consider how resilience to climate change is experienced in different places and how vulnerability emerges across complex and diverse social-ecological landscapes (Figure 12).

4.3. Population Impact

Within the areas of interest in food resilience projects, the participation of the local population stands out. As shown in Figure 3, the human aspect is one of the pillars of these projects. Therefore, in the analysis works, various aspects are presented. On one hand, vulnerable populations are the focus of the study, especially in developing countries. This makes sense since they have limited purchasing power and face increasing costs of living. For example, in the case of Mexico, access to food is affected by rising prices of the food basket, which have consistently increased over the years. In rural areas, it went from MXN 642 per month in 2010 to MXN 1045 in 2017, and in urban areas, it reached MXN 1469. Proposals have been presented to impact and mitigate these changes [62]. On one hand, urban agriculture projects present initiatives related to short food supply chains as direct commercial and exchange forms. These dynamics unfold at the rural–community–urban levels. For example, there are cases of seed sales and exchanges through ecological markets or points of sale. Returning to the Mexican case, these projects had a presence in the cities of Puebla and Tlaxcala. Particularly after various natural disasters, such as the impact of Hurricane Isidore in 2002, the number of seed exchange fairs increased, as well as the number of participants. Some annual fairs attracted over 1500 visitors. Furthermore, as there is symbolic value attached to locally cultivated seeds, there is a rescue of native products in the region, avoiding dependency on foreign seeds or products, which are well-known to the farmers. This focus emphasizes the need to have seeds for each planting cycle to address climate variations (droughts, excessive rainfall) and potential natural disasters in the area. These relationships also directly link rural and urban areas, enabling direct interaction without intermediaries. On the other hand, another target population for food resilience projects is children. It is acknowledged that their participation and education are crucial to ensure the consumption of local products [96]. Therefore, different guidelines are presented to support initiatives. In developed countries, projects with the support of technology to promote healthy eating practices are implemented [97]. For example, the United States has demonstrated its capacity to use AI techniques to enable agility and provide healthy food options for schoolchildren. Participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and document analysis were used to inform case studies and uncover new processes developed using the technology. In other cases, educational institutions can be involved with support from private companies or government aid. The University of Veracruz, for instance, has the “Huerta UV”, which is an integrated practice involving different disciplines and local actors [64]. However, projects related to urban issues are currently stuck in a paradigm of static urban orchards or lack laboratories with the capacity to adapt to mobility. This becomes particularly relevant as the urban population has adopted a nomadic lifestyle, in the sense that it does not tend to settle in one place for extended periods, especially among young populations. Therefore, it is imperative to establish urban orchards that are more flexible in the face of these changes. Resilience, in part, lies in the ability of populations to adjust to transformations. A notable example is the “con ECO” project, which stands out for its innovative approach in addressing the fundamental principles of education and resilience. Additionally, it comprehensively tackles real problems associated with urban change, aiming to generate adaptable responses. The Como con ECO project, led by 2811 and EAN University, includes initiatives in 10 schools in two cities in Bogotá. They employ working strategies to encourage the participation of educators at the national level, with a special focus on Bogotá and Manizales. These strategies include 10 living labs, four Climalabs, and a toolkit to identify challenges and solutions within the framework of climate action and food resilience. For instance, Figure 13 highlights how urban layouts such as density, zoning, and infrastructure shape the viability of agricultural projects. For instance, compact cities with mixed-use zones often support decentralized food systems, while sprawling urban areas face logistical challenges. This structural analysis underscores the need for adaptable models, such as mobile gardens or modular labs, to align with dynamic urban demographics [80,98].

4.4. Limits and Costs Associated with Urban Initiatives

Urban agriculture and food resilience initiatives are increasingly recognized for their economic and social impact, supported by growing quantitative data. Labor costs dominate operational expenses for urban farms, accounting for up to 50% of total costs in some cases, especially in non-mechanized operations. Startup investments are also significant, with capital costs, including land acquisition and infrastructure, ranging from USD 10,000 to 50,000 per hectare, depending on the region. Annual operating costs for specific crops vary widely, such as in Ghana, where they range from USD 5 to 25 per hectare. In Burkina Faso, rising feed prices have increased livestock production costs by 30% over the past decade, while in Hyderabad, input costs for urban farmers, including labor and water, have surged by 25%, driven by urban expansion and resource competition [99]. The economic benefits of urban agriculture also reveal compelling numerical insights. Ecosystem services linked to urban agriculture, such as nitrogen sequestration and stormwater management, are valued between USD 80 billion and 160 billion annually worldwide. In Philadelphia, localized food production reduced transportation and storage costs by up to 20%, highlighting the economic efficiency of urban farming. Employment creation is another key benefit; in Awka, Nigeria, urban agriculture employs approximately 15% of the local labor force, providing vital income for low-income households [100]. Furthermore, agroecological practices have increased yields by an average of 30% compared to conventional methods, offering substantial economic and productivity gains. In Cameroon, the municipal composting initiative, which increased production from 60 tons to 600 tons annually, saved urban farmers an estimated USD 20,000 annually in fertilizer costs, further emphasizing the economic viability of sustainable practices. These figures underscore the potential of urban agriculture and food resilience initiatives to address economic challenges while promoting sustainability [101].

Urban agriculture embodies a technical paradox as, while controlled-environment agriculture systems reduce water vulnerability by 60–80% through water recirculation, their energy footprint can negate these benefits in high-carbon contexts [102]. Life-cycle analyses reveal that lettuce produced in vertical farms with LED lighting emits 2.3–4.1 kg CO₂eq per kg, compared to 0.7–1.5 kg CO₂eq per kg in open-field production [100,101,102]; this disparity is exacerbated in countries reliant on fossil fuels—where, for example, each kWh consumed by CEA in India generates 0.82 kg CO₂eq versus 0.12 kg CO₂eq/kWh in Sweden [103]. Also, technological dependency further heightens systemic risks. A Monte Carlo model applied to 1200 urban farms showed that a three-month microchip supply disruption could reduce productivity by 42–67%, incurring economic losses of USD 18–35 per m², while the levelized cost for vegetables in CEA ranges from USD 3.2 to 5.6 per kg—210% above average wholesale prices [104]. Socio-spatial inequalities are also evident; only 18% of urban agriculture projects in the Global South involve community participation in technological design, and in Nairobi, 92% of commercial vertical farms are situated in high-income districts where urban land costs USD 120–250 per m² per year, compared to USD 15–30 per m² per year in marginalized outskirts [105]. Profitability demands a critical scale, with vertical farms requiring operations over 8000 m² and the sale of 75% of production within 10 km of the cultivation site to achieve a positive return on investment [103,105]. Verified solutions include modular biofactories that integrate anaerobic digesters converting one ton of organic waste into 120–140 m³ of biogas sufficient to generate 280 kWh and reduce external energy dependency by 40% as well as zoning policies like those in Medellín (Colombia), where reserving 12% of municipal land for community urban agriculture (1850 ha) has met 8% of local vegetable demand, benefiting 23,000 low-income households [30,106]. Additionally, low-tech approaches such as passive greenhouses with shallow geothermal systems (1.5 m depth) maintain stable temperatures of 18–24 °C while consuming just 0.05 kWh/m²/day. The difference between these systems can be seen in

Table 3. Differences between Technician urban agriculture and Community urban agriculture.

Variable	Technician Urban Agriculture	Community Urban Agriculture
Initial cost (USD/m2)	2500–4000	150–300
Energy use (kWh/m2/year)	120–180	10–30
Community participation	5–15% (token involvement)	60–80% (decision making)
Nutritional density *	1.1×	0.9×
Carbon footprint (kg CO2/kg)	2.3–4.1	0.5–1.2
Biodiversity support	Low (monoculture focus)	High (polycultures + pollinators)
Resilience to shocks	Vulnerable to supply chain disruptions	High (localized networks)
Waste recycling rate	30–50%	70–90%
Accessibility to low-income groups	<10% reach	>65% reach
Policy dependency	High (subsidies/tax breaks)	Low (self-organized)
Jobs created per year	5–8	12–18

* Nutritional density: refers to the concentration of essential nutrients (vitamins, minerals, proteins, etc.) per unit of food produced compared to a baseline 1.0×.

.

4.5. Status of Initiatives in Latin America

Urban agriculture has emerged as a promising mechanism to address food insecurity, but its implementation is marked by uneven progress and structural contradictions, with unique particularities in Latin America. Projects such as the Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture (UPA) Plan in Quito, launched in 2020, have increased vegetable production by 40% through drip irrigation techniques and community training [107]. However, these achievements are undermined by reliance on municipal subsidies, which account for 70% of funding, exposing vulnerability to political shifts. In Brazil, the Hortas Cariocas program, with over 50 community gardens in Rio de Janeiro, has been praised for integrating marginalized communities. Yet studies reveal that only 35% of its beneficiaries access formal markets, perpetuating informal sales circuits with profit margins below 10% [108]. While cities like Lima and Bogotá have adopted low-scale hydroponics—yielding 15 kg/m² annually with 70% water savings—their widespread adoption fails in peripheral neighborhoods due to average startup costs of USD 1500 per unit, unaffordable for 60% of urban families in poverty [109]. The lack of clear regulatory frameworks exacerbates these challenges. In 2023, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) present that 12% of Latin American countries have specific laws to regulate urban agriculture, fostering informality and limiting scalability. Additionally, urban soil contamination poses an underestimated threat. Recent studies in Santiago de Chile and Mexico City detected lead concentrations of up to 380 mg/kg in community gardens, 250% above WHO limits, compromising nutritional security for 200,000 people [110,111]. This is compounded by a technological paradox: while initiatives like the Latin American Urban Agriculture Network promote native seed networks, 80% of projects prioritize commercial crops like lettuce and tomatoes, marginalizing ancestral species critical to dietary diversity [32,112]. The pandemic accelerated hybrid models, such as digital proximity markets, which now account for 25% of urban produce sales in Argentina and Colombia. However, these systems exclude 45% of elderly adults and small producers without mobile device access, deepening generational and socio-economic gaps [38,113]. In summary, while the region showcases innovation—such as school biogardens in Medellín that reduced child malnutrition by 18%—food resilience remains a fragmented privilege.

5. Conclusions

Food resilience has become a cornerstone of global food security, particularly as urban agriculture models demonstrate their capacity to mitigate systemic risks exposed by crises like the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine conflict. Empirical evidence from 2510 studies highlights the potential of vertical farms, rooftop gardens, and community initiatives to reduce transportation emissions by 68%, achieve water savings of 90%, and yield up to 20 kg/m²/year. However, persistent challenges—including energy consumption (35% higher per kg than traditional farms), soil contamination (e.g., lead concentrations exceeding 350 mg/kg in urban soils), and high upfront costs (USD 2500–4000/m² for technified systems) underscore the need for targeted, actionable strategies. The recommendations clearly point out specific research directions and focus areas in integrating advanced technologies, improving resource efficiency, and formulating supportive policies to provide operational guidance for subsequent research. Future studies must prioritize scalable IoT-driven monitoring systems to optimize hydroponic water use (8–12 L/kg) and machine learning algorithms to predict crop stress, building on evidence showing 30–40% reductions in pathogen-related losses. Circular resource models, such as rainwater harvesting with biochar filtration and urban biorefineries converting organic waste into biogas (120–140 m³/ton), require validation in diverse climates to address microbial risks like E. coli contamination in 45–79% of rooftop water. Policy frameworks should incentivize low-tech systems in marginalized zones, where land costs are 80% lower than in urban cores, while reserving 15% of municipal areas for agriculture to recycle 40% of organic waste, as computational models suggest. Equitable access hinges on metrics like 30% reductions in water footprints and 20% increases in community participation, exemplified by Colombia’s Como con ECO project, which boosted school engagement through living labs. Interdisciplinary collaboration linking data science, agroecology, and policy designs is critical to balance technological scalability with socio-ecological equity. By anchoring innovations in localized evidence, from Singapore’s high-tech Agri-Clusters to Hyderabad’s 25% input cost surges, urban agriculture can transition from crisis-response tools into antifragile systems. These efforts must ensure rooftops and terraces evolve from experimental spaces into resilient food lifelines, capable of nourishing urban populations amid escalating disruptions while preserving biodiversity and reducing carbon footprints.