Seeds of resilience: the contribution of commons-based plant breeding and seed production to the social-ecological resilience of the agricultural sector

Figures & data

Table 1. Agroecological resilience assessment framework for breeding and seed production.

Indicator for agroecological resilience (partially adapted from Cabell & Oelofse, 2012, p. 4)	Definition for agroecosystems as social-ecological systems in general (partially adapted from Cabell & Oelofse, 2012, p. 4)	Specification for breeding and seed production systems^a
Socially self-organized (Atwell et al. 2010; Frankenberger et al. 2013^a; Holling, 2001; Levin, 1999; McKey et al., 2010; Milestad & Darnhofer, 2003; Speranza et al., 2014^a; Walker & Salt, 2006^a, 2012^a; Worstell & Green, 2017^a)	The social components of the agroecosystem can form their own configuration based on their needs and desires.	The social components of the agroecosystem can form their own breeding and seed production structures that fit specific needs (e.g. of organic or small-scale agriculture).
Ecologically self-regulated (Ewell, 1999; Glover et al., 2010; Jacke & Toensmeier, 2005; Jackson, 2002; McKey et al., 2010; Rockefeller Foundation, 2014^a; Sundkvist et al., 2005; Swift et al., 2004; Walker & Salt, 2006^a; Worstell & Green, 2017^a)	Ecological components self-regulate via stabilizing feedback mechanisms that send information back to the controlling elements.	Availability of varieties that are naturally reproducible and can adapt to changing local conditions, including ecological pest management.
Functional and response diversity (Altieri, 1999; Berkes et al., 2003; Biggs et al., 2012^a, 2015^a; Carpenter et al., 2012^a; Chapin et al., 2009; Darnhofer et al., 2010b; Di Falco & Chavas, 2008; Ewell, 1999; Frankenberger et al., 2013^a; Folke, 2006; Folke et al., 2010^a; Jackson et al., 2007; Luck et al., 2003; McIntyre et al., 2009; Moonen & Bàrberi, 2008; Speranza et al., 2014^a; Swift et al., 2004; Walker & Salt, 2006^a, 2012^a; Worstell & Green, 2017^a)	Functional diversity is the variety of ecosystem services that components provide to the system. Response diversity is the range of responses of these components to environmental change.	Breeding and seed multiplication approaches that foster agrobiodiversity at the level of genetic diversity, crop species, and landscapes to increase functional and response diversity in plant cultivation.
Optimally redundant (Biggs et al., 2012^a, 2015^a; Carpenter et al., 2012^a; Darnhofer et al., 2010b; Low et al., 2002; Rockefeller Foundation, 2014^a; Sundkvist et al., 2005; Walker et al., 2010; Worstell & Green, 2017^a)	Critical components and relationships within the system are duplicated in case of failure.	Redundancy of different supply channels for seeds and diversity of breeding organizations and structures.
Exposed to disturbance (Berkes et al., 2003; Folke, 2006^a; Frankenberger et al., 2013; Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Rockefeller Foundation, 2014^a; Worstell & Green, 2017^a)	The system is exposed to discrete, low-level events that cause disruptions without pushing the system beyond a critical threshold.	Variety development takes place under careful exposure to disturbance through in-situ breeding processes.
Coupled with local natural capital (Darnhofer et al., 2010a, 2010b; Ewell, 1999; Milestad & Darnhofer, 2003; Naylor, 2009; Robertson & Swinton, 2005; van Apeldoorn et al., 2011)	The system functions as much as possible within the means of the bioregionally available natural resource base and ecosystem services.	Availability of varieties that are adapted to regional environmental conditions and resources. Focus on varieties that are based on the bioregionally available natural resources.
Accumulation of reserves and physical infrastructure^a (Frankenberger et al., 2013^a; Rockefeller Foundation, 2014^a; Walker & Salt, 2012; Worstell & Green, 2017^a)	The buildup of reserves and physical infrastructure i.e. through delayed consumption and profit-taking.	Physical facilities for breeding, seed processing and storage are build up and maintained on-farm. Seed banks preserve genetic resources in the long term.
Appropriately connected: globally autonomous and locally interdependent in modular subsystems (Axelrod & Cohen, 1999; Biggs et al., 2012^a, 2015^a; Carpenter et al., 2012^a; Frankenberger et al., 2013^a; Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Holling, 2001; Milestad & Darnhofer, 2003; Picasso et al., 2011; Rockefeller Foundation, 2014^a; van Apeldoorn et al., 2011; Walker & Salt, 2006^a, 2012^a; Walker et al., 2010; Worstell & Green, 2017^a)	Connectedness describes the quantity and quality of relationships between system elements. A system is globally autonomous if it has relative autonomy from exogenous (global) control, influences, and inputs. It is locally interdependent in modular subsystems if it exhibits a high level of cooperation between individuals and institutions in a network at the more local level with only weak connections to other networks.	Reduced reliance of (new) varieties on external inputs such as pesticides, fertilizers, international patents etc. A high degree of modular connectedness at the local level of breeders, farmers, gardeners, and other actors along the value chain.
Builds human capital and encourages reflective and shared learning (Berkes et al., 2003; Biggs et al., 2012^a, 2015^a; Buchmann, 2009; Darnhofer et al., 2010b; Frankenberger et al., 2013^a; McManus et al., 2012; Milestad et al., 2010; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Rockefeller Foundation, 2014^a; Shava et al., 2010; Walsh-Dilley et al., 2016)	The system takes advantage of and builds resources that can be mobilized through social relationships and membership in social networks. Individuals and institutions learn from past experiences and present experimentation to anticipate change and create desirable futures.	Skills, knowledge and expertise on breeding and seed production are build up and social networks are formed. Knowledge and skills on breeding and seed multiplication as well as on variety traits and cultivation are documented, disclosed, and passed on. Practical on-farm experience is integrated into breeding activities.
Conservative innovation that honours legacy (Biggs et al., 2012^a, 2015^a; Carpenter et al., 2012^a; Cumming et al., 2005; Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Frankenberger et al., 2013^a; Rockefeller Foundation, 2014^a; Shava et al., 2010; van Apeldoorn et al., 2011; Walker & Salt, 2006^a, 2012^a; Worstell & Green, 2017^a)	Conservative innovation describes a form of system innovation that honours legacy. The current configuration and future trajectories of systems are influenced and informed by past conditions and experiences.	Use of traditional breeding methods (besides some modern breeding techniques) for the continuous development of new varieties. Ensuring the availability and use of underutilized and heirloom varieties.
Reasonably profitable (Frankenberger et al., 2013^a; Speranza et al., 2014^a)	The segments of society involved in agriculture can make a livelihood from the work they do without relying too heavily on subsidies or secondary employment.	Long-term financial viability of breeding and seed multiplication is ensured.
Bases on polycentric, decentralized governance structures^a (Biggs et al., 2012^a, 2015^a; Carpenter et al., 2012^a; Ostrom, 2005^a; Walker & Salt, 2006^a; Walsh-Dilley et al., 2016^a)	The governance structures of the agroecosystem are characterized by multiple, nested governing bodies at different scales, with autonomy to make and enforce rules within an agricultural system.	Breeding and seed production is organized through decentralized governance structures at various levels.
Ensures resource access and broadens participation^a (Biggs et al., 2012^a, 2015^a; Frankenberger et al., 2013^a; McGuire & Sperling, 2016^a; Rockefeller Foundation, 2014^a; Tendall et al., 2015^a; Walsh-Dilley et al., 2016^a)	An appropriate institutional framework of the agroecosystem with equitable (access) rights, entitlements and decision-making processes is established.	Access to seeds and genetic material, including for small-scale farmers, gardeners, and breeders, is ensured. Broad participation in breeding and conservation efforts is given. Decision-making processes within organizations are inclusive.
Encourages complex adaptive systems thinking^a (Biggs et al., 2012^a, 2015^a)	Core actors acknowledge that the agroecosystem is based on a complex and unpredictable web of connections and interdependencies and adapt their practices accordingly.	Holistic approaches to breeding and seed production that acknowledge the interdependencies of social and ecological factors and their partial unpredictability.

^aIndicates references, indicators and descriptions that have been added to the original framework as developed by Cabell and Oelofse (2012).

Table 2. Assessing the impact of conventional and commons-based seed production on agroecological resilience.

Indicator for agroecological resilience	Conventional seed production	Commons-based seed production
Socially self-organized	Social self-organization of farmers and breeders is not given The needs of farmers and other actors along the agricultural value chain are integrated through stakeholder and sustainability management	Farmers and breeders form their own structures for breeding, seed multiplication and marketing A high degree of coordination and cooperation along the agricultural value chain
Ecologically self-regulated	Focus on achieving adaptability to changing environmental conditions through biotechnological enhancements based on genetic modification and genomics: breeding of primarily hybrid and genetically modified varieties A core breeding goal is increased resource efficiency in terms of pesticide, nitrogen, water, energy, and land use Chemical pest management through ‘integrated solutions’ of (genetically modified) seeds and complementary pesticides	Focus on achieving adaptability to changing environmental conditions through natural enhancements of varieties: breeding of open-pollinated, naturally reproducible varieties via crossing and selection methods A core breeding goal is plant robustness without chemical inputs. Varieties are specifically adapted for organic cultivation conditions Ecological pest management through breeding and seed multiplication under organic conditions
Functional and response diversity	Breeding predominately for monogenetic resistances and genetic uniformity Concentration on few crop species and crowding out of regionally adapted varieties through a focus on generalist high-yielding varieties Agrobiodiversity at the landscape level is reduced through the impacts of pesticides and synthetic chemical fertilizers used in seed multiplication	Breeding of open-pollinated varieties favours higher genetic diversity in varieties Preserving and enhancing agrobiodiversity at crop species level using traditional crop species and varieties in breeding and in-situ maintenance of conservation varieties Fostering of functional diversity of cultural landscapes in seed multiplication
Optimally redundant	Reduced redundancy of supply channels for seeds through an increasing market concentration due to company mergers and acquisition	Increased redundancy of different seed supply channels through encouraging commercial and hobby gardeners to carry out their own seed-multiplication and promoting seed exchanges Contributing to an independent organic seed sector, thereby creating redundancy of breeding structures
Exposed to disturbance	Breeding takes mostly place under controlled environmental conditions, in the lab and in field experiments	Breeding takes place on-farm – in situ breeding allows for exposure to site-specific disturbances and changing environmental conditions
Coupled with local natural capital	Breeding of varieties that are adapted to specific climates and (large) regions Agricultural inputs rely on complex global value chains	Breeding of varieties that are adapted to specific regions and agroecological conditions Agricultural inputs are limited to available local natural resources
Accumulation of reserves and physical infrastructure	Focus on increasing centralized high-technology breeding, seed processing and storage facilities Buildup of centralized seed banks	Focus on increasing on-farm infrastructure through low-technology breeding, seed cleaning, and processing as well as appropriate storage facilities Encouraging farmers to build up reserves through seed saving practices and establishing small-scale community seed banks
Appropriately connected: globally autonomous and locally interdependent in modular subsystems	(New) varieties are highly dependent on external inputs e.g. on complementary pesticides or technological equipment Focus on international markets for seed (and pesticide) retail, relying on highly complex international supply chains Trend of increasing global market concentration and merger with pesticide producers	(New) varieties are largely independent of external inputs Focus on regional and informal markets for seed retail A high degree of modular connectivity at the local level of breeders and farmers e.g. through networks and participatory breeding approaches
Builds human capital and encourages reflective and shared learning	Practical training of farmers on cultivation techniques, secure application of agrochemical products and access to markets and credits No training/ information of farmers on breeding and seed production Breeding history and – methods of new varieties are usually not disclosed	Practical training on breeding for commercial and hobby gardeners The breeding history and -methods of new varieties are shared publicly
Conservative innovation that honours legacy	Future and part of current practice is seen in biotechnical breeding methods, specifically gene editing rather than traditional breeding techniques Use of modern rather than landraces and traditional varieties Variety development is mainly based on scientific breeding knowledge, traditional practical knowledge of farmers is not appreciated	Application and further development of traditional breeding techniques Use of landraces and traditional crop species and varieties in breeding Traditional practical knowledge of farmers is appreciated and integrated alongside scientific breeding knowledge
Reasonably profitable	Highly profitable, which is necessary to continuously re-invest in biotechnological advancements High dependency on shareholders and investors (as external factors)	Insecurity regarding the long-term financing of breeding activities due to a lack of profitable financing models Diverse sources of financing, mostly on voluntary or charitable grounds (e.g. through foundations and donations), partly external to the SES
Polycentric, decentralized governance structures	Organization of multinational seed companies into centralized facilities and research centres worldwide which are governed by a single governance body Increasing market concentration opposes polycentric structures Hierarchical but partially democratic governance structures within seed organizations	Polycentric organization structure of breeding organizations, seed producers and – preservers including decentralized breeding projects with own decision-making competences Non-hierarchical and democratic decision making structures within seed organizations
Ensuring resource access and broadening participation	Application of intellectual property rights on newly developed varieties (e.g. variety protection, patents on genetic material and breeding technologies) limits access to seeds and genetic material for both farmers and breeders Non-reproducing varieties and re-seeding fees create dependencies of farmers on seed companies Focus on access to knowledge and credit through training and technology transfer	Access to varieties for farmers, gardeners and breeders is secured through the waiving of private property rights and/or adaptation of open-source systems Reproducing varieties allow for farmers’ independence Focus on participatory breeding approaches
Complex adaptive systems thinking	Worldview of domination of nature leads to a focus on (bio)technical solutions (e.g. breeding under optimally controlled conditions)	Worldview of working with nature leads to a holistic breeding approach (e.g. breeding on-farm in natural environments). Focus on social rather than technical innovations

Cabell, J. F., & Oelofse, M. (2012). An indicator framework for assessing agroecosystem resilience. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04666-170118

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Atwell, R. C., Schulte, L. A., & Westphal, L. M. (2010). How to build multifunctional agricultural landscapes in the U.S. Corn belt: Add perennials and partnerships. Land Use Policy, 27(4), 1082–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.02.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Frankenberger, T., Mueller, M., Spangler, T., & Alexander, S. (2013). Community resilience: Conceptual framework and measurement feed the future learning agenda. U.S. Agency for International Development. Westat. https://agrilinks.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/FTF%20Learning_Agenda_Community_Resilience_Oct%202013.pdf

 Google Scholar

Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4(5), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Levin, S. A. (1999). Fragile dominion: Complexity and the commons. Helix Books. Perseus Publishing.

 Google Scholar

McKey, D., Rostain, S., Iriarte, J., Glaser, B., Birk, J. J., Holst, I., & Renard, D. (2010). Pre-Columbian agricultural landscapes, ecosystem engineers, and self-organized patchiness in amazonia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(17), 7823–7828. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908925107

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Milestad, R., & Darnhofer, I. (2003). Building farm resilience: The prospects and challenges of organic farming. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 22(3), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v22n03_09

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Speranza, C. I., Wiesmann, U., & Rist, S. (2014). An indicator framework for assessing livelihood resilience in the context of social-ecological dynamics. Global Environmental Change, 28, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island Press.

 Google Scholar

Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2012). Resilience practice: Building capacity to absorb disturbance and maintain function. Island Press.

 Google Scholar

Worstell, J., & Green, J. (2017). Eight qualities of resilient food systems: Toward a sustainability/resilience index. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 7(3), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2017.073.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ewell, J. J. (1999). Natural systems as models for the design of sustainable systems of land use. Agroforestry Systems, 45(1/3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006219721151

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Glover, J. D., Reganold, J. P., Bell, L. W., Borevitz, J., Brummer, E. C., Buckler, E. S., Cox, C. M., Cox, T. S., Crews, T. E., Culman, S. W., DeHaan, L. R., Eriksson, D., Gill, B. S., Holland, J., Hu, F., Hulke, B. S., Ibrahim, A. M. H., Jackson, W., Jones, S. S., … Xu, Y. (2010). Increased food and ecosystem security via perennial grains. Science, 328(5986), 1638–1639. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1188761

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jacke, D., & Toensmeier, E. (2005). Edible forest gardens, volume II: Ecological design and practice for temperate-climate permaculture. Chelsea Green Publishing.

 Google Scholar

Jackson, W. (2002). Natural systems agriculture: A truly radical alternative. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 88(2), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00247-X

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rockefeller Foundation. (2014). City resilience framework. The Rockefeller Foundation. https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/report/city-resilience-framework/

 Google Scholar

Sundkvist, Å., Milestad, R., & Jansson, A. (2005). On the importance of tightening feedback loops for sustainable development of food systems. Food Policy, 30(2), 224–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.02.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Swift, M. J., Izac, A. M. N., & van Noordwijk, M. (2004). Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes—are we asking the right questions? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 104(1), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.013

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Altieri, M. A. (1999). The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 74(1-3), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00028-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Eds.) (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541957

 Google Scholar

Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E. L., BurnSilver, S., Cundill, G., Dakos, V., Daw, T. M., Evans, L. S., Kotschy, K., Leitch, A. M., Meek, C., Quinlan, A., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Robards, M. D., Schoon, M. L., Schultz, L., & West, P. C. (2012). Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 421–448. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Biggs, R., Schluter, M., & Schoon, M. L. (Eds.). (2015). Principles for building resilience: Sustaining ecosystem services in social-ecological systems. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014240

 Google Scholar

Carpenter, S. R., Arrow, K. J., Barrett, S., Biggs, R., Brock, W. A., Crépin, A.-S., Engström, G., Folke, C., Hughes, T., Kautsky, N., Li, C.-Z., McCarney, G., Meng, K., Mäler, K.-G., Polasky, S., Scheffer, M., Shogren, J., Sterner, T., Vincent, J., … Zeeuw, A. (2012). General resilience to cope with extreme events. Sustainability, 4(12), 3248–3259. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4123248

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chapin, F. S., III, Kofinas, G. P., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2009). Principles of ecosystem stewardship: Resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Springer New York.

 Google Scholar

Darnhofer, I., Fairweather, J., & Moller, H. (2010b). Assessing a farm’s sustainability: Insights from resilience thinking. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 8(3), 186–198. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2010.0480

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Di Falco, S., & Chavas, J.-P. (2008). Rainfall shocks, resilience, and the effects of crop biodiversity on agroecosystem productivity. Land Economics, 84(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.84.1.83

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jackson, L. E., Pascual, U., & Hodgkin, T. (2007). Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 121(3), 196–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.12.017

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Luck, G. W., Daily, G. C., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2003). Population diversity and ecosystem services. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(7), 331–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00100-9

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McIntyre, B. D., Herren, H. R., Wakhungu, J., & Watson, R. T. (Eds.). (2009). International assessment of agricultural knowledge, Science and technology for development (IAASTD): global report. Island Press.

 Google Scholar

Moonen, A.-C., & Bàrberi, P. (2008). Functional biodiversity: An agroecosystem approach. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 127(1-2), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.02.013

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Low, B., Ostrom, E., Simon, C., & Wilson, J. (2002). Redundancy and diversity: Do they influence optimal management? In F. Berkes, J. Colding, & C. Folke (Eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change (pp. 83–114). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541957.007

 Google Scholar

Walker, B., Sayer, J., Andrew, N. L., & Campbell, B. (2010). Should enhanced resilience be an objective of natural resource management research for developing countries? Crop Science, 50, S-10–S-19. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2009.10.0565

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press.

 Google Scholar

Darnhofer, I., Bellon, S., Dedieu, B., & Milestad, R. (2010a). Adaptiveness to enhance the sustainability of farming systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 30(3), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009053

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Naylor, R. L. (2009). Managing food production systems for resilience. In C. Folke, G. P. Kofinas, & F. S. Chapin, III (Eds.), Principles of ecosystem stewardship (pp. 259–280). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73033-2_12

 Google Scholar

Robertson, G. P., & Swinton, S. M. (2005). Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: A grand challenge for agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3(1), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0038:RAPAEI]2.0.CO;2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

van Apeldoorn, D. F., Kok, K., Sonneveld, M. P. W., & Veldkamp, T. (A.). (2011). Panarchy rules: Rethinking resilience of agroecosystems, evidence from Dutch dairy-farming. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03949-160139

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. (1999). Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier. The Free Press.

 Google Scholar

Picasso, V. D., Brummer, E. C., Liebman, M., Dixon, P. M., & Wilsey, B. J. (2011). Diverse perennial crop mixtures sustain higher productivity over time based on ecological complementarity. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 26(4), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170511000135

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Buchmann, C. (2009). Cuban home gardens and their role in social-ecological resilience. Human Ecology, 37(6), 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9283-9

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McManus, P., Walmsley, J., Argent, N., Baum, S., Bourke, L., Martin, J., Pritchard, B., & Sorensen, T. (2012). Rural community and rural resilience: What is important to farmers in keeping their country towns alive? Journal of Rural Studies, 28(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.09.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Milestad, R., Westberg, L., Geber, U., & Björklund, J. (2010). Enhancing adaptive capacity in food systems: Learning at farmers’ markets in Sweden. Ecology and Society, 15(3), 29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03543-150329

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.2307/259373

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shava, S., Krasny, M. E., Tidball, K. G., & Zazu, C. (2010). Agricultural knowledge in urban and resettled communities: Applications to social-ecological resilience and environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 16(5-6), 575–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.505436

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Walsh-Dilley, M., Wolford, W., & McCarthy, J. (2016). Rights for resilience: Food sovereignty, power, and resilience in development practice. Ecology and Society, 21(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07981-210111

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cumming, G. S., Barnes, G., Perz, S., Schmink, M., Sieving, K. E., Southworth, J., Binford, M., Holt, R. D., Stickler, C., & Van Holt, T. (2005). An exploratory framework for the empirical measurement of resilience. Ecosystems, 8(8), 975–987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-005-0129-z

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton Univ. Press.

 Google Scholar

McGuire, S., & Sperling, L. (2016). Seed systems smallholder farmers use. Food Security, 8(1), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0528-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tendall, D. M., Joerin, J., Kopainsky, B., Edwards, P. J., Shreck, A., Le, Q. B., Kruetli, P., Grant, M., & Six, J. (2015). Food system resilience: Defining the concept. Global Food Security, 6, 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2015.08.001

 Google Scholar