Exploring the “works with nature” pillar of food sovereignty: a review of empirical cases in academic literature

Figures & data

Table 1. We defined the different levels of engagement with the works with nature pillar (WwNP) as their description, number of papers assigned to different levels, the percentage (%) of papers in each level, and a respective example of a paper assigned to this level.

Level of engagement	Description	Number of papers	% of papers	Examples of papers
L1. No engagement	Does not mention any aspect related to the EPFS	1	1	(McKinney and Kato 2017)
L2. Mentioned-not studied	The topics that related to the WwNP are mentioned as a buzzword or presented only in the conceptual sections	18	20	(García-Sempere et al. 2019; Mucioki, Sowerwine, and Sarna-Wojcicki 2018; Partridge 2016)
L3. Studied-not central	Themes related to the WwNP are studied in the article but not central to the narrative/analysis of it	29	31	(Clément Picos 2020; Davila 2020; Zhang 2020)
L4. Studied-central	Themes related to the WwNP are studied and are the main or one of the main foci of the narrative/analysis of the article	44	48	(Bhattacharya 2017; Copeland 2019; Gupta 2015; Ruelle et al. 2019; Soper 2020)
		TOTAL: 92	100%

Figure 1. The WwNP themes and topics found in the academic literature; the thickness of the arrows refer to the frequency of topics co-occurrences. The numbers above the arrows indicate the number of co-occurrences between topics of themes 1 and 2.

Table 2. Description of the topics that were raised in the articles and were coded as part of the results of this review.

Theme	Topics	Description
1. Practices and use of resources	1.1 Ecological agriculture	Refers to various farming techniques involving low environmental impact techniques, e.g. low external inputs, recycling waste, diversification based on local adapted breeds, water and soil fertility management adapted to local bio-physical conditions, mixed crop-livestock-tree systems, local techniques resulting from small-scale, traditional agriculture (iPES-Food 2016; Wezel et al. 2009).
	1.2 Wild-life hunting, harvesting and fishing	Refers to the extraction and use of wild biodiversity as sources of food, nutrients as well as material for housing, shelter, crafts, that are crucial for indigenous and local communities’ survival (Somnasang, Moreno, and Chusil 1998).
	1.3 Intensive-industrial agriculture	Refers to the practice of intensive-industrial agriculture. Involving techniques with technical innovations based on the intensive use of external inputs and landscape homogenization (e.g. pesticides, fertilizers, machinery, improved crop varieties, monocrops) (Davies 2015; Jeliazkov et al. 2016; Robinson et al. 2011).
	1.4 Nonagricultural extractive activities	Refers to the practice of human related pressures, that influence the state of planned, wild-life and ecosystems as a whole, resulting from the continuous and excessive extraction of a resource (e.g. mining, logging) (IPBES 2019).
2. Ecological conditions	2.1 Values of nature and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)	Refers to non-material human-nature relationships. Values of nature refers to values people assign to nature. Values could be instrumental (for humans’ sake), intrinsic (for natures’ sake) and relational (preferences, principles, and virtues associated with nature-human relationships) (Chan et al. 2016). TEK refers to cumulative dynamic, adaptative complexes of knowledge-practices-beliefs, handed down through generations (sensu Berkes 1999).
	2.2 Conservation and restoration	Refers to the planning and execution of strategies for maintaining or restoring an ecosystem or a resource (e.g. seeds, breeds and plants banks, soils physical, chemical and biological properties, etc.) (Castellini et al. 2021; Nishikawa and Pimbert 2022), in order to provide maximum benefits for present and future generations (Jaisankar, Velmurugan, and Sivaperuman 2018).
	2.3 Resources and environmental degradation	Refers to the loss or reduction of biological or economical productivity and complexity that results from land uses or from a combination of processes, including those arising from human activities and habitation patterns (IPBES 2019).
	2.4 Natural processes	Refers to the processes and relationships between species that do not require humans for them to exist (Govorushko 2012). These include: Ecosystem functions, biodiversity (richness, diversity), land cover, energy cycles, and resilience.

McKinney, L., and Y. Kato. 2017. Community context of Food Justice: Reflections on a Free local produce Program in a New Orleans food desert. AIMS Agriculture and Food 2 (2):183–200. doi:10.3934/agrfood.2017.2.183.

 Google Scholar

Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer, and A. Wright. 2019. Nature’s matrix, linking agriculture, biodiversity conservation and food sovereignty, 286. New York: Taylor & Francis, Oxon.

 Google Scholar

Mucioki, M., J. Sowerwine, and D. Sarna-Wojcicki. 2018. Thinking inside and outside the box: Local and National Considerations of the Food Distribution Program on Indian reservations (FDPIR). Journal of Rural Studies 57 (November 2017):88–98. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.11.002.

 Google Scholar

Jeliazkov, A., A. Mimet, R. Chargé, F. Jiguet, V. Devictor, and F. Chiron. 2016. Impacts of agricultural intensification on bird communities: New insights from a multi-level and multi-facet approach of biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 216:9–22. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2015.09.017.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Clément Picos, E. 2020. Food Sovereignty, Diné Ontologies: Spiritual and political ecology as tools for self-determination. Revista Cuhso 30 (1):40–59. doi:10.7770/cuhso-v30n1-art2107.

 Google Scholar

Davila, F. 2020. Human ecology and food discourses in a smallholder agricultural system in Leyte, the Philippines. Agriculture and Human Values 37 (3):719–41. doi:10.1007/s10460-019-10007-6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, L. 2020. From Left behind to Leader: Gender, Agency, and Food Sovereignty in China. Agriculture and Human Values 37 (4):1111–23. doi:10.1007/s10460-020-10114-9.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bhattacharya, N. 2017. Food Sovereignty and agro-ecology in Karnataka: Interplay of discourses, identities, and practices. Development in Practice 27 (4):544–54. doi:10.1080/09614524.2017.1305328.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Copeland, N. 2019. Linking the defence of territory to Food Sovereignty: Peasant environmentalisms and extractive neoliberalism in Guatemala. Journal of Agrarian Change 19 (1):21–40. doi:10.1111/joac.12274.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gupta, C. 2015. Return to freedom: Anti-GMO aloha ‘Āina Activism on Molokai as an expression of place-based Food Sovereignty. Globalizations 12 (4):529–44. doi:10.1080/14747731.2014.957586.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ruelle, M. L., K. Aly Kassam, S. J. Morreale, Z. Asfaw, A. G. Power, and T. J. Fahey. 2019. Biocultural diversity and Food Sovereignty: A case study of human-plant relations in Northwestern Ethiopia. Food Security 11 (1):183–99. doi:10.1007/s12571-019-00888-0.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Soper, R. 2020. From protecting Peasant livelihoods to essentializing Peasant agriculture: Problematic trends in Food Sovereignty discourse. The Journal of Peasant Studies 47 (2):265–85. doi:10.1080/03066150.2018.1543274.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wezel, A., C. A. Francis, D. Vallod, C. Francis, D. Vallod, and C. David. 2009. Agroecology as a Science, a movement and a practice review article. Agronomy for Sustainable Develpment 29 (4):503–15. doi:10.1051/agro/2009004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Somnasang, P., G. Moreno, and K. Chusil. 1998. Indigenous knowledge of wild Food hunting and gathering in North-East Thailand. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 19 (4):359–65. doi:10.1177/156482659801900412.

 Google Scholar

Davies, M. I. J. 2015. Economic specialization, resource variability, and the origins of intensive agriculture in Eastern Africa. Rural Landscapes: Society, Environment, History 2 (1):1–18. doi:10.16993/rl.af.

 Google Scholar

Robinson, T. P., P. K. Thornton, G. Franceschini, R. L. Kruska, F. Chiozza, A. Notenbaert, G. Cecchi, M. Herrero, M. Epprecht, S. Fritz, et al. 2011. Global livestock production systems, 152. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).

 Google Scholar

Chan, K. M. A., P. Balvanera, K. Benessaiah, M. Chapman, S. Díaz, E. Gómez-Baggethun, R. Gould, N. Hannahs, K. Jax, S. Klain, et al. 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the Environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113(6):1462–65. doi:10.1073/pnas.1525002113.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management, 209. Philadelphia, U.S.A: Taylor & Francis Inc.

 Google Scholar

Castellini, M., M. Diacono, C. Eliana Gattullo, and A. Maria Stellacci. 2021. Sustainable agriculture and soil conservation. Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 11 (9):11–16. doi:10.3390/app11094146.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nishikawa, Y., and M. Pimbert. 2022. Seeds for diversity and inclusion: Agroecology and endogenous development, 208. Coventry, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

 Google Scholar

Jaisankar, I., A. Velmurugan, and C. Sivaperuman. 2018. Biodiversity conservation: Issues and strategies for the tropical Islands. Biodiversity and Climate Change Adaptation in Tropical Islands 525–52. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-813064-3.00019-3.

 Google Scholar

IPBES. 2019. Chapter 2.1 status and trends –drivers of change. Accessed December 14, 2021. https://ipbes.net/document-library-catalogue/chapter-21-status-and-trends-drivers-change.

 Google Scholar

Govorushko, S. M. 2012. Natural processes and human impacts, interactions between humanity and the Environment, 672. New York, U.S.A: Springer.

 Google Scholar