Sustainably achieving the goal of global food security is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. The current food system is failing to meet the needs of people, and at the same time, is having far-reaching impacts on the environment and undermining human well-being in other important ways. It is increasingly apparent that a deep transformation in the way we produce and consume food is needed in order to ensure a more just and sustainable future. This paper uses the concept of regime shifts to understand key drivers and innovations underlying past disruptions in the food system and to explore how they may help us think about desirable future changes and how we might leverage them. We combine two perspectives on regime shifts—one derived from natural sciences and the other from social sciences—to propose an interpretation of food regimes that draws on innovation theory. We use this conceptualization to discuss three examples of innovations that we argue helped enable critical regime shifts in the global food system in the past: the Haber-Bosch process of nitrogen fixation, the rise of the supermarket, and the call for more transparency in the food system to reconnect consumers with their food. This paper concludes with an exploration of why this combination of conceptual understandings is important across the Global North/ Global South divide, and proposes a new sustainability regime where transformative change is spearheaded by a variety of social–ecological innovations.

Context Connectivity between habitat patches is vital for ecological processes at multiple scales. Traditional metrics do not measure the scales at which individual habitat patches contribute to the overall ecological connectivity of the landscape. Connectivity has previously been evaluated at several different scales based on the dispersal capabilities of particular organisms, but these approaches are data-heavy and conditioned on just a few species. Objectives Our objective was to improve cross-scale measurement of connectivity by developing and testing a new landscape metric, cross-scale centrality. Methods Cross-scale centrality (CSC) integrates over measurements of patch centrality at different scales (hypothetical dispersal distances) to quantify the cross-scale contribution of each individual habitat patch to overall landscape or seascape connectivity. We tested CSC against an independent metapopulation simulation model and demonstrated its potential application in conservation planning by comparison to an alternative approach that used individual dispersal data. Results CSC correlated significantly with total patch occupancy across the entire landscape in our metapopulation simulation, while being much faster and easier to calculate. Standard conservation planning software (Marxan) using dispersal data was weaker than CSC at capturing locations with high cross-scale connectivity. Conclusions Metrics that measure pattern across multiple scales are much faster and more efficient than full simulation models and more rigorous and interpretable than ad hoc incorporation of connectivity into conservation plans. In reality, connectivity matters for many different organisms across many different scales. Metrics like CSC that quantify landscape pattern across multiple different scales can make a valuable contribution to multi-scale landscape measurement, planning, and management.

Conservation approaches to social-ecological systems have largely been informed by a framing of preserving nature for its instrumental societal benefits, often ignoring the complex relationship of humans and nature and how climate change might impact these. The Nature Futures Framework (NFF) was developed by the Task Force on scenarios and models of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services as a heuristic approach that appreciates the diverse positive values of nature and its contribution to people. In this overview, we convene a group of experts to discuss the NFF as a tool to inform management in social-ecological systems facing climate change. We focus on three illustrative case studies from the global south across a range of climate change impacts at different ecological levels. We find that the NFF can facilitate the identification of trade-offs between alternative climate adaptation pathways based on different perspectives on the values of nature they emphasize. However, we also identify challenges in adopting the NFF, including how outputs can be translated into modeling frameworks. We conclude that using the NFF to unpack diverse management options under climate change is useful, but that there are still gaps where more work needs to be done to make it fully operational. A key conclusion is that a range of multiple perspectives of people’s values on nature could result in adaptive decision-making and policy that is resilient in responding to climate change impacts in social-ecological systems.

No abstract

No abstract