CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17Agriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentFood Security and Socioeconomic DynamicsRural Development and Agriculture

A feminist economics perspective on the agroecology-food and nutrition security nexus

Open access
Ume, Chukwuma, Nuppenau, Ernst-August, Domptail, Stephanie Eileen·2022·Environmental and Sustainability Indicators
DOI 10.1016/j.indic.2022.100212

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper investigates how agroecology in Africa is researched for two purposes. First, we present evidence of links between agroecology and food and nutrition security in sub-Saharan Africa. Second, we investigate which pathways of influence are dominant in the existing research and which pathways are under-represented. To achieve these objectives we anchor our analysis within feminist economics, thereby making use of the concepts of social reproduction and agency in our analysis of the literature. By employing a systematic literature review of empirical studies from African countries, starting from 1996 to 2020, we consolidate evidence that agroecology has contributed to food and nutrition security by acting toward sustainability at the farm level. However, our review shows in a second step that social and household dimensions of agroecology at the level of households and territories are not well documented in research linking agroecology to food security and nutrition in sub-Saharan Africa. Given that sustainable production practices such as agroecological practices are not mutually exclusive from the social activities of farmers and cultural contexts in which farmers are embedded, it is important to consider social and ecological processes concomitantly when assessing the value of Agroecology programs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.indic.2022.100212

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The findings make a strong case for agroecology as a key approach for achieving biodiversity targets, enhancing economic viability of farming systems, and supporting health, nutritional and food security goals.

    “The findings make a strong case for agroecology as a key approach not only for achieving biodiversity targets and enhancing economic viability of farming systems but also in supporting the delivery of health, nutritional and food security goals (Ume et al., 2022;van Zutphen et al., 2022).”

    From Agroecology for sustainable development: evidence on multidimensional performance from a cross-country TAPE assessment in Africa (2025) · cites this paper as Ume et al., 2022

    The Production diversity and Biodiversity conservation section links agroecology with biodiversity conservation, dietary diversity, and food and nutrition security; the Resource use efficiency section reports lower production costs and greater profits for some smallholder farmers. The paper does not establish achievement of specific biodiversity targets or broader health goals beyond its discussion of nutrition and household well-being. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Fiske, S., & Berdahl, J. (2007). Social power. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: (2nd ed.) (Handbook o). Guilford Press.
  2. Kabeer, N., Stark, A., & Magnus, E. (2008). Global perspectives on gender equality: Reversing the gaze. Routledge.
  3. Kassie, M., Zikhali, P., Pender, J., & Köhlin, G. (2009). Working papers in Economics No 406 Sustainable Agricultural Practices and Agricultural Productivity in Ethiopia : Does Agroecology Matter ? Menale Kassie Precious Zikhali John Pender Gunnar Köhlin November 2009 ISSN 1403-2465 ( online ) Sustainable Agricu. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2473(406).
  4. Menon, R. (2015). Unit 2 Productive and Reproductive (pp. 28-46).
  5. Porter, J. J., Dessai, S., & Tompkins, E. L. (2014). What do we know about UK household adaptation to climate change? A systematic review. Climatic Change, 127(2), 371-379.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ume, C., Nuppenau, E.-A., & Domptail, S. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Nigeria (NG)
  • Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (DE)
Corresponding author
Ume, Chukwuma
ORCID
Venue
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-12
Volume
16
Pages
100212
ISSN
2665-9727 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.indic.2022.100212
OpenAlex
W4308034260
Cited by
17
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5
FWCI
5.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Environmental and Sustainability Indicators (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Universitätsbibliothek Gießen
Funders
Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Security and Socioeconomic Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Rural Development and Agriculture
Keywords
agroecology, food and nutrition security, feminist economics, social reproduction, household reproduction, agency, soil fertility, sustainable agricultural practices, African agriculture, conceptual framework

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review