Search

A variety of stakeholders are concerned with many issues regarding the sustainability of our complex global food system. Yet navigating and comparing the plethora of issues and indicators across scales, commodities, and regions can be daunting, particularly for different communities of practice with diverse goals, perspectives, and decision-making workflows. This study presents a malleable workflow to help different stakeholder groups identify the issues and indicators that define food system sustainability for their particular use case. By making information used in such workflows semantically-consistent, the output from each unique case can be easily compared and contrasted across domains, contributing to both a deeper and broader understanding of what issues and indicators define a resilient global food system.

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution exposure is the largest environmental health risk factor in the United States. Here, we link PM2.5 exposure to the human activities responsible for PM2.5 pollution. We use these results to explore "pollution inequity": the difference between the environmental health damage caused by a racial-ethnic group and the damage that group experiences. We show that, in the United States, PM2.5 exposure is disproportionately caused by consumption of goods and services mainly by the non-Hispanic white majority, but disproportionately inhaled by black and Hispanic minorities. On average, non-Hispanic whites experience a "pollution advantage": They experience ∼17% less air pollution exposure than is caused by their consumption. Blacks and Hispanics on average bear a "pollution burden" of 56% and 63% excess exposure, respectively, relative to the exposure caused by their consumption. The total disparity is caused as much by how much people consume as by how much pollution they breathe. Differences in the types of goods and services consumed by each group are less important. PM2.5 exposures declined ∼50% during 2002-2015 for all three racial-ethnic groups, but pollution inequity has remained high.

Sustainability describes a broad set of themes centered on current human uses of the planet’s resources. The multiple uses and users of the term have led to a proliferation of salient issues and associated indicators. We present a new method to systematically link these issues and indicators under two conceptual frameworks of sustainability in order to enable quantitative analyses. We demonstrate this approach with a specific use case focused on the global sourcing of agricultural products. We use the optimization software Marxan in a novel way to develop minimum sets of indicators that provide maximum coverage of sustainability issues. Minimum covering sets were identified and accumulation curves were developed to measure the contribution of each indicator in each set to overall issues coverage. While greater detail in the assessment of each indicator would likely provide more effective sets of indicators, those that were generated provide optimism that this approach can bring better focus to sustainability assessments.

Understanding how to source agricultural raw materials sustainably is challenging in today's globalized food system given the variety of issues to be considered and the multitude of suggested indicators for representing these issues. Furthermore, stakeholders in the global food system both impact these issues and are themselves vulnerable to these issues, an important duality that is often implied but not explicitly described. The attention given to these issues and conceptual frameworks varies greatly--depending largely on the stakeholder perspective--as does the set of indicators developed to measure them. To better structure these complex relationships and assess any gaps, we collate a comprehensive list of sustainability issues and a database of sustainability indicators to represent them. To assure a breadth of inclusion, the issues are pulled from the following three perspectives: major global sustainability assessments, sustainability communications from global food companies, and conceptual frameworks of sustainable livelihoods from academic publications. These terms are integrated across perspectives using a common vocabulary, classified by their relevance to impacts and vulnerabilities, and categorized into groups by economic, environmental, physical, human, social, and political characteristics. These issues are then associated with over 2,000 sustainability indicators gathered from existing sources. A gap analysis is then performed to determine if particular issues and issue groups are over or underrepresented. This process results in 44 "integrated" issues--24 impact issues and 36 vulnerability issues--that are composed of 318 "component" issues. The gap analysis shows that although every integrated issue is mentioned at least 40% of the time across perspectives, no issue is mentioned more than 70% of the time. A few issues infrequently mentioned across perspectives also have relatively few indicators available to fully represent them. Issues in the impact framework generally have fewer gaps than those in the vulnerability framework.