Tropical deforestation continues apace despite a proliferation of commitments made by companies and governments to control it. Halting and reversing deforestation requires multiple, complementary interventions by state and non-state actors at different scales. We argue that the order in which these instruments and actors are introduced into the policy mix matters. Sequences of interventions from case studies in Latin America show that government commitment is a critical first step, implemented through command-and-control measures and then incentives. Combined with REDD+, they create an enabling environment for supply chain initiatives. A more coordinated and deliberate polycentric governance is needed to achieve zero-deforestation.

Avoided deforestation provides a natural climate solution for reducing emissions while generating co-benefits for people and nature. However, unleashing this potential requires improved governance. Diverse coalitions of actors are designing interventions to protect forests, each with different motivations and specialization of strategies. We introduce a policy sequencing framework to advance our understanding of how to improve polycentric zero-deforestation governance. Focusing on commodity production in Costa Rica, Brazil, and Colombia, we reconstructed the policy mix of zero-deforestation interventions across three domains – domestic public policies, REDD+, and supply chain initiatives. We classified interventions according to their instrument mechanism – disincentives, incentives, enabling measures – and when they were introduced into the policy mix. We found a sequence of interventions that reflects stages of forest cover dynamics, but also depends on local political will and institutional capacity. Government command-and-control measures are needed early in the policy sequence to slow deforestation, with incentives added to increase legal compliance. REDD+ helps governments build an enabling environment that supports supply chain initiatives seeking to increase forest cover at later stages of the sequence. Policy sequencing and policyscape concepts advance the design of more deliberate polycentric forest governance that enhances actor coordination and instrument synergies in the policy mix.

How do we stop deforestation? The policy options are well-known, but the order in which they are introduced matters.

Negative emissions technologies (NETs) have received increasing interest in recent years as a potential part of a portfolio of measures to address anthropogenic climate change, in particular following the 2015 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement and the 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report ‘Global Warming of 1.5 °C’. This increasing significance for global climate policy is faced with a multitude of open questions regarding, among others, the geopolitical implications of large-scale use of NETs. This paper outlines what we can learn for the possible geopolitical futures of NETs from existing international ‘green’ approaches.

We contribute to assessing political implications of NET scenarios, addressing the following question: What are potential geopolitical challenges, conflicts, and consequences of a large-scale deployment of three NETs, namely afforestation, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCS)? We turn to the two cases of renewable energies and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation for answers. We find that, first, not only afforestation, but also BECCS and even DACCS would have a geopolitical impact due to their requirements of territory – in the latter two cases, for instance, due to requirements for appropriate carbon storage space. Second, the material requirements of various NETs might also impact geopolitical constellations and induce conflict, providing certain countries and regions of the world with new leverage in the case of large-scale deployment, for instance those which can provide raw materials for fertilizer (for afforestation and BECCS) or energy generation (for DACCS). Third, discursive construction of space and identity might lead to very interesting new patterns of contestation, for instance if specific nation-states can successfully construct an identity of front-running climate protectors and use this to put pressure on other states.

What might be geopolitical implications of using NETs on a large scale to counteract anthropogenic climate change?

We summarize some of the past year's most important findings within climate change-related research. New research has improved our understanding about the remaining options to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, through overcoming political barriers to carbon pricing, taking into account non-CO2 factors, a well-designed implementation of demand-side and nature-based solutions, resilience building of ecosystems and the recognition that climate change mitigation costs can be justified by benefits to the health of humans and nature alone. We consider new insights about what to expect if we fail to include a new dimension of fire extremes and the prospect of cascading climate tipping elements.

A synthesis is made of 10 topics within climate research, where there have been significant advances since January 2020. The insights are based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings include: (1) the options to still keep global warming below 1.5 °C; (2) the impact of non-CO2 factors in global warming; (3) a new dimension of fire extremes forced by climate change; (4) the increasing pressure on interconnected climate tipping elements; (5) the dimensions of climate justice; (6) political challenges impeding the effectiveness of carbon pricing; (7) demand-side solutions as vehicles of climate mitigation; (8) the potentials and caveats of nature-based solutions; (9) how building resilience of marine ecosystems is possible; and (10) that the costs of climate change mitigation policies can be more than justified by the benefits to the health of humans and nature.

How do we limit global warming to 1.5 °C and why is it crucial? See highlights of latest climate science.

Nations across the world are concerned with environmental issues like forest loss. The majority of nations acknowledge the importance of reducing forest loss, and make commitments to do so. However, researchers often find that despite these commitments, and the work of non-governmental organizations, in many nations, forest loss is not declining. This research argues that institutional capacity, specifically a nations domestic autonomy may help explain the ineffectiveness of environmental international non-governmental organizations (EINGOs) at reducing forest loss. Specifically, I argue that nations with stronger domestic autonomy, measured as the extent to which a nation is free of the direct control of external political actors, improves the effectiveness of EINGOs at reaching their goals of reducing forest loss due to an autonomous state's relative strength and ability to integrate their version of environmentalism or reinterpret existing norms of environmentalism into EINGO ideologies and activities.

Previous research finds that environmental international non-governmental organizations (EINGOs) tend to have differential impacts on environmental factors cross-nationally, such as forest loss. More recent work argues that decoupling between stated environmental norms and actual environmental outcomes may be the result of a lack of institutional capacity. Using ordinary least squares regression for 91 low- and middle-income nations from 2001 to 2014, I find that EINGOs reduce forest loss more in nations with higher rather than lower levels of domestic autonomy. However, I find that EINGOs and domestic autonomy on their own do not significantly predict forest loss.

This research argues that a nations domestic autonomy may help explain the ineffectiveness EINGOs at reducing forest loss.

Scaling sustainable behaviour change means addressing politics, power and social justice to tackle the uneven distribution of responsibility and agency for climate action, within and between societies. This requires a holistic understanding of behaviour that bridges the ‘individual’ and ‘systemic’, and acknowledges the need for absolute emissions reductions, especially by high-consuming groups, and in key ‘hotspots’ of polluting activity, namely, travel, diet and housing. It counters the dominant focus on individuals and households, in favour of a differentiated, but collective approach, driven by bold climate governance and social mobilisation to reorient institutions and behaviour towards just transitions, sufficiency and wellbeing.

Sustainable behaviour change has been rising up the climate policy agenda as it becomes increasingly clear that far-reaching changes in lifestyles will be required, alongside shifts in policy, service provision and technological innovation, if we are to avoid dangerous levels of global heating. In this paper, we review different approaches to behaviour change from economics, psychology, sociology and political economy, to explore the neglected question of scalability, and identify critical points of leverage that challenge the dominant emphasis on individual responsibility. Although politically contentious and challenging to implement, in order to achieve the ambitious target of keeping warming below 1.5 degrees, we propose urgent structural interventions are necessary at all points within an ecosystem of transformation, and highlight five key spheres for action: a ‘strong’ sustainability pathway; pursuing just transitions (via changes to work, income and infrastructure); rebalancing political institutions to expand spaces for citizens vis-à-vis elite incumbents; focusing on high polluting actors and activities; and supporting social mobilisation. We call for a move away from linear and ‘shallow’ understandings of behaviour change, dominated by traditional behavioural and mainstreaming approaches, towards a ‘deep’, contextualised and dynamic view of scaling as a transformative process of multiple feedbacks and learning loops between individuals and systems, engaged in a mutually reinforcing ‘spiral of sustainability’.

Scaling behaviour change means addressing power and politics: challenging polluter elites and providing affordable and sustainable services for all.

Coastal communities face environmental challenges that put food, energy, and water systems at risk. Although highly interdependent, it is unknown the extent to which coastal resilience research has considered interactions among food–energy–water systems. Twenty peer-reviewed articles were identified that focused on these systems and coastal resilience. Although a nexus approach was not employed universally, these studies most commonly addressed interactions among these systems related to acute hazards. They consistently acknowledged the influence of energy and transportation systems upon the others. As such, planners should incorporate linkages across all three systems during coastal resilience planning especially in relation to acute hazards.

Coastal communities strive for resilience in the face of an ever-growing suite of threats by planning and preparing for numerous uncertain futures. Food, energy, and water systems are highly interconnected and essential to the well-being of coastal communities. However, it is unknown the extent to which coastal resilience research has included food–energy–water nexus considerations. This study used a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed research articles and identified 20 studies that focused on food, energy, and water systems as related to coastal resilience. Results revealed four main findings: (1) the food–energy–water nexus approach was most commonly applied to coastal resilience in the study of US locations and in the context of acute hazards, (2) a direct food–energy–water or other nexus approach was directly employed by only half of the studies, however, all highlighted the relevance of systems interconnections in the context of coastal resilience, (3) the energy system was shown to impact every system to which it was connected, and (4) the transportation system was also shown to impact every system to which it was connected, which suggests that the food–energy–water nexus should be expanded to include transportation systems.

Coastal resilience and food–energy–water nexus literature synthesis finds interconnected systems considerations relevant to resilience.

By the end of 2020, 190 universities and colleges worldwide had publicly committed to divest partially or fully from fossil fuel holdings, to help mitigate global heating. We find a statistical correlation between the status of universities in the world rankings and decisions to divest endowments from fossil fuel. Further analysis suggests causation in both directions. Not only do the best divest, but divestors get better.

Previous studies have explored connections between environmental responsibility and the financial performance of business firms. Here, we explore connections between a particular form of environmental responsibility, divestment from fossil fuel, and the reputational status of a different form of organization, universities. We find a strong and robust link between world university rankings and commitments to divest endowments from the fossil fuel industry, with higher-ranked universities divesting at higher rates compared to lower-ranked universities. Rates of divestment also differ significantly between countries, and according to the political orientations of provinces and states. We do not find evidence for links between divestment treated as a binary variable and a university's number of students, size of endowment, or type of endowment. We use time lags to test whether the rank-divestment correlation may arise due to effects of rank on divestment and/or vice versa. These tests indicate influence in both directions. In light of these results, we predict universities that have not yet divested will face mounting peer pressure to do so.

Higher-ranked universities divest more frequently, and divesting universities improve more in the rankings.

There has been a long history of conflicts, studies, and debate over how to both protect rivers and develop them sustainably. With a pause in new developments caused by the global pandemic, anticipated further implementation of the Paris Agreement and high-level global climate and biodiversity meetings in 2021, now is an opportune moment to consider the current trajectory of development and policy options for reconciling dams with freshwater system health.

We calculate potential loss of free-flowing rivers (FFRs) if proposed hydropower projects are built globally. Over 260,000 km of rivers, including Amazon, Congo, Irrawaddy, and Salween mainstem rivers, would lose free-flowing status if all dams were built. We propose a set of tested and proven solutions to navigate trade-offs associated with river conservation and dam development. These solution pathways are framed within the mitigation hierarchy and include (1) avoidance through either formal river protection or through exploration of alternative development options; (2) minimization of impacts through strategic or system-scale planning or re-regulation of downstream flows; (3) restoration of rivers through dam removal; and (4) mitigation of dam impacts through biodiversity offsets that include restoration and protection of FFRs. A series of examples illustrate how avoiding or reducing impacts on rivers is possible – particularly when implemented at a system scale – and can be achieved while maintaining or expanding benefits for climate resilience, water, food, and energy security.

Policy solutions and development pathways exist to navigate trade-offs to meet climate resilience, water, food, and energy security goals while safeguarding FFRs.

All of humanity is facing the increasingly urgent challenge of finding pathways to the emergence of new, more sustainable patterns of living that promotes the co-evolution of natural and cultural systems. We address this challenge by proposing changes in scientific and scholarly research communities and transformations in roles, resources, actors, and institutions of scholarship (i.e., natural and social sciences, humanities, and arts), which can contribute substantially and effectively to co-designing solutions for sustainable, just, and equitable human societies.

The critical challenge facing humanity is the increasingly urgent need to find and implement pathways that lead humankind into a new stage of dynamic equilibrium that promotes the co-evolution of natural and cultural systems. We address this challenge for scientific and scholarly research communities and the transformations in roles, resources, actors, and institutions of scholarship (encompassing natural and social sciences, humanities, and arts), which can contribute substantially and effectively to co-designing solutions for coping with unsustainable practices and systemic risks. Our perspective builds upon a series of four workshops to identify and address global sustainability challenges at a regional scale. It is anchored in the view that nature and society are inextricably interwoven, that planetary boundaries are fundamentally societal, rather than solely environmental issues, that viable solutions to the global challenges mentioned above can be developed and most effectively implemented at a regional to local scale in conjunction with substantive changes in the education systems at all levels, and that these considerations require a complex adaptive systems approach to seeking and implementing solutions. We call for rethinking, finding creative approaches, and acting to make scholarship more capable of effectively creating just and equitable sustainable futures in diverse cultures and contexts.

Transforming scholarship and education to enable co-design of societal transformations to sustainable futures.

Scientists often argue that today's efforts towards sustainability in cities call for a strong exchange on knowledge with non-scientific actors. But do urban practitioners think the same way? Do they see the need for scientific support in their work? In our research, we directly asked these questions to urban practitioners. This article evolves around their answers and describes the activities we conducted in order to start the necessary discussion with them.

Given the challenges cities are facing in their efforts towards sustainability, we scrutinize if urban practitioners believe that scientific knowledge can support them in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and if, how. To find evidence, we conducted a ‘co-design’ approach in Future Earth in terms of knowledge production, targeting at German cities. In consequence, the aims of this article are twofold. First, we aim at describing the implementation of the co-design process itself as a potentially useful tool for the interaction with urban practitioners and the evaluation of their specific needs. Second, we present the main results of the co-design process and its contribution for SDG implementation in cities. Combining the two aims, we argue for novel research approaches that allow for more collaborative activities as well as for adequate funding opportunities in the light of urban sustainability transformations.

Co-design to support SDG implementation in cities towards sustainability transformations.

Global biodiversity is in dramatic decline. The general public appears to equate sustainable development with biodiversity conservation and environmental protection, whereas the international policy discourse treats sustainable development as little more than traditional economic development. This gap between public perception of what sustainable development entails and its translation into formal policy goals is an important barrier to mobilizing the public and critical financial support for meeting global biodiversity conservation objectives. This contribution argues that the goal of nature and biodiversity conservation must be much more clearly distinguished from the 2015 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) than is currently the case.

The term ‘sustainable development’ has become widely used since it was popularized through the 1992 Rio UN Conference on Environment and Development. The UN SDGs adopted in 2015 further reinforce the normative centrality of the concept. Yet, the extent to which sustainable development covers nature and biodiversity conservation depends on how it is defined. A better understanding of how the public in different countries assesses the value of local and global biodiversity is crucial for building support for financing the vision to live ‘in harmony with nature by 2050’ currently under negotiation in the Convention on Biodiversity. This review essay discusses four distinct definitions of sustainable development, and considers how these different conceptualizations are used by political actors to serve particular interests. It then describes how this discourse has unfolded in international agreements related to sustainable development and biodiversity. The analysis shows that the prevalent economic cost–benefit approach used to value ecosystem services to make a case for conservation cannot resolve trade-off decisions between short-term economic and long-term societal interests. What is needed is a broad discourse about the ethical and cultural dimensions of biodiversity as a global heritage at the highest political level.

The goal of global biodiversity conservation must be more clearly distinguished from the 2015 SDGs economic objectives.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide an integrated and ambitious roadmap for sustainable development by 2030. National implementation will be crucial and there is an urgent need to understand the scale and pace of transformations to achieve the goals. There is also concern that achieving socio-economic objectives will undermine longer-term environmental sustainability. This study uses modelling to explore how different policy and investment settings can enable the necessary transformations, adopting Fiji as a use-case. Modest investment over the coming decade can deliver improved performance. However, far more ambitious actions are needed to accelerate progress while managing long-term trade-offs with environmental objectives.

This paper presents the results from a national scenario modelling study for Fiji with broader relevance for other countries seeking to achieve the SDGs. We develop and simulate a business-as-usual and six alternative future scenarios using the integrated (iSDG-Fiji) system dynamics model and evaluate their performance on the SDGs in 2030 and global planetary boundaries (PBs) and the ‘safe and just space’ (SJS) framework in 2050. Modest investment over the coming decade through a ‘sustainability transition’ scenario accelerates SDG progress from 40% to 70% by 2030 but fails to meet all SJS thresholds. Greatly scaling up investment and ambition through an SDG transformation scenario highlights possibilities for Fiji to accelerate progress to 83% by 2030 while improving SJS performance. The scale of investment is highly ambitious and could not be delivered without scaled-up international support, but despite this investment progress still falls short. The analysis highlights where key trade-offs remain as well as options to address these, however closing the gap to 100% achievement will prove very challenging. The approach and findings are relevant to other countries with similar characteristics to increase the understanding of the transformations needed to achieve the SDGs within PBs in different country contexts.

How can countries accelerate progress on the SDGs by 2030 while ensuring longer-term coherence with climate and sustainability thresholds?

The ‘last mile’ is a transportation planning term that describes the movement of people and goods from a transportation hub to a final destination; a local place such as a home or a shop. This is the final step of the logistics process that unites the product with its new owner. We present and explain challenges of science-guided adaptation at the local level, and how this is an equivalent ‘last mile’ challenge for climate adaptation.

The ‘last mile’ issue, a term used in transportation planning, describes the movement of people and goods from a transportation hub to a final destination, a local place such as a home or a shop. This is the critical final step of the logistics process that unites the product with its new owner, and the point of the value chain. This analogy aptly describes the last steps between presenting scientific evidence of climate change to decision-makers for use in local adaptation and planning. Climate change data (observational and model simulation data e.g. climate change projections and predictions) remain under-utilised, especially by local institutions and actors for which adaptation is a priority. The assumptions and assertions of the classical data–information–knowledge–wisdom are challenged, and a derivative form of the information hierarchy is proposed. Elements of the classical information hierarchy are offset by four balancing elements of access (to data); usability (of information); governance (of knowledge) and politics (of wisdom). These balancing elements and their relatedness coincide with newer models of innovation relating to the interaction between different stakeholders across the different levels of governance, the inclusion of stakeholder expectations, transparency and accountability.

Climate data to wise decision-making in the ‘last mile’: a novel perspective on science-guided local adaptation.

Investing in stricter biodiversity conservation and wildlife protection to reduce the number of emerging diseases and, consequently, the risk of pandemics such as coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), must integrate a social-ecological perspective. Biodiversity conservation, in order to be effective as disease prevention, requires consideration of people's needs, knowledge and institutions within their locally specific contexts. To meet this goal, future biodiversity research and conservation policy should apply six social-ecological principles for shaping future practices of co-existence of societies and nature.

The COVID-19 pandemic, presumably originating in a spillover event from natural wildlife reservoirs into the human population, sets a new benchmark for the indirect cost of biodiversity exploitation. To reverse the trend of increasing pandemic risk, biodiversity conservation and wildlife protection must be strengthened globally. In this paper, we argue that such preventive measures explicitly need to employ a social-ecological approach. In particular, attention must be paid to the societal relations to nature to avoid falling for simplistic solutions that neglect regional and local particularities of both, biodiversity and local communities. We emphasize the importance of avoiding a Western-biased view and acknowledging the factors and causations of infectious disease emergence in industrialized countries. To reduce the emergence of zoonotic and vector-borne diseases in their specific contexts, we propose applying a social-ecological systems approach by integrating plural local knowledge and values, established practices, formal and informal institutions, as well as technology. We further introduce six social-ecological principles for shaping transformations in the Anthropocene to maintain and build more resilient and sustainable communities. By operationalizing these inter- and transdisciplinary principles, biodiversity conservation can be effectively implemented as infectious disease prevention.

A social-ecological approach to biodiversity conservation can pave the way for an effective and socially just reduction of future pandemic risks.

Urban density is erroneously regarded as the main factor in the spread of COVID-19 in cities. A review of extant literature and findings from our case study of Karachi, Pakistan indicate that inequalities in income, healthcare, and living conditions play a key role in the spread of contagions along with government responsiveness to the pandemic. Moving forward, urban policies need to address these inequalities through changes in housing policies and decentralized governance systems. Cities must adapt to sustainable modes of travel, reduce digital inequalities, and encourage people friendly urban planning to become resilient in the face of pandemics.

COVID-19 has changed how urban residents relate to their cities. Urban centers have become epicenters of disease, which has raised questions about the long-term sustainability of high-density settlements and public transport usage. However, the spread of COVID-19 in cities is incorrectly attributed to urban density.

Using the case study of Karachi, Pakistan, we find that inequality of income, healthcare, and living conditions is a major contributing factor to the spread of COVID-19. Data on positive COVID-19 cases, density, and socioeconomic status were obtained at the Union Council level from administrative districts of Karachi, Pakistan between March 2020, and July 2020. Despite low population densities, low-to-middle income neighborhoods in Karachi had a higher proportion of positive cases. Further, the experience of dense cities such as Hanoi in Vietnam and New York in the US differs regarding the spread of COVID-19. Hence, the government's response to the pandemic is also a major factor in containing the outbreak.

Our findings suggest that a crisis in a city is exacerbated by its inability to take advantage of its density, inequality in the distribution of resources, lack of inclusiveness, and centralized governance mechanisms that make it difficult to respond quickly to situations. Thus, urban planning scholarship and practice should take an interdisciplinary approach to make cities equitable, inclusive, and adaptive.

Cities in the developing world have an opportunity for more resilient renewal in the post-COVID world.

The thesis of this paper is that the COVID-19 crisis creates opportunities for fundamental change towards a more sustainable economy, for two reasons: structural change in the economy and a change in public opinion. The paper identifies how the COVID-19 crisis accelerates six processes of change that can be leveraged in policy making. With a focus on the Netherlands, it argues for activist government policy because of the tipping-point nature of the economic system in the crisis.

Structural change in the economy and a change in public opinion during the COVID-19 crisis jointly imply that government choices regarding investments, regulation and taxes can now create stronger synergies of cleaner economic growth and employment creation with ecological, social and financial sustainability. The paper details this for six areas, with examples taken from The Netherlands. High levels of private and (in some countries) public debt may become so unsustainable that this prompts a restructuring of financing systems which are more productive and more in support of ecological goals. In value chains, ICT systems and urban transport systems, forced changes such as more work from home, more cycling lanes and more local production may, once in place, be used as proof of concepts for permanently different infrastructures and organizations. Aviation and energy became dependent on public support, which created financial leverage for enforcing change.

COVID-19 creates opportunities for change towards sustainability as it accelerates six processes of change.

High ambition needed at UN biodiversity and climate conferences to address pandemics, biodiversity, climate change, and health.

Climate change threatens tropical forests, ecosystem services, and indigenous peoples. The effects of climate change will force the San Blas Island communities of the indigenous Guna people to relocate to one of the most extensive, intact forests in Panama. In this paper, we argue that the impacts of climate change, and the proposed resettlement, will synergistically affect the jaguar. As apex predators, jaguars are sensitive to landscape change and require intact forests with ample prey to survive. Proactively planning for the intrinsically related issues of climate change, human displacement, and jaguar conservation is a complex but essential management task.

Tropical rainforest, coastal, and island communities are on the front line of increasing temperatures and sea-level rise associated with climate change. Future impacts on the interconnectedness of biological and cultural diversity (biocultural heritage) remain unknown. We review the interplay between the impacts of climate change and the displacement of the indigenous Guna people from the San Blas Islands, the relocation back to their mainland territory, and the implications for jaguar persistence. We highlight one of the most significant challenges to using resettlement as an adaptive strategy to climate change, securing a location where the Guna livelihoods, traditions, and culture may continue without significant change while protecting ecosystem services (e.g. biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and water). We posit that developing management plans that strive to meet social needs without sacrificing environmental principles will meet these objectives.

A biocultural approach increases adaptive capacity for ecological and human social systems threatened by climate change.

In this paper, we focus on the disruption that the current pandemic has created within the US industrial food system. We suggest that the pandemic has provided an opening for small producers. Attending to small-scale responses to the pandemic can guide policy and public investments towards a more just and sustainable future for food.

Building on the IPES-Food Communique of April 2020, we examine the many ways in which the US industrial food system faltered during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Using Regime Theory as a guide, we suggest that such a catastrophic crisis may create significant opportunities for an emergent food regime. Drawing from our research and participant observation in the US Midwest, we examine changes in the food system occasioned by the pandemic that foreshadow a new food regime. We suggest several blockages and risks to this new regime and suggest policies that would make transition smoother to a more just and sustainable food system.

What will food be like after the pandemic? This new study outlines an alternative food system emerging in the American Midwest.