Agriculture, Food Systems, and Rural Communities

Rob Mitchell; Carl H. Bolster; Andrew Kitts; Amber Campbell; Michael Cosh; Tracey L. Farrigan; Alan J. Franzluebbers; David L. Hoover; Virginia L. Jin; Dannele E. Peck; Marty R. Schmer; Michael D. Smith

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Previous Chapter

View All Figures

Next Chapter

Climate change—especially shifts in precipitation, air temperature, and soil moisture—is disrupting agricultural production and food systems, and is projected to reduce the availability and affordability of nutritious food. Impacts are distributed unevenly, with farmworkers, subsistence-based communities, and rural populations facing increasing risks. Opportunities that leverage agroecological approaches can limit emissions from agriculture and improve the resilience of rural communities.

A changing climate, characterized by more frequent and severe extremes events, such as heatwaves, droughts, and extreme rainfall (KM 2.2), will affect US agriculture, food systems (a topic not addressed in previous National Climate Assessments [NCAs]), and rural communities. Climate change has increased risk to agricultural production, for example, by disrupting growing zones, growing days, and seasonality, making adaptation necessary to increase resilience in an evolving landscape (KM 11.1). Climate change is projected to reduce the availability and affordability of nutritious food, with impacts being unevenly distributed across society (KM 11.2). Rural communities, which manage much of the Nation’s land and natural resources, face unique challenges and opportunities due to climate change (KM 11.3).

Authors

Federal Coordinating Lead Author: Rob Mitchell, USDA Agricultural Research Service
Chapter Lead Author: Carl H. Bolster, USDA Agricultural Research Service
Agency Chapter Lead Author: Andrew Kitts, NOAA Fisheries, Office of Science and Technology
Chapter Authors: Amber Campbell, USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture; Michael Cosh, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Hydrology and Remote Sensing Laboratory; Tracey L. Farrigan, USDA Economic Research Service; Alan J. Franzluebbers, USDA Agricultural Research Service; David L. Hoover, USDA Agricultural Research Service; Virginia L. Jin, USDA Agricultural Research Service; Dannele E. Peck, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Northern Plains Climate Hub; Marty R. Schmer, USDA Agricultural Research Service; Michael D. Smith, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Contributors

Review Editor: Omanjana Goswami, Union of Concerned Scientists
USGCRP Coordinators: Christopher W. Avery, US Global Change Research Program / ICF; Samantha Basile, US Global Change Research Program / ICF

Recommended Citation

Bolster, C.H., R. Mitchell, A. Kitts, A. Campbell, M. Cosh, T.L. Farrigan, A.J. Franzluebbers, D.L. Hoover, V.L. Jin, D.E. Peck, M.R. Schmer, and M.D. Smith, 2023: Ch. 11. Agriculture, food systems, and rural communities. In: Fifth National Climate Assessment. Crimmins, A.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA. https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023.CH11

Download citation: BibTeX | RIS

Agriculture has always faced unpredictable weather, but a changing climate poses additional challenges. Examples highlighted in NCA5 include extreme precipitation events damaging crops, delaying planting and harvesting, and expanding pest ranges in the Northeast (KM 21.1); increased average and extreme temperatures adversely affecting farmworker health in the Southeast and Southwest (Figure 11.1; KM 22.3); reductions in corn yield due to both excessive water and extreme drought in the Midwest (KM 24.1); greater incidence of heat stress on livestock in the Southwest (KM 28.3); and collapse of major fisheries in Alaska (KM 29.3).

Disruptions to food systems and supply chains within them (see Focus on Risks to Supply Chains) are expected to increase with climate change (KM 19.1). These disruptions are projected to make some food items more expensive and less accessible, particularly for lower-income individuals and households, including those in rural settings. Food insecurity affected 10.2% (13.5 million) of US households in 2021.¹ Historical structural inequities have influenced the distribution of resources, participation, accessibility, benefits, and burdens within the food system (Figure 20.1), and climate change will exacerbate these inequities (Figure 18.2). For example, many food system workers are both food insecure and disproportionately exposed to the effects of climate change, intensifying the socioeconomic impacts of these intertwined inequities.²

Rural communities supply labor for agricultural production and other economic sectors and often serve as stewards of the Nation’s soil and water resources, having unique knowledge of rural landscapes. Climate change increases existing risks in rural communities, some of which have limited resources and infrastructure to adapt (KM 22.3). Many risks are disproportionately greater in some Black, Indigenous, Latino, and lower-income communities, and among some small-scale, beginning, and underrepresented farmers (KMs 15.2, 16.2, 22.4, 26.4, 31.2).

In summary, climate change poses significant challenges to US agricultural production, food systems, and rural communities—from primary producers to supporting industries to consumers. Climate-smart practices based on agroecological approaches are needed to both mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to ongoing climatic changes. Significant mitigation can occur through reductions in nitrous oxide emissions using precision technologies that target the right amount, source, placement, and timing of nitrogen fertilizer applications; formulation of methane-reducing diets in ruminant livestock systems; and conservation management with no-till, cover cropping, and perennial crop rotations to store more soil carbon. Many of these same agroecological approaches will support adaptation to climate change by improving soil health, increasing biological diversity, and making more efficient use of fertilizers, feed, water, and energy. Agricultural production is a complex web of biophysical and socioeconomic features interacting with environmental conditions, some of which are stable and some that are becoming less reliable with climate change. Reliance on more agroecological approaches is expected to help stabilize agricultural production while preserving the integrity of natural resources that are vital to support continued agricultural production in the future (KM 32.2). Agroecological approaches seek to achieve beneficial agricultural outcomes while promoting ecosystem services and rural livelihoods (Box 11.1).

Climate change increases farmworker exposure to extreme heat and wildfire smoke.

Figure 11.1. Farmworkers, for example, shown here in Salinas, California, face compounding health risks from extreme heat, wildfire smoke, and COVID-19 (see Ch. 15; KM 28.4; Focus on Western Wildfires; Focus on COVID-19 and Climate Change). Photo credit: ChuckSchugPhotography/iStock via Getty Images.

Agricultural Adaptation Increases Resilience in an Evolving Landscape

Climate change has increased agricultural production risks by disrupting growing zones and growing days, which depend on precipitation, air temperature, and soil moisture . Growing evidence for positive environmental and economic outcomes of conservation management has led some farmers and ranchers to adopt agroecological practices , which increases the potential for agricultural producers to limit greenhouse gas emissions and improve agricultural resilience to climate change .

Agriculture focuses on the provision of food, feed, ﬁber, and fuel. Modern agriculture provides essential products engineered for mass production to serve the nutritional, clothing, construction, and energy needs of society. Historically, excessive tillage, heavy reliance on agrochemicals, and simplified cropping systems have led to environmental degradation; therefore, using adaptive conservation management approaches and diversifying agricultural landscapes³ can build resilience—the ability to anticipate, prepare for, adapt to, withstand, and recover from disruptions like climate change—and improve ecosystem services that affect plant, animal, and human health and well-being (Figure 11.2). Indigenous Knowledge can also play a role in these adaptive approaches (KMs 16.3, 30.5).⁴^,⁵

Ecosystem services have wide-ranging benefits for plants, animals, and human well-being.

Figure 11.2. People receive many benefits from the ecosystem, including provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services. Adaptive management practices (see Figure 8.1) foster resilience to climate change and related disturbances in these ecosystem services (see Figure 8.18). Adapted with permission from MetroVancouver 2018.⁶

Agricultural systems depend on soil, water, air, and sunlight, which vary seasonally and may fluctuate as much as daily. Climate change disrupts these fundamental natural resources. Plant hardiness zones, a common metric for plant appropriateness for a given local climate, have shifted as climate change lengthens frost-free periods (Figure 11.3).⁷ Climate shifts, along with greater expected weather volatility, require changes in agricultural practices, including crop selection, use of equipment, and management approaches.

Three sets of maps of the contiguous United States (abbreviated CONUS), Alaska, Hawai’i, and Puerto Rico illustrate present-day (1991 to 2020) plant hardiness zones (top map) and projected changes in those zones by midcentury (2036 to 2065; center map) and late century (2071 to 2100; bottom map) under the SSP5-8.5 scenario, as described in the caption. A legend arranges USDA plant hardiness zones, ranging from 3a (brownish purple) to 11b (brownish red), over corresponding annual average lowest minimum temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit, ranging from negative 40 to positive 50. For the present-day map, USDA plant hardiness zones in purple shading (zones 3a through 6b), appear across north-central CONUS, portions of the Northwest and Southwest, northern areas of the Northeast, and most of Alaska. Zones in blue shading (zones 5a to 6b) appear across portions of the Northwest, Southwest, Northern Great Plains, Midwest, and Northeast, as well as southern coastal Alaska. Yellow-shaded zones (zones 7a through 8a) are shown in portions of the Northwest, Southwest, Southern Great Plains, Northeast, and Southeast, as well as southern coastal Alaska. Zones in orange and red shading (zones 9a through 11b) are shown in western Northwest, southern Southeast, southern Texas, and southern Southeast, as well as all of Hawai’i and Puerto Rico. For the midcentury projection map, zones in purple shading have shrunk in north-central CONUS and disappeared from the northern Northeast. Zones in blue shading are shown retreating from portions of the Southwest, predominating in north-central CONUS and the northern Northeast, and moving into formerly purple-shaded areas in western and southern Alaska. Yellow-shaded areas cover most of the Northeast, and portions of the Midwest, Southern Great Plains, Northwest, and Southwest. Zones in orange and red shading are mostly unchanged. For the late-century projection map, zones shaded in purple now only appear in eastern Alaska. Zones in blue shading appear in western and southern Alaska, as well as the Northern Great Plains, northern Midwest, central Colorado, and northern Northeast. Zones in yellow shading have shrunk across CONUS and are shown in portions of the Northern Great Plains, Midwest, and Northeast, as well as southern coastal Alaska. Zones in orange and red are shown across most of the Northwest, Southwest, Southern Great Plains, and Southeast, as well as portions of the Northwest, southeastern and southwestern Alaska, and all of Hawai’i and Puerto Rico.

Plant hardiness zones are projected to shift northward throughout this century.

Figure 11.3. Plant hardiness zones help local farmers and gardeners identify optimal crops to plant and when to plant them. Hardiness zones are projected to migrate northward as the climate warms. The maps show plant hardiness zones for (a) present-day (1991–2020) climate normals, and (b) midcentury (2036–2065) and (c) late century (2071–2100) under a high emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5). Figure credit: USDA, NOAA NCEI, and CISESS NC.

Climate change exacerbates soil degradation through drought, flooding, and excessive heat events that disrupt normal plant production and ecosystem processes. Excessive tillage, overgrazing, and overreliance on agrochemicals can further deplete soil organic matter and impair soil health.⁸^,⁹^,¹⁰^,¹¹ Soil health management can improve the resilience of agricultural systems to climate change and support sustainability goals (Figure 11.4).¹² Conservation-based agroecological approaches that improve soil health are increasingly recognized as necessary to maintain productivity while achieving a healthier environment.¹³^,¹⁴^,¹⁵ While agroecology encompasses ecological, economic, and social dimensions,¹⁶^,¹⁷^,¹⁸ the fundamental scientific concept underlying agroecology is the use of ecological principles to sustainably design and manage agricultural systems.¹⁹ Applying agroecological concepts spans a wide range of practices,¹⁸^,²⁰ which may overlap with nature-based solutions, precision technologies, and climate-smart agriculture aimed at climate change adaptation and mitigation (Box 11.1; Figure 11.5).²¹^,²²^,²³^,²⁴^,²⁵^,²⁶ Agroecological practices can also include matching species to the environment, organic matter–driven nutrient cycling, integrated management, and natural pest controls whenever possible,²⁷^,²⁸^,²⁹^,³⁰ all of which are expected to reduce reliance on synthetic agrochemical inputs. Further, a spatially diverse landscape of croplands, grasslands, forests, and wetlands is expected to support more robust ecosystem functioning (Box 11.1; Figure 11.5).

An infographic shows an above- and below-ground cross-section of an agricultural setting, with the title soil as a foundation. Illustrations and text identify the following benefits from healthy soil: carbon sequestration; nutrient cycling; provision of food, fiber, and fuel; water purification and soil contaminant reduction; flood regulation; foundation for human infrastructure; provision of construction materials; climate regulation; source of pharmaceutical and genetic resources; cultural heritage; and habitat for organisms. The depiction of carbon sequestration shows a tree with an arrow pointing from a carbon dioxide molecule in the atmosphere to the tree canopy and another arrow pointing from the tree canopy to the roots system underground, where elemental symbols for carbon are shown. A third arrow rises up from the ground, pointing to the atmosphere and back to the carbon dioxide molecule, completing the cycle. The depiction of nutrient cycling shows a cow grazing. An arrow points toward the cow from below ground, where the elemental symbols for the following micronutrients are shown: nitrogen, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and sulfur. Another arrow points from a pile of the cow’s manure back down toward the elemental symbols. The depiction of climate regulation shows a thermometer and a label for greenhouse gases, with one arrow pointing up from the ground toward the sun and another pointing from the sun toward the ground.

Healthy soil plays a foundational role in agriculture, ecosystems, society, and culture.

Figure 11.4. Healthy soil provides the foundation for many agricultural, ecological, microbiological, societal, and cultural activities. Climate change can negatively affect soil health, thus weakening its foundational role. Adapted from Baveye et al. 2016³¹ [CC BY 4.0].

Box 11.1. Agroecological Approaches to Land Management

Multiple definitions of agroecology exist. As a result, what constitutes an acceptable practice under one definition may be excluded using a different definition. Here, agroecological approaches are defined as land management practices that integrate biophysical, technological, and social concepts and principles to guide the design and management of food and agricultural systems. Agroecological practices include, but are not limited to, 1) improved genetics and breeding, 2) soil health management, 3) integration and diversification of crops and livestock, and 4) precision technologies. Agroecology considers farming practices and management approaches that are developed through a systems science lens, taking into account local conditions and history. Agroecology might include subsistence and organic farming but may also include prudent use of resources through technological interventions. Regardless of scale and level of technological investment, agroecology is the application of science-based ecological concepts and principles to design and manage productive and sustainable agroecosystems. (For a more thorough discussion on agroecology, see Altieri et al. 2015.³²)

Agroecological approaches are used to achieve practical, climate-smart agricultural outcomes balanced with improved ecosystem services and rural livelihoods. Goals of climate-smart agriculture are increased productivity, adaptation to climate change, and reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.³³ Desired ecosystem services are to mitigate GHG emissions, increase soil carbon, enhance biodiversity, improve environmental quality, and increase agroecosystem adaptability and resilience. Specific practices for climate adaptation are not prescribed; this scientific framework allows practitioners to make decisions reflecting their unique environmental and socioeconomic conditions.

Agroecological approaches seek to achieve beneficial agricultural outcomes while promoting ecosystem services and rural livelihoods.

Figure 11.5. Science-based application of agroecological approaches results in outcomes that balance agricultural productivity and profitability with ecosystem services and societal well-being. Figure credit: USDA.

Agroecologically based systems promote the transfer of nutrients between living soil components (bacteria, fungi) and non-living soil components (organic matter, minerals) to make nutrients more available to crops and minimize reliance on synthetic fertilizers. Nitrogen fertilizer is a major contributor to emissions of nitrous oxide (N₂O), a potent greenhouse gas (GHG). Improving crop nutrient-use efficiency (i.e., increasing crop production per unit of fertilizer used) can reduce input costs for farmers, avoid contamination of water bodies from runoff and leaching, and reduce N₂O contributions to climate change while also making farms more resilient to climatic changes (Figure 11.5).³⁴^,³⁵

Greenhouse gas emissions from US agriculture over the last three decades have been steadily rising (Figure 11.6). However, economies of scale, enhanced farm technologies, and improved genetics have also increased overall productivity, leading to lower GHG emissions per capita and per unit of total factor productivity (a ratio of agricultural outputs produced to inputs used).

While total agricultural greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, emissions per capita and per unit of total factor productivity (a ratio of agricultural outputs produced to inputs used) have declined over the last 30 years.

Figure 11.6. Over the last 30 years, declines in US agricultural emissions per capita (blue line) and per unit of agricultural productivity (red line) reflect an increasingly efficient US agriculture sector that produces more food, fiber, and renewable fuel with fewer resources. Despite per capita and per unit of productivity improvements, the long-term trajectory of total emissions from US agriculture (yellow line) continues to rise, and mitigation remains a critical priority. Adapted with permission from ©Myers 2022.³⁶

Despite greater production efficiencies (KM 11.2), total GHG emissions to the atmosphere continue to increase, and mitigation remains a critical priority (Ch. 32). Agroecological practices often mitigate GHG emissions while providing key adaptation mechanisms to overcome water deficits, improve nutrient cycling, avoid pest pressures, and stabilize production over time.³⁷^,³⁸ Sequestering carbon in agricultural soils has emerged as one strategy to reduce GHG emissions. Land uses and agricultural practices that enhance year-round plant cover and growth convert atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) into plant biomass, most of which decomposes and is re-released to the atmosphere as CO₂, but a small proportion is stored as soil organic matter. Because soil loses carbon much faster than it can gain carbon,³⁹ minimizing disturbance and/or maintaining more stable, persistent plant cover or residues is critical for soil carbon storage and its associated ecosystem services. For example, perennial systems—such as agroforestry that combines grassland with woodland—stimulate carbon storage in soil and in woody vegetation while also supporting greater biodiversity, alleviating heat stress for grazing livestock, and improving watershed management.⁴⁰^,⁴¹^,⁴²^,⁴³

Livestock production is impacted by and contributes to climate change by emitting multiple GHGs (CO₂, N₂O, and methane [CH₄]), which vary in amounts by production scale. Livestock producers also face increasingly challenging management decisions due to fluctuations in precipitation, rangeland forage conditions, feed costs, and livestock market prices.⁴⁴^,⁴⁵^,⁴⁶ Changing conditions have led to adaptive livestock management, which promotes flexible decision-making while documenting and learning from previous management actions.⁴⁷^,⁴⁸ Enteric emissions from livestock production contribute 25% to total US CH₄ emissions (Figure 11.7).⁴⁹ Some mitigation-reduction options, such as ruminant feed supplements and energy capture from liquid manure systems, have been identified (KM 32.3). Methane is a potent GHG but is generally shorter-lived in the atmosphere (approximately 10 years) than CO₂ (months to millennia) and N₂O (116 years; Table 2.1). More accurate accounting of global warming potential that differentiates between long-lived versus short-lived GHGs is expected to improve calculations of future global temperature as well as the non-climate benefits of GHG-specific abatement strategies, especially for CH₄ from agriculture.⁵⁰^,⁵¹

Ruminant livestock systems contribute to US methane emissions primarily through belching.

Figure 11.7. Ruminant enteric fermentation via eructation (i.e., belching) contributes most of the methane emissions from US animal production systems (85%), with smaller contributions from manure lagoons (13%) and livestock flatulence (2%). Enteric fermentation contributes approximately 25% of total domestic methane production, making agriculture the largest source of US methane emissions. Figure credit: USDA, NOAA NCEI, and CISESS NC.

The complexity of climate-related threats and the diversity of agricultural environments in the United States require an array of management approaches. Matching unique regional combinations of plant and animal genetics with regionally relevant management practices can optimize soil carbon sequestration, reduce GHG emissions, and enhance adaptability to a changing climate. Finer-scale precision management aided by digital support tools and artificial intelligence can better account for soil and microclimate variability at farm, field, and subfield levels to maximize results with existing natural resources.

At all spatial and temporal scales, accurate, reliable, and accessible data are critical for effective agricultural management decisions and to improve resilience to climate change. Instrumentation and technology have rapidly evolved but must be harmonized with historical information to guide adaptive management approaches.⁵²^,⁵³ Data collected over longer time periods are necessary to interpret, for example, water availability across periods of drought. Coupling field measurements with computer models can aggregate estimates of productivity, soil carbon changes, biodiversity, and water quality over farms, counties, and regions. Developing these technologies for local, regional, and national scales will help decision-making to address increasing competition among food, water, and energy sectors. To be effective, however, agricultural data on climate-smart practices need to be widely accessible and large in scale.⁵⁴

Rising concerns over food sustainability have driven public interest in alternative production of plant and protein sources, revealing consumer preferences for products that claim reduced GHG emissions. Examples include urban agriculture (e.g., community gardens, food forests, rooftop farms), controlled-environment agriculture (e.g., greenhouses, grow houses, growth chambers), substitution of seafood (“Blue-diet”) for livestock-based foods,⁵⁵ plant-based meats, and cell-cultivated food production (e.g., cultured meats). These options offer the potential to reduce GHG emissions.⁵⁶^,⁵⁷^,⁵⁸^,⁵⁹ However, some approaches can involve more infrastructure or energy inputs per unit of food production, increasing their GHG emissions compared to conventional farming practices.⁶⁰ The development, affordability, and sustainability of alternative agricultural systems will depend on social, economic, and environmental factors, as well as institutional constraints (e.g., laws and incentives for creating sustainable systems).⁶¹

As with terrestrial production practices, innovations in aquaculture have also led to climate-adaptive approaches to protein production. Aquaculture’s high feed-conversion efficiency (i.e., unit of protein produced per unit of feed)⁶² and lower overall GHG emissions compared to other animal proteins (Figure 11.8)⁶³ highlight its climate-smart potential to increase protein production, human nutrition, and food availability.⁶⁴ Within aquaculture, however, GHG emissions vary by species, with seaweeds and bivalves among the lowest emitters.⁶⁵ In addition, location of marine aquaculture and selective breeding can further reduce climate-related impacts.⁶⁶ While planned production through aquaculture can buffer climate change disruptions in output from wild-caught fisheries (Ch. 10), rising temperatures, ocean acidification, and sea level rise due to climate change will also limit increases in aquaculture production.⁶⁷ Furthermore, complex social and ecological concerns about aquaculture have been raised by some coastal and Indigenous communities. Social concerns include conflict with traditional and commercial livelihoods and consolidation of business activities. Ecological concerns include introducing disease and parasites to wild species, competition between wild and farm-raised species, pollution, and damage to shellfish beds from fish farming, among others (KM 11.3).⁶⁸^,⁶⁹

Greenhouse gas emissions from protein production vary greatly according to food type.

Figure 11.8. Estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from protein production vary widely depending on food type. Global median emissions (in kg of carbon dioxide [CO₂] equivalents for every 100 g of protein produced) are shown here for 11 major protein sources. Although cereal grains have lower protein content, they are included here because they contribute 41% to global protein intake. While US emissions values may differ slightly from global values, the relative differences in GHG emissions by protein type are expected to be consistent. Figure credit: USDA, NOAA NCEI, and CISESS NC.

Creating resilient agricultural production systems in the face of climate change is possible. Agroecological approaches supported by conservation programs (such as those offered by the USDA through the Natural Resources Conservation Services, Farm Service Agency, and Risk Management Agency)⁷⁰ can create rural opportunities (Box 25.3) while optimizing production goals with ecosystem services to store soil carbon, reduce GHG emissions, protect biodiversity, maintain water and air quality, and improve soil and human health by reducing exposure to pollutants. Producers may focus on adaptation to adjust management to climate change and/or on mitigation to store soil organic carbon and reduce GHG emissions.

Climate Change Disrupts Our Food Systems in Uneven Ways

Climate change is projected to disrupt food systems in ways that reduce the availability and affordability of nutritious food, with uneven economic impacts across society . Impacts of climate change on other measures of human well-being are also distributed unevenly, such as worsening heat stress among farmworkers and disruptions to the ability of subsistence-based peoples to access food through hunting, fishing, and foraging .

Climate Change Impacts on Food System Security

All dimensions of food security—availability, accessibility, utilization (or usability), and stability⁷¹—are expected to be affected by climate change through long-term changes in average climatic conditions (e.g., annual precipitation and temperature), as well as increases in climate variability and the frequency, magnitude, and duration of climate extremes (Ch. 2). These climatic changes are affecting all aspects of the food supply chain (Figures 11.9, 11.10), including production, storage, processing, distribution, retail, and consumption (Figure F4.1).⁷²^,⁷³ Disruptions to the food supply chain have both local and global impacts on food systems, including food security (Figures 11.11, 23.9).

At local or regional levels, extreme weather events and compound extremes (for example, a heatwave during a drought) are affecting local food security by damaging food production and destroying associated infrastructure (see Focus on Compound Events; KMs 22.4, 28.3).⁷⁴^,⁷⁵ These impacts sometimes ripple out to global food systems, impacting prices and availability in other regions of the world.⁷⁶^,⁷⁷ At national or international levels, co-occurring extremes and non-climate disruptions (e.g., recessions, pandemics, conflicts) sometimes cascade down to limit food access and availability at local scales throughout the world by reducing supplies, limiting trade, and increasing prices (KM 30.1).⁷²^,⁷⁸

Vulnerabilities of food systems to climate change are a function of their complex structures, such as how dependent the systems are on locally grown versus imported foods⁷⁹ and how systems respond to changes in climate, ecosystems, and socioeconomic factors (Figures 11.9, 23.9). When widespread shocks occur, local elements of the food system can help insulate communities against some large-scale impacts (KM 30.1). For example, local farmers, mobile meat processors, and food assistance organizations helped insulate their communities against some of the effects of COVID-19-related worker shortages in the commercial food processing and transportation sectors.⁷⁸

Conversely, when a localized shock occurs, interstate, national, and international trade can help fill gaps in food availability (KM 19.2).⁷⁹ Each of these local and non-local elements of the food system has unique strengths and weaknesses,⁷⁸^,⁸⁰^,⁸¹ including different impacts on GHG emissions, socioeconomics, and ecosystem goods and services (e.g., carbon storage, biodiversity, water quality; Figure 11.9; Box 11.2).

A flow chart illustrates the interconnections between the food system and the climate system, ecosystems, and socioeconomic systems, as described in the caption. A legend at the bottom left indicates that gray lines represent interaction, while blue lines represent intervention. At the top of the chart is a box labeled climate system, which is affected by emissions from ecosystems and the food system and has impacts on both. Mitigation is shown as an intervention affecting both sources of emissions and adaptation is an intervention that affects the impacts from the climate system. To the left of the chart is a box labeled ecosystems, which is affected by impacts from the food system and affects the food system through effects on ecosystem services. Pressure from other activities is an intervention on ecosystems. At the bottom of the chart is a box labeled socioeconomic systems, which enable conditions and constraints on the food system while also receiving socioeconomic benefits from the food system. At the center of the chart is a box labeled food system. Blue arrows in the box point between the following labels: 1) crops, livestock, aquaculture, fisheries, and subsistence foods; 2) processing, value chains, markets, and trade, and 3) demand, consumption and diets. All three labels point to another label below reading “food loss and waste.” To the right of the chart is a box labeled food security, whose characteristics are food availability, access, utilization, and stability. A gray line labeled “outcome” points from the food system box to the food security box, and another gray line labeled “well-being” points from the food security box to the socioeconomic systems box. Socioeconomic systems also have impacts on food security.

Food security is an outcome of the food system, which influences and is influenced by the climate system, ecosystems, and socioeconomic systems.

Figure 11.9. A food system is a complex network that encompasses all inputs and outputs involved in food production, foraging, harvesting, transport, processing, retailing, consumption, and food loss and waste. There can be different types of food systems, each having impacts on and being impacted by climate, ecosystems, and socioeconomic systems. Interactions between these systems influence human well-being through food security outcomes, such as food availability, access, utilization, and stability. Interventions, such as mitigation and adaptation, can reduce risks to food systems, which improves food security and well-being within socioeconomic systems. Adapted with permission from Figure 5.1 in Mbow et al. 2019.⁸²

A chart using icons and graphics illustrates examples of the effects of climate change on the food supply chain. Icons and text at the top list the following effects of climate change: extreme temperature, extreme rainfall, hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, Changing ENSO, and changing seasonality. A table below lists four steps in the food supply chain and example impacts at each stage. For Production, the effects listed are on irrigation, crop health and selection, water quality, worker health and safety, input supplies and prices, and output yields and quality. For the storage, processing, and distribution stages, effects listed are electricity access; storage capacity, quality, and safety; import and export restrictions; labor supply; and transport networks and fuel prices. For retail and markets, the effects are on infrastructure, market and supplier access, product supply and demand, product cost, and product waste. For the consumption stage, effects are on seasonal food availability; food accessibility, cost, and usability; nutritional content; and consumer preferences, choices, and means.

Climate change has cascading and compounding effects on all stages of the food supply chain.

Figure 11.10. Extreme events fueled by climate change (first row, icons) can affect each stage of the food supply chain (second row, dark blue), resulting in compounding and cascading effects on the food system (third row, light blue). Adapted with permission from Davis et al. 2021.⁷²

Socioeconomic Costs of Climate Change in Food Systems

Food security risks from climate change impose socioeconomic costs that workers, producers, and consumers may feel but can be challenging to measure (Ch.15; KM 19.1). Climate change impacts on food production have been measured more comprehensively than impacts on food processing, distribution, marketing, and consumption.⁸³ For example, climate change is affecting crop insurance costs and losses.⁸⁴^,⁸⁵ Between 1991 and 2017, increasing temperature with climate change was responsible for 19% of crop indemnities in the US.⁸⁶

Total factor productivity (TFP) is the focus of several economic studies about the effects of climate change on agriculture.⁸⁷ The United States has seen steady growth in agricultural TFP, 1.4% per year since 1948, due largely to technology improvements.⁸⁸ While TFP varies annually with extreme weather events, climate change has dampened TFP growth in the United States by 12% over a 54-year period (1961–2015).⁸⁹ Agricultural TFP is projected to decline back to pre-1980s levels by 2050 unless the positive effects of innovation and adaptation in US agriculture (after accounting for any negative effects) can be doubled relative to recent historical rates.⁸⁸ In the Midwest, greater specialization in crop production has instead caused TFP to become more sensitive to high summer temperatures and soil moisture deficits.⁸⁷^,⁹⁰

Higher temperature and humidity are also affecting farmworker productivity, earnings, and safety, for example, in labor-intensive fruit and vegetable systems (Focus on COVID-19 and Climate Change).⁹¹^,⁹² Heat-related stress and death are significantly greater for farmworkers than for all US civilian workers, and the number of unsafe working days is projected to double by midcentury (Ch. 15; Figure 28.7).⁹³^,⁹⁴ These effects on farmworker safety and productivity influence the broader economy through reduced agricultural output and higher food prices.⁹⁵ Farmworkers also disproportionately experience food insecurity,²^,⁹⁶ which can be worsened by extreme events fueled by climate change. For example, drought reduces demand for farm labor, thus lowering workers’ income and ability to buy food (Ch. 28).⁹⁷

By 2050, climate change is projected to increase some crop prices (see Table 2 of Baker et al. 2018⁹⁸). For example, a 26% price increase is expected for corn due to a 5.5% reduction in production, while a 30% price increase is expected for soybean due to a 19% reduction in production (relative to a no-climate-change baseline and averaged across nine climate change scenarios ranging from a low scenario [RCP2.6] to a scenario slightly higher than a very high scenario [RCP8.5]). A 26% price increase is expected for wheat due to a 36% reduction in production, and a 3.1% price increase is expected for rice due to a 61% reduction in production. Price increases depend on complex interactions between climate change, international trade, and domestic institutions and policies,⁸⁰ but they generally benefit producers and hurt consumers (KMs 19.2, 22.3),⁹⁹ especially if consumer income cannot keep pace with rising food prices. In such cases, higher food prices can reduce food accessibility (Figures 11.10, 11.11).

A graphic using icons and text illustrates examples of food system failures due to climate change, as described in the caption. The first category, where food is unavailable (orange), can be due to supply barriers or distribution barriers. An example of supply barriers are unsafe harvesting conditions caused by a heat dome or wildfire smoke, which can result in a supply chain failure. An example of a distribution barrier is the destruction of distribution facilities by a hurricane, which can result in food bank failure, assistance program failure, and a supply chain failure. The second category, food is inaccessible (blue), can be caused by physical barriers or economic barriers. An example of physical barriers is flood damage to roads, bridges, or the power grid, which can result in no food purveyor, an inability to leave home, and an inability to refrigerate or cook perishable food. An example of an economic barrier is export bans induced by drought, which can result in high food costs and low or lost income. The third category, food is unusable (gray), can be caused by health factors and social factors. An example of health factors is a reduction in food quality or safety due to rising carbon dioxide levels, which can result in inadequate nutrition and medical risks. An example of social factors is the displacement of a traditional food source by an invasive species, which can result in culturally and/or religiously inappropriate food.

Climate change is expected to increase risks to food security in multiple ways.

Figure 11.11. This fault-tree shows some of the many ways that food system failures can occur due to climate change, ultimately making food less accessible, available, or usable. In some cases, food may still be available yet inaccessible or unusable. For example, power outages during extreme heat events or after a hurricane may prevent some consumers from safely refrigerating or cooking perishable foods they have already purchased. Adapted from Chodur et al. 2018¹⁰⁰ [CC BY 4.0].

Climate Change Impacts on Food Security Are Distributed Unevenly

Climate change interacts with food security and human health (KM 15.1; Figures 11.9, 11.10, 23.4). Approximately 38 million people in the United States live in food-insecure households.¹ Food insecurity is associated with lower income and affects both dietary quality, quantity, and stability.¹ Food system disruptions during increasingly frequent and severe extreme events due to climate change will disproportionately affect food accessibility, nutrition, and health of some groups, including women, children, older adults, and low-wealth communities (KMs 15.2, 22.4, 28.4).¹⁰¹^,¹⁰²

For example, if climate change reduces the affordability of some nutritious foods,⁹⁸ then households might rely more on calorically dense but nutrient-poor diets, which increase health risks and healthcare costs.¹⁰³^,¹⁰⁴^,¹⁰⁵ Some older adults who have limited transportation or financial resources face complex challenges and trade-offs when trying to safely access, store, and cook adequate amounts of nutritious food, particularly during and following extreme events (e.g., floods that close roads or stores; KM 11.3).¹⁰⁶^,¹⁰⁷

Climate change is also affecting the ability of individuals and communities to obtain food through hunting, fishing, foraging, and subsistence farming (KMs 16.1, 22.1, 25.3, 27.1, 30.1).¹⁰⁸ People from a variety of socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, including some from Indigenous communities and rural areas, engage in these activities for various reasons, such as cultural or spiritual traditions, medicinal practices, and recreational enjoyment or to diversify food types or nutritional value or reduce purchased foods.¹⁰⁹^,¹¹⁰

Subsistence-based people who forage for food (such as wild rice, beans, and mushrooms) may face unique challenges from climate change (KMs 16.1, 24.2).¹¹¹ Drought can reduce the availability of forest-based foods such as berries, nuts, and seeds. In Alaska, where subsistence hunting and fishing are prevalent among Indigenous Peoples, thinning sea ice makes travel to traditional hunting and fishing/shellfishing grounds longer and more dangerous (Ch. 29). Ecosystem changes reduce the abundance of important species and alter ranges, making it more difficult for people to anticipate those species’ locations (KM 29.3).¹¹¹

Subsistence food producers may also be more vulnerable to the effects of climate change due to smaller farm size, insecure land tenure, lower capitalization, and other non-climate stressors (e.g., reduced market access).¹¹²^,¹¹³ Some communities, however, are proactively leading food security projects to help adapt to and mitigate against climate change (Box 30.4). One example is the Osage Nation’s community orchard—informed by Tribal Ecological Knowledge, designed with community health in mind, and providing nutritious fruits, nuts, and berries for community members.¹¹⁴ Other examples of Tribal adaptation to climate change are described in Key Message 25.5 and Box 29.6.

Box 11.2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Food System

Most food consumed in the United States is domestically grown, primarily in the Midwest (KM 24.1) and California (KM 28.3).¹¹⁵^,¹¹⁶^,¹¹⁷ Production of food is the largest contributor of GHG emissions from the food system, followed by distribution, retail, and consumption (Figure 11.12). Of the total food supply chain (Focus on Risks to Supply Chains), an estimated 30%–40% of food spoils or is wasted, largely at the consumption stage (e.g., households and restaurants).¹¹⁸^,¹¹⁹^,¹²⁰ The further along a supply chain that food waste occurs, the more energy and GHG emissions have been invested. Reducing food loss and waste would reduce food system GHG emissions and provide opportunities to increase food security (KMs 6.3, 32.2; Table 31.1).¹²⁰

Greenhouse gas emissions differ by stage of the food supply chain.

Figure 11.12. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions occur at all stages of the food supply chain. Production (i.e., the growth and harvesting of crops and the rearing and slaughter of livestock) represents 48% of the overall GHG emissions from the food supply chain. Non-carbon dioxide (non-CO₂) emissions are largely from nitrous oxide emissions from nitrogen fertilizer and manure management and methane emissions from livestock production in the production stage, along with chlorofluorocarbon emissions at the retail stage. Carbon dioxide emissions in the primary food production stage are from soil and land-use management, fertilizer production, and farm energy use. Energy use is the primary CO₂ emissions contributor to supply chain stages downstream from food production. Adapted from EPA (2021).¹¹⁹

Rural Communities Face Unique Challenges and Opportunities

Rural communities steward much of the Nation’s land and natural resources, which provide food, bioproducts, and ecosystem services . These crucial roles are at risk as climate change compounds existing stressors such as poverty, unemployment, and depopulation . Opportunities exist for rural communities to increase their resilience to climate change and protect rural livelihoods .

Rural (nonmetro) areas comprise over two-thirds of the Nation’s total land area¹²¹ and are home to approximately 46.1 million people, or 14% of the total US population, including the majority of Indigenous census respondents. Rural communities represent a way of life with unique environmental assets, cultural heritages, and local identities. Rural populations are stewards of forests, watersheds, rangelands, farmlands, and fisheries and contribute significantly to natural resource conservation and society’s benefit and enjoyment of some ecosystem services. Rural communities across these diverse contexts support national economic sustainability and food security.

Climate Change Risk in Rural America

Climate threats compound risks posed by structural trends such as dependence on goods produced outside the local area, digitization of economic and social life, and demographic change that may reduce resilience and rural quality of life.¹²² Budgetary pressures during and after climate-related disasters can reduce local governments’ ability to provide critical infrastructure, goods, and services (KM 19.2), especially in under-resourced (Ch. 19; KM 22.1), Indigenous (Ch. 16; KM 25.4), and other historically overburdened (Ch. 20) communities.¹²³^,¹²⁴^,¹²⁵ The increasing rate and severity of climatic disasters and the compounding and cascading effects of climate change place large economic hardship on local governments and rural communities (KM 2.2),¹²⁶^,¹²⁷ although metrics that reflect the complexity of these challenges and their spatial disparities have been historically lacking.

In recent years, there have been significant advances in analytic capabilities for identifying risk variation as influenced by a wide range of social (Ch. 20), economic (KM 22.3), and ecological factors (KM 24.5; Ch. 31). Measures that capture the ability of a community to prepare, adapt, and recover from disruption or disaster indicate greater risk to rural communities than what can be quantified in terms of expected annual loss due to natural hazards alone.¹²⁸ This suggests that a broad perspective of rural risk needs to be considered in prioritizing and supporting resilience efforts.

Rural Community Resilience

There is considerable spatial variability in social, infrastructural, institutional, economic, environmental, and community sources of resilience in rural areas (Figure 11.13). Resilience encompasses the ability to anticipate, prepare for, adapt to, withstand, and recover from disruptions like climate change. Rural communities have unique sources of and barriers to resilience (Figure 11.14).¹²³ Resilience is hindered in communities with strained economic and social institutions.¹²⁹ Many rural areas struggle to maintain effective government services, economic sustainability, and a strong social base. Demographic and socioeconomic trends, such as population loss and persistent poverty, limit social and economic resilience in some rural areas. These communities lack the capacity or resources needed for recovery in the face of natural hazard events (KM 22.1; Box 25.1). Lack of access to technology and a lack of institutional capacity, for example due to limited financial and human resources, can compound the effects of natural disasters.¹³⁰ Historical environmental justice inequities (Figure 20.1) often underlie and add further complexity to the resilience of rural communities to climate change (Ch. 20; KMs 15.2, 16.2, 26.4, 27.1, 31.2). Rural communities that are characterized by a sense of community, self-reliance, and tacit knowledge of the natural environment have enhanced capacity for resilience (e.g., Box 30.6).

Two county-level sets of maps of the contiguous United States, Alaska, and Hawai‘i show areas with the highest (left) and lowest (right) relative resilience subindices values for six indices: community capital (orange), economic (dark gray), environmental (green), infrastructure (yellow), institutional (purple), and social (pink). Metro counties are shown in light gray. The left map showing highest relative subindices shows mostly environmental, infrastructure, and community capital categories, with scattered institutional and social categories. The right map showing the lowest subindices is dominated by counties showing the institutional category across many regions. Social is also common, especially in the Southern Great Plains and Alaska. Infrastructure shows up commonly across the southeast.

Rural communities differ in the categories of the Baseline Resilience Indicators that contribute most substantially to their resilience.

Figure 11.13. Six broad categories (social, economic, community capital, institutional, infrastructure, and environmental) constitute the Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC; see Figure 11.14).¹³¹ The highest (a) and lowest (b) relative category of resilience for communities within nonmetropolitan counties is shown at the county level. There is considerable spatial variability in each category of community resilience. The US Caribbean and US-Affiliated Pacific Islands are not represented on the map because of a lack of data. Discussion of resilience vulnerabilities for these areas can be found in Chapters 23 and 30. Figure credit: USDA, NOAA NCEI, and CISESS NC.

A table-like infographic titled baseline resilience indicators for communities illustrates examples of positive and negative drivers of resilience in rural communities for six categories of resilience, as described in the caption and text. For community capital resilience, positive drivers are attachment to place, religious social capital, and political engagement, and negative drivers are lack of community volunteers and lack of engagement in formal disaster preparedness programs. For infrastructure resilience, positive drivers are good quality housing, broadband internet, and access to medical facilities, and negative drivers are a higher proportion of mobile homes and limited access to broadband internet. For economic resilience, positive drivers are homeownership and a diversified economy, and a negative driver is racial income inequalities. For institutional resilience, positive drivers are stability of local institutions and governments, limited population change, and crop insurance, and negative drivers are long distances to the state capitals and less experience with disaster aid. For environmental resilience, positive drivers are natural flood buffers and energy efficiency, and negative drivers are flood risk and energy inefficiency. For social resilience, positive drivers are educational equality, physician access, and health insurance, and negative drivers are younger populations, limited healthcare access, and low educational attainment and English proficiency.

Rural community resilience to natural hazards is measured by several broad categories of indicators that affect aspects of resilience (both positively and negatively).

Figure 11.14. The Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC) index is a composite measure of community resilience to natural hazards. It considers 49 indicators of existing attributes of resilience arranged in six broad categories: social, infrastructure, institutional, environmental, economic, and community capital. It can be used to compare community resilience within one county to that of another (see, for example, Figure 11.13). Positive and negative drivers of resilience for rural counties are provided for each category. Figure credit: USDA.

Economic dependence on single-sector or resource-based economies, as often found in rural areas, further constrains resilience (KMs 22.3, 25.3).¹²² Many rural jobs are based on resource extraction and dependent on natural resources that are at an increased risk of disruption from climate hazards (e.g., the effects of rising ocean temperature on fisheries and the effects of drought on agriculture). Rural Alaska fishing communities provide a poignant example of how climate impacts compound persistent poverty, geographic isolation, lack of economic diversity, and resource dependence (KM 29.3). A marine heatwave, unprecedented in intensity and duration, hit the Gulf of Alaska from 2014 to 2016, leading to 18 fisheries disaster declarations in the region (Ch. 29).¹³²^,¹³³^,¹³⁴ Climate change is greatly altering the conditions of fishing access and distribution, with increasing collapses that are leaving fishers scrambling for the few alternative income opportunities or taking greater risks to harvest fewer and smaller fish (KM 10.2).¹³⁵^,¹³⁶

While rural communities face challenges, they are also making positive contributions in enhancing climate resilience and mitigating climate change through renewable energy production (KM 5.3). Participatory approaches are needed to ensure that these efforts are equitable and meet community needs. After a natural disaster destroyed the town of Greensburg, Kansas, the community utilized a participatory approach involving multiple rounds of public meetings to engage citizens in planning a sustainable, climate-smart rebuilding process. Emphasis on green materials and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Platinum–certified public buildings allowed the community to rebuild and procure 100% of the energy needed to supply the community through wind energy. Rural communities can contribute to an emerging clean energy economy, including through advanced biofuels¹³⁷ and agrivoltaic systems that simultaneously use land for both agriculture and photovoltaic energy production (Chs. 5, 6). Alternative energy sources have the potential to provide a significant portion of US energy needs while also reducing emissions and creating additional jobs and economic opportunity in rural areas.¹³⁸

Process Description

The chapter lead, with input from the coordinating lead author and agency chapter lead author, recruited the author team exclusively from federal agencies, in accordance with the decision of the National Climate Assessment (NCA) Federal Steering Committee (FSC). The author team was selected to provide expertise on the impacts of climate change on agriculture, food security, and rural communities, with an emphasis on diversity in research expertise, professional experience, and gender. The author team included agricultural, physical, and social scientists. Some were involved with previous Assessments. The author team met weekly to develop and revise drafts throughout the writing process. When disagreements over content, wording, or figures occurred, discussions among the author team occurred until a consensus was reached by the entire author team.

Because this chapter covered a wide range of issues, the author team considered and discussed a broad array of important issues and topics. The Key Messages and topics within each theme were selected after weekly discussions among the authors; a review of the pertinent literature by the author team; review of the Fourth National Climate Assessment and other government reports dealing with climate change and agriculture, food systems, and rural communities; listening sessions organized by the US Global Change Research Program; comments on the Zero Order Draft by the FSC and the public; and comments provided by reviewers on later drafts. A stakeholder public engagement workshop on January 28, 2022, also gave the public an opportunity to provide feedback on proposed Key Messages and topics. Based on these deliberations and feedback from the public, the author team decided to 1) make justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion issues a priority, reflecting the stated goals of the Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5); 2) focus on the entire food system rather than just at or behind the farm gate; and 3) reflect growing societal interest in an expanded set of agricultural outcomes beyond agricultural productivity.

The decision to include food systems as a key theme was driven, in part, by the FSC’s decision to add “Food Systems” to the NCA5 chapter title. Chapter authors recognized that the US food system is shaped by many factors in addition to on-farm agricultural production. Climate and weather events impact food transportation, processing locations, and waste streams and intensities. Agricultural production is also affected by upstream value chains that influence on-farm production. Therefore, a more holistic approach was taken to understand climate and its changes.

Throughout chapter development, chapter leadership regularly engaged with leads from other relevant chapters to discuss cross-cutting issues and how best to incorporate them among the chapters.

KEY MESSAGES

KEY MESSAGE 11.1

Agricultural Adaptation Increases Resilience in an Evolving Landscape

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

Agricultural Production at Risk

Extensive peer-reviewed literature has shown that climate change is slowing agricultural productivity and increasing agricultural vulnerability.⁸⁴^,⁸⁹^,¹³⁹ Multiple assessments have quantified that increasing air temperatures have lengthened the growing season in the contiguous US by about two weeks.⁷ Higher temperatures are projected to lead to greater weather volatility, increased frequency and/or severity of extreme events (drought, frost damage, floods), and greater pest/disease incidence, all of which disrupt crop and livestock growth as well as the timing and effectiveness of agricultural management operations.

Adoption of Agroecological Practices

A growing number of agricultural studies report that agroecological practices can maintain agricultural productivity while also promoting a broader range of ecosystem services.¹³^,³²^,¹⁴⁰^,¹⁴¹ A recent survey of US farmers showed greater voluntary adoption rates of agroecologically based conservation practices in the last 10 years.¹⁴² While the chapter does not discuss why US producers adopt, retain, or reverse practices, research consistently shows positive correlations between producer adoption of agroecological practices and environmental attitudes, formal education level, and awareness of a program/practice.¹⁴³^,¹⁴⁴^,¹⁴⁵^,¹⁴⁶

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The assessment of agricultural contributions to national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions relied on inventories and estimates from the EPA⁴⁹ and were supplemented by data from other federal sources as well as numerous academic studies. Calculations of overall estimated GHG emissions from the agricultural sector among these various sources were comprehensive and in good agreement.

Mitigation via Agroecological Management

A growing body of evidence shows that adoption of agroecological management practices and technological advances can mitigate agricultural GHG emissions. Soil carbon storage can be increased with no-till cropping and diversification of production systems (e.g., greater crop rotation complexity, perennialization through more grazing lands and/or agroforestry).¹⁴⁷^,¹⁴⁸ Nitrous oxide and methane emissions can be reduced with improved management (e.g., efficiencies in fertilizer use, water use, and animal grazing and feed).³⁹^,¹⁴⁹^,¹⁵⁰ In addition to increasing the likelihood of GHG mitigation, implementation of such key strategies is projected to reduce dependency on exogenous inputs, protect the environment, and enhance agroecosystem resilience to climate changes.¹⁵¹^,¹⁵²^,¹⁵³^,¹⁵⁴

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Although climate change impacts on agricultural crop and livestock production are known,⁸⁸^,¹⁵⁵ future effects at the farm, regional, and national scales are uncertain given the variety of adaptation strategies that can be deployed. Further, how these adaptation strategies will interact within highly spatially and temporally variable landscapes (i.e., soils, weather, topography) increase the uncertainty of strategy effectiveness.

Curbing GHG emissions from soil (carbon dioxide [CO₂] and nitrous oxide) remains a challenge, because greater production demands are expected to require tillage in some production environments and greater fertilizer inputs to stimulate growth. One major research gap is determining whether and how rapidly practices can be widely deployed to reduce emissions. There is also considerable uncertainty in the capacity of soils to increase carbon storage, given the many interacting factors between management, weather, and landscape properties. Improved livestock diet formulations and integrating livestock into cropping systems could significantly reduce GHG emissions, but scaling issues remain unresolved.

Crop production could be more resilient to climate changes if soils were healthier than at present, but the speed with which such a transformation is possible using an agroecological approach remains unknown.¹⁵⁶^,¹⁵⁷ Future water availability has a major impact on soil health, and forecasting this will be a challenge.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

Confidence is very high and it is very likely that growing zones and growing days are changing. Historical evidence from a nationally distributed weather network and independent measurement and modeling studies consistently document increasing annual average air temperatures, increasing nighttime temperatures, and greater variability in frost-free periods. The body of evidence indicates an overall migration of growing zones and growing days toward northern latitudes and higher altitudes.

Confidence is very high for greater adoption of agroecological practices by producers. Statements on increasing adoption of agroecologically based conservation practices are supported by evidence that agricultural productivity can be maintained and/or increased while improving environmental outcomes.

Confidence is medium and it is likely that agricultural mitigation strategies will significantly reduce total GHG emissions because there is significant spatial and temporal variability in soils, weather, and type/timing of practices. Measured and modeled literature supports statements that agroecological approaches can increase soil carbon and improve efficiencies will mitigate GHG emissions.

Confidence is high that agricultural resilience can be improved in response to climate change. An increasing body of evidence shows that greater stewardship and new economic opportunities (i.e., carbon markets, conservation program cost-shares) can confer greater resilience through improved soil health and resource-use efficiency of external inputs.

KEY MESSAGE 11.2

Climate Change Disrupts Our Food Systems in Uneven Ways

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

Food System Resilience

Much of the research on climate change impacts to US food systems, including economics research, focuses more on agricultural production and less on food processing, distribution, marketing, and consumption.⁷²^,⁸³^,¹⁵⁸ The literature provides some qualitative examples of impacts to these other sectors (e.g., Chodur et al. 2018, Reardon and Zilberman 2018⁸³^,¹⁰⁰), but the extent is limited and quantitative estimates are rare.

Socioeconomic Costs of Climate Change in Food Production

A larger set of literature exists on economic impacts of climate change to agricultural production. Economists have focused particularly on impacts to total factor productivity (TFP) of agriculture, which is the ratio of agricultural outputs produced to the quantity of inputs used.⁸⁷^,⁸⁸^,⁸⁹ This literature is mostly consistent in describing the negative impact and general magnitude of climate change effects on US agricultural TFP. Methods are well established, based on broader economic analyses of climate change impacts on productivity of entire economies (not just agriculture; e.g., Letta and Tol 2019¹⁵⁹).

Also abundant is economics research on climate change and international trade of agricultural products.⁸⁰^,¹⁶⁰ This topic is not covered in depth here but can be summarized as 1) how climate-driven changes in agriculture production around the globe affect US agriculture through international trade⁹⁸ and 2) how interstate trade helps dampen economic impacts of climate change on US agriculture.⁷⁹

Implications of Climate Change for Food Prices

Basic economic theory on supply, demand, and prices indicates that a reduction in agricultural yields due to climate change, and subsequent reductions in supply of an associated food product (holding all else constant), should increase that food product’s price. In reality, complexities arise because not all else is held constant. For example, when wheat yields in the US Central Plains are negatively affected by drought, trade among states and nations dampens the impact on wheat prices. At the same time, consumer incomes and tastes for wheat versus substitute and complementary goods might also change, for entirely separate reasons, making it challenging to quantitatively isolate the effects of climate change on wheat prices.

Due to complexities in markets for agricultural and food products, relatively few economic studies have estimated the effects of climate change on prices of multiple agricultural commodities and food products at a national or international scale. The few studies that have (e.g., Baker et al. 2018; Beach et al. 2015⁹⁸^,⁹⁹) reached similar conclusions about the direction of impacts and are generally consistent with economic theory (i.e., when supply decreases, holding demand constant, price should rise). It is more difficult to assess the accuracy of the magnitude of their price change estimates.

Climate Change Impacts on Food Security Are Distributed Unevenly

Impacts of rising air temperature on outdoor workers’ safety and productivity are well understood (Chs. 3, 15).⁹² Consistent across multiple studies is that outdoor workers, including farmworkers, will be exposed to more heat stress in the future due to climate change. Disproportionate food insecurity among farmworkers in the US is also well documented in the literature, with consistent findings.²^,⁹⁶

The impacts of climate change on home food procurement activities, such as hunting, fishing, foraging, and subsistence farming are well documented in the literature.¹¹⁰ Regarding impacts to Indigenous Peoples, Norton-Smith et al. (2016)¹¹¹ reviewed the literature on this topic and found abundant examples and agreement among studies; more recently, STACCWG (2021)¹⁶¹ provides numerous examples directly from Tribes and Tribal Peoples.

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Socioeconomic Costs of Climate Change in Food Production

The role of interstate trade in dampening the impacts of climate change has been studied less extensively than the role of international trade, but Dall'Erba et al. (2021)⁷⁹ provided a peer-reviewed example of this emerging body of literature.

Implications of Climate Change for Food Prices

Major sources of uncertainty in economic modeling of climate change impacts on crop yields and prices result from assumptions about 1) choice of climate models, 2) breadth of impacts from CO₂ fertilization, 3) land-use change and yield aggregation, 4) GHG mitigation efforts, and 5) future socioeconomic conditions.¹⁶²

Climate Change Impacts on Food Security Are Distributed Unevenly

In studies of food-system workers’ exposure to climate change impacts, sources of uncertainty include underreporting of heat-related stress among undocumented workers; variability in individual, workplace, and community risk factors; and future changes in the location of crops and labor needed.⁹⁴ There are also relatively few studies documenting or projecting how climate change affects food insecurity among farmworkers or other disproportionately affected groups, such as women, children, and older adults.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

The statement about climate change impacts on the affordability of nutritious food is based on a relatively small number of studies about US agricultural TFP, but those reached consistent conclusions about impact direction and magnitude. Conclusions are also consistent with broader research about the separate effects of climate change on yields (or output) and input use. Therefore, confidence is medium with a likelihood level of likely.

The statement about the magnitude of quantitative impacts on food prices is based on a small number of contemporary studies with many sources of modeling uncertainty about complex national and international markets for agricultural and food products. However, statements about the direction or sign of estimated impacts on food prices, assuming climate change decreases the supply of some agricultural or food products, are consistent with economic theory. Additionally, numerous studies have consistently found that food price increases have uneven economic impacts across society, with reasonable levels of uncertainty.¹⁶³ Therefore, overall confidence about the direction or sign of change in food affordability, with subsequent uneven impacts across society, is medium.

The statement about worsening farmworker exposure to heat stress is based on numerous studies with consistent findings and reasonable levels of uncertainty. Confidence is high.

The statement about worsening ability to obtain food through hunting, fishing, and foraging is based on numerous studies with consistent findings and reasonable levels of uncertainty. Confidence is high.

KEY MESSAGE 11.3

Rural Communities Face Unique Challenges and Opportunities

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

Extensive evidence supports the importance of agriculture as a driver of rural economics and social systems.¹⁶⁴^,¹⁶⁵ Efforts to conserve the natural resources on which rural communities depend, not only for agriculture but also for other natural amenities–based industries (e.g., recreation and retirement destination), are well documented.¹⁶⁶^,¹⁶⁷ Ample research documents challenges for rural communities in sustaining their way of life. Challenges include decreasing and aging populations, limited resources available for education and workforce development, limited capital access, infrastructure needs, limited access to healthcare services, and land-use preservation.¹⁶⁸^,¹⁶⁹^,¹⁷⁰^,¹⁷¹^,¹⁷²^,¹⁷³ Further, many rural communities have high concentrations of socially vulnerable and historically underserved populations. A growing body of research illustrates that these populations are disproportionately at high risk of climate change impacts, which can further exacerbate existing problems.⁸³^,¹⁰¹^,¹²³^,¹⁷⁴^,¹⁷⁵^,¹⁷⁶^,¹⁷⁷

Community resilience indices (e.g., Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities) and related metrics (CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index, FEMA’s National Risk Index for Natural Hazards, and the Census Bureau’s Community Resilience Estimates) are increasingly being used to inform community disaster preparedness and climate change adaptation research.¹⁷⁷^,¹⁷⁸^,¹⁷⁹^,¹⁸⁰^,¹⁸¹^,¹⁸² Data to further support this work contribute to an emerging area of study of climate resilience measurement. Recent advances include improvements in small-area estimate methodology (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/community-resilience-estimates.html) and emerging public–private partnerships that leverage artificial intelligence and machine learning (e.g., First Street Foundation’s Risk Factor and Headwaters Economics’ Rural Capacity Map).¹⁸³^,¹⁸⁴^,¹⁸⁵

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Numerous federal, state, and local programs focus on capacity building and specifically provide support and services to rural and underserved communities.¹⁶⁵^,¹⁸⁶^,¹⁸⁷ However, there is uncertainty about rural community sustainability and resilience to climate change. Many of the challenges and stressors faced by rural communities are long term, including but not limited to persistent poverty, population loss, an aging population, natural resource depletion, loss of farmland, and limited on- and off-farm economic opportunities.¹²¹^,¹⁸⁸^,¹⁸⁹^,¹⁹⁰^,¹⁹¹^,¹⁹² Further, while many rural communities share similar challenges, they are not socially, culturally, economically, or environmentally homogenous.¹⁹³ Greater confidence in the ways communities could successfully adapt to perturbations would require additional research and training from a variety of potential strategies across the diversity of rural communities.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

Extensive data show that rural communities support agricultural systems, which provide essential sources of food, fuel, feed, and fiber. Rural communities and their residents manage more than two-thirds of US land¹⁹⁴ and thus bear responsibility for protecting the natural resources and ecosystem services and disservices they provide. Confidence is high.

Extensive evidence indicates that climate change and its compounding effects exacerbate existing stressors such as poverty, limited revenue, unemployment, and depopulation on rural communities. However, studies on the impact and extent of these detrimental impacts on the ability of these communities to continue to provide food, fuel, feed, and fiber resources to the Nation are less numerous. Evidence indicating that these communities will lose the ability to manage natural resources and maintain current levels of ecosystem services is limited. Confidence is medium with a likelihood level of likely.

Evidence from numerous communities documents the existence of opportunities for rural communities to increase climate change resilience. However, future climate change impacts on rural livelihoods and the long-term efficacy of rural resilience efforts are uncertain. Significant variability exists in the challenges and needs of individual rural communities.¹⁹⁵ Confidence is high.

Coleman-Jensen, A., M.P. Rabbitt, C.A. Gregory, and A. Singh, 2021: Household Food Security in the United States in 2020. ERR-298. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=102075
Meierotto, L., T. Mares, and S.M. Holmes, 2020: Introduction to the symposium: Bienestar—the well-being of Latinx farmworkers in a time of change. Agriculture and Human Values, 37 (1), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09964-9
Basso, B., 2021: Precision conservation for a changing climate. Nature Food, 2 (5), 322–323. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00283-z
Imoro, Z.A., A.Z. Imoro, A.B. Duwiejuah, and A. Abukari, 2021: Harnessing Indigenous technologies for sustainable management of land, water, and food resources amidst climate change. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5, 691603. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.691603
Melash, A.A., A.A. Bogale, A.T. Migbaru, G.G. Chakilu, A. Percze, É.B. Ábrahám, and D.K. Mengistu, 2023: Indigenous agricultural knowledge: A neglected human based resource for sustainable crop protection and production. Heliyon, 9 (1), e12978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12978
Metro Vancouver, 2018: Ecological Health Framework. Metro Vancouver. https://metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/Documents/ecological-health-framework.pdf#search=Ecological%20Health%20Framework%2E
Kukal, M.S. and S. Irmak, 2018: U.S. agro-climate in 20th century: Growing degree days, first and last frost, growing season length, and impacts on crop yields. Scientific Reports, 8 (1), 6977. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25212-2
Franzluebbers, A.J., 2013: Introduction to themed section—Supporting ecosystem services with conservation agricultural approaches. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 28 (2), 99–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1742170513000021
Ghimire, R., U. Norton, P. Bista, A.K. Obour, and J.B. Norton, 2017: Soil organic matter, greenhouse gases and net global warming potential of irrigated conventional, reduced-tillage and organic cropping systems. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 107 (1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-016-9811-0
Jakab, G., B. Madarász, M. Masoudi, M. Karlik, C. Király, D. Zacháry, T. Filep, I. Dekemati, C. Centeri, T. Al-Graiti, and Z. Szalai, 2023: Soil organic matter gain by reduced tillage intensity: Storage, pools, and chemical composition. Soil and Tillage Research, 226, 105584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2022.105584
Krauss, M., A. Berner, F. Perrochet, R. Frei, U. Niggli, and P. Mäder, 2020: Enhanced soil quality with reduced tillage and solid manures in organic farming—A synthesis of 15 years. Scientific Reports, 10 (1), 4403. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61320-8
Lehmann, J., D.A. Bossio, I. Kögel-Knabner, and M.C. Rillig, 2020: The concept and future prospects of soil health. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1 (10), 544–553. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0080-8
Franzluebbers, A.J., 2020: Soil-test biological activity with the flush of CO₂: V. Validation of nitrogen prediction for corn production. Agronomy Journal, 112 (3), 2188–2204. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20094
Franzluebbers, A.J. and G. Martin, 2022: Farming with forages can reconnect crop and livestock operations to enhance circularity and foster ecosystem services. Grass and Forage Science, 77 (4), 270–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12592
Palomo-Campesino, S., M. García-Llorente, V. Hevia, F. Boeraeve, N. Dendoncker, and J.A. González, 2022: Do agroecological practices enhance the supply of ecosystem services? A comparison between agroecological and conventional horticultural farms. Ecosystem Services, 57, 101474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101474
Francis, C., G. Lieblein, S. Gliessman, T.A. Breland, N. Creamer, R. Harwood, L. Salomonsson, J. Helenius, D. Rickerl, R. Salvador, M. Wiedenhoeft, S. Simmons, P. Allen, M. Altieri, C. Flora, and R. Poincelot, 2003: Agroecology: The ecology of food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 22 (3), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v22n03_10
Rivera-Ferre, M.G., 2018: The resignification process of Agroecology: Competing narratives from governments, civil society and intergovernmental organizations. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 42 (6), 666–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1437498
Wezel, A., M. Casagrande, F. Celette, J.-F. Vian, A. Ferrer, and J. Peigné, 2014: Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0180-7
Gliessman, S.R., 2014: Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems, 3rd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 405 pp. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17881
Bezner Kerr, R., S. Madsen, M. Stüber, J. Liebert, S. Enloe, N. Borghino, P. Parros, D.M. Mutyambai, M. Prudhon, and A. Wezel, 2021: Can agroecology improve food security and nutrition? A review. Global Food Security, 29, 100540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100540
Amoak, D., I. Luginaah, and G. McBean, 2022: Climate change, food security, and health: Harnessing agroecology to build climate-resilient communities. Sustainability, 14 (21), 13954. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113954
Duff, H., P.B. Hegedus, S. Loewen, T. Bass, and B.D. Maxwell, 2022: Precision agroecology. Sustainability, 14 (1), 106. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010106
Hrabanski, M. and J.F. Le Coq, 2022: Climatisation of agricultural issues in the international agenda through three competing epistemic communities: Climate-smart agriculture, agroecology, and nature-based solutions. Environmental Science & Policy, 127, 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.10.022
Maurel, V.B. and C. Huyghe, 2017: Putting agricultural equipment and digital technologies at the cutting edge of agroecology. OCL, 24 (3), D307. https://doi.org/10.1051/ocl/2017028
Vagge, I. and G. Chiaffarelli, 2023: Validating the contribution of nature-based farming solutions (NBFS) to agrobiodiversity values through a multi-scale landscape approach. Agronomy, 13 (1). https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010233
Wynberg, R., M. Pimbert, N. Moeller, G. McAllister, R.B. Kerr, J. Singh, M. Belay, and M. Ngcoya, 2023: Nature-based solutions and agroecology: Business as usual or an opportunity for transformative change? Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 65 (1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2023.2146944
Martin, A.R. and M.E. Isaac, 2018: Functional traits in agroecology: Advancing description and prediction in agroecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55 (1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13039
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019: Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 510 pp. https://doi.org/10.17226/25259
Tittonell, P., G. Piñeiro, L.A. Garibaldi, S. Dogliotti, H. Olff, and E.G. Jobbagy, 2020: Agroecology in large scale farming—A research agenda. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 584605. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.584605
Wezel, A., B.G. Herren, R.B. Kerr, E. Barrios, A.L.R. Gonçalves, and F. Sinclair, 2020: Agroecological principles and elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 40 (6), 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00646-z
Baveye, P.C., J. Baveye, and J. Gowdy, 2016: Soil “ecosystem” services and natural capital: Critical appraisal of research on uncertain ground. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 4, 41. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00041
Altieri, M.A., C.I. Nicholls, A. Henao, and M.A. Lana, 2015: Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35 (3), 869–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2
USDA, n.d.: The Role of Climate-Smart Agriculture in Climate Adaptation and Mitigation in the Northeast. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Climate Hubs, accessed August 4, 2023. https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northeast/topic/role-climate-smart-agriculture-climate-adaptation-and-mitigation-northeast
Mizik, T., 2021: Climate-smart agriculture on small-scale farms: A systematic literature review. Agronomy, 11 (6), 1096. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061096
Prager, K., J. Schuler, K. Helming, P. Zander, T. Ratinger, and K. Hagedorn, 2011: Soil degradation, farming practices, institutions and policy responses: An analytical framework. Land Degradation & Development, 22 (1), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.979
Myers, S., 2022: 2020 EPA Emissions Inventory Demonstrates Agriculture’s Advancements in Sustainability. American Farm Bureau Federation. https://www.fb.org/market-intel/2020-epa-emissions-inventory-demonstrates-agricultures-advancements-in-sustainability
Abdalla, M., A. Hastings, K. Cheng, Q. Yue, D. Chadwick, M. Espenberg, J. Truu, R.M. Rees, and P. Smith, 2019: A critical review of the impacts of cover crops on nitrogen leaching, net greenhouse gas balance and crop productivity. Global Change Biology, 25 (8), 2530–2543. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14644
Ogle, S.M., C. Alsaker, J. Baldock, M. Bernoux, F.J. Breidt, B. McConkey, K. Regina, and G.G. Vazquez-Amabile, 2019: Climate and soil characteristics determine where no-till management can store carbon in soils and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Scientific Reports, 9 (1), 11665. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47861-7
Sanderson, J.S., C. Beutler, J.R. Brown, I. Burke, T. Chapman, R.T. Conant, J.D. Derner, M. Easter, S.D. Fuhlendorf, G. Grissom, J.E. Herrick, D. Liptzin, J.A. Morgan, R. Murph, C. Pague, I. Rangwala, D. Ray, R. Rondeau, T. Schulz, and T. Sullivan, 2020: Cattle, conservation, and carbon in the western Great Plains. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 75 (1), 5A–12A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.75.1.5a
Aryal, D.R., D.E. Morales-Ruiz, S. López-Cruz, C.N. Tondopó-Marroquín, A. Lara-Nucamendi, J.A. Jiménez-Trujillo, E. Pérez-Sánchez, J.E. Betanzos-Simon, F. Casasola-Coto, A. Martínez-Salinas, C.J. Sepúlveda-López, R. Ramírez-Díaz, M.A. La O Arias, F. Guevara-Hernández, R. Pinto-Ruiz, and M. Ibrahim, 2022: Silvopastoral systems and remnant forests enhance carbon storage in livestock-dominated landscapes in Mexico. Scientific Reports, 12 (1), 16769. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-21089-4
Howlett, D.S., M.R. Mosquera-Losada, P.K.R. Nair, V.D. Nair, and A. Rigueiro-Rodríguez, 2011: Soil carbon storage in silvopastoral systems and a treeless pasture in northwestern Spain. Journal of Environmental Quality, 40 (3), 825–832. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2010.0145
Lorenz, K. and R. Lal, 2014: Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34 (2), 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0212-y
Mayer, S., M. Wiesmeier, E. Sakamoto, R. Hübner, R. Cardinael, A. Kühnel, and I. Kögel-Knabner, 2022: Soil organic carbon sequestration in temperate agroforestry systems—A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 323, 107689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107689
Augustine, D.J., 2010: Spatial versus temporal variation in precipitation in a semiarid ecosystem. Landscape Ecology, 25 (6), 913–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9469-y
Derner, J.D. and D.J. Augustine, 2016: Adaptive management for drought on rangelands. Rangelands, 38 (4), 211–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rala.2016.05.002
Shrum, T.R., W.R. Travis, T.M. Williams, and E. Lih, 2018: Managing climate risks on the ranch with limited drought information. Climate Risk Management, 20, 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2018.01.002
Allen, C.R. and L.H. Gunderson, 2011: Pathology and failure in the design and implementation of adaptive management. Journal of Environmental Management, 92 (5), 1379–1384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.063
Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., H.L. Ballard, and V.E. Sturtevant, 2008: Adaptive management and social learning in collaborative and community-based monitoring: A study of five community-based forestry organizations in the western USA. Ecology and Society, 13 (2). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-02400-130204
EPA, 2023: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2021. EPA 430-R-23-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/draft-inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2021
Allen, M.R., G.P. Peters, K.P. Shine, C. Azar, P. Balcombe, O. Boucher, M. Cain, P. Ciais, W. Collins, P.M. Forster, D.J. Frame, P. Friedlingstein, C. Fyson, T. Gasser, B. Hare, S. Jenkins, S.P. Hamburg, D.J.A. Johansson, J. Lynch, A. Macey, J. Morfeldt, A. Nauels, I. Ocko, M. Oppenheimer, S.W. Pacala, R. Pierrehumbert, J. Rogelj, M. Schaeffer, C.F. Schleussner, D. Shindell, R.B. Skeie, S.M. Smith, and K. Tanaka, 2022: Indicate separate contributions of long-lived and short-lived greenhouse gases in emission targets. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 5 (1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-021-00226-2
Smith, M.A., M. Cain, and M.R. Allen, 2021: Further improvement of warming-equivalent emissions calculation. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 4 (1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-021-00169-8
Claverie, M., J. Ju, J.G. Masek, J.L. Dungan, E.F. Vermote, J.-C. Roger, S.V. Skakun, and C. Justice, 2018: The Harmonized Landsat and Sentinel-2 surface reflectance data set. Remote Sensing of Environment, 219, 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.09.002
Sloat, L.L., S.J. Davis, J.S. Gerber, F.C. Moore, D.K. Ray, P.C. West, and N.D. Mueller, 2020: Climate adaptation by crop migration. Nature Communications, 11 (1), 1243. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15076-4
Oloo, A.S., 2020: Service-oriented data mining architecture for climate-smart agriculture. American Journal of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 5 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajdmkd.20200501.11
Coleman, J., 2022: Eat more fish: When switching to seafood helps—and when it doesn’t. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-02928-w
Apostolidis, C. and F. McLeay, 2019: To meat or not to meat? Comparing empowered meat consumers’ and anti-consumers’ preferences for sustainability labels. Food Quality and Preference, 77, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.04.008
Bangsa, A.B. and B.B. Schlegelmilch, 2020: Linking sustainable product attributes and consumer decision-making: Insights from a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 245, 118902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118902
Chen, X., Z. Gao, and B.R. McFadden, 2020: Reveal preference reversal in consumer preference for sustainable food products. Food Quality and Preference, 79, 103754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103754
Clune, S., E. Crossin, and K. Verghese, 2017: Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 766–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.082
McDougall, R., P. Kristiansen, and R. Rader, 2019: Small-scale urban agriculture results in high yields but requires judicious management of inputs to achieve sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116 (1), 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1809707115
Pearson, L.J., L. Pearson, and C.J. Pearson, 2010: Sustainable urban agriculture: Stocktake and opportunities. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 8 (1–2), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2009.0468
Waite, R., M. Beveridge, R. Brummett, S. Castine, N. Chaiyawannakarn, S. Kaushik, R. Mungkung, S. Nawapakpilai, and M. Phillips, 2014: Improving Productivity and Environmental Performance of Aquaculture. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, 60 pp. https://www.wri.org/research/improving-productivity-and-environmental-performance-aquaculture
MacLeod, M.J., M.R. Hasan, D.H.F. Robb, and M. Mamun-Ur-Rashid, 2020: Quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from global aquaculture. Scientific Reports, 10 (1), 11679. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68231-8
Ahmed, N. and S. Thompson, 2019: The blue dimensions of aquaculture: A global synthesis. Science of The Total Environment, 652, 851–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.163
Gephart, J.A., P.J.G. Henriksson, R.W.R. Parker, A. Shepon, K.D. Gorospe, K. Bergman, G. Eshel, C.D. Golden, B.S. Halpern, S. Hornborg, M. Jonell, M. Metian, K. Mifflin, R. Newton, P. Tyedmers, W. Zhang, F. Ziegler, and M. Troell, 2021: Environmental performance of blue foods. Nature, 597 (7876), 360–365. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03889-2
Griffis, R. and J. Howard, 2013: Oceans and Marine Resources in a Changing Climate. A Technical Input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC, 252 pp. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-480-2
Maulu, S., O.J. Hasimuna, L.H. Haambiya, C. Monde, C.G. Musuka, T.H. Makorwa, B.P. Munganga, K.J. Phiri, and J.D. Nsekanabo, 2021: Climate change effects on aquaculture production: Sustainability implications, mitigation, and adaptations. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5, 609097. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.609097
Gerwing, K. and T. McDaniels, 2006: Listening to the Salmon People: Coastal First Nations’ objectives regarding salmon aquaculture in British Columbia. Society & Natural Resources, 19 (3), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920500460864
Naylor, R.L., J. Eagle, and W.L. Smith, 2003: Salmon aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest a global industry with local impacts. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 45 (8), 18–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139150309604562
Basche, A., K. Tully, N.L. Álvarez-Berríos, J. Reyes, L. Lengnick, T. Brown, J.M. Moore, R.E. Schattman, L.K. Johnson, and G. Roesch-McNally, 2020: Evaluating the untapped potential of US conservation investments to improve soil and environmental health. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 547876. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.547876
El Bilali, H., C. Callenius, C. Strassner, and L. Probst, 2019: Food and nutrition security and sustainability transitions in food systems. Food and Energy Security, 8 (2), e00154. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.154
Davis, K.F., S. Downs, and J.A. Gephart, 2021: Towards food supply chain resilience to environmental shocks. Nature Food, 2 (1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00196-3
Godde, C.M., D. Mason-D’Croz, D.E. Mayberry, P.K. Thornton, and M. Herrero, 2021: Impacts of climate change on the livestock food supply chain; a review of the evidence. Global Food Security, 28, 100488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100488
Jones, A.W. and A. Phillips, 2016: Historic food production shocks: Quantifying the extremes. Sustainability, 8 (5), 427. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050427
Troy, T.J., C. Kipgen, and I. Pal, 2015: The impact of climate extremes and irrigation on US crop yields. Environmental Research Letters, 10 (5), 054013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054013
Vogel, E., M.G. Donat, L.V. Alexander, M. Meinshausen, D.K. Ray, D. Karoly, N. Meinshausen, and K. Frieler, 2019: The effects of climate extremes on global agricultural yields. Environmental Research Letters, 14 (5), 054010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab154b
Zampieri, M., A. Ceglar, F. Dentener, and A. Toreti, 2017: Wheat yield loss attributable to heat waves, drought and water excess at the global, national and subnational scales. Environmental Research Letters, 12 (6), 064008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa723b
de Raymond, A.B., A. Alpha, T. Ben-Ari, B. Daviron, T. Nesme, and G. Tétart, 2021: Systemic risk and food security. Emerging trends and future avenues for research. Global Food Security, 29, 100547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100547
Dall'Erba, S., Z. Chen, and N.J. Nava, 2021: U.S. interstate trade will mitigate the negative impact of climate change on crop profit. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 103 (5), 1720–1741. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12204
Baylis, K., T. Heckelei, and T.W. Hertel, 2021: Agricultural trade and environmental sustainability. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 13 (1), 379–401. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-101420-090453
Thilmany, D., E. Canales, S.A. Low, and K. Boys, 2021: Local food supply chain dynamics and resilience during COVID-19. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 43 (1), 86–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13121
Mbow, C., C. Rosenzweig, L.G. Barioni, T.G. Benton, M. Herrero, M. Krishnapillai, E. Liwenga, P. Pradhan, M.G. Rivera-Ferre, T. Sapkota, F.N. Tubiello, and Y. Xu, 2019: Ch. 5. Food security. In: Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Shukla, P.R., J. Skea, E.C. Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, and J. Malley, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 437–550. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157988.007
Reardon, T. and D. Zilberman, 2018: Ch. 15. Climate smart food supply chains in developing countries in an era of rapid dual change in agrifood systems and the climate. In: Climate Smart Agriculture: Building Resilience to Climate Change. Lipper, L., N. McCarthy, D. Zilberman, S. Asfaw, and G. Branca, Eds. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61194-5_15
Reyes, J.J. and E. Elias, 2019: Spatio-temporal variation of crop loss in the United States from 2001 to 2016. Environmental Research Letters, 14 (7), 074017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab1ac9
Tack, J., K. Coble, and B. Barnett, 2018: Warming temperatures will likely induce higher premium rates and government outlays for the U.S. crop insurance program. Agricultural Economics, 49 (5), 635–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12448
Diffenbaugh, N.S., F.V. Davenport, and M. Burke, 2021: Historical warming has increased U.S. crop insurance losses. Environmental Research Letters, 16 (8), 084025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1223
Ortiz-Bobea, A., E. Knippenberg, and R.G. Chambers, 2018: Growing climatic sensitivity of U.S. agriculture linked to technological change and regional specialization. Science Advances, 4 (12), 4343. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat4343
Liang, X.-Z., Y. Wu, R.G. Chambers, D.L. Schmoldt, W. Gao, C. Liu, Y.-A. Liu, C. Sun, and J.A. Kennedy, 2017: Determining climate effects on US total agricultural productivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114 (12), E2285–E2292. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1615922114
Ortiz-Bobea, A., T.R. Ault, C.M. Carrillo, R.G. Chambers, and D.B. Lobell, 2021: Anthropogenic climate change has slowed global agricultural productivity growth. Nature Climate Change, 11 (4), 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01000-1
Ortiz-Bobea, A., H. Wang, C.M. Carrillo, and T.R. Ault, 2019: Unpacking the climatic drivers of US agricultural yields. Environmental Research Letters, 14 (6), 064003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab1e75
Hertel, T.W. and C.Z. de Lima, 2020: Viewpoint: Climate impacts on agriculture: Searching for keys under the streetlight. Food Policy, 95, 101954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101954
Licker, R., K. Dahl, and J.T. Abatzoglou, 2022: Quantifying the impact of future extreme heat on the outdoor work sector in the United States. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 10 (1), 00048. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2021.00048
CDC, 2008: Heat-related deaths among crop workers—United States, 1992–2006. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 57 (24), 649–653. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5724a1.htm
Tigchelaar, M., D.S. Battisti, and J.T. Spector, 2020: Work adaptations insufficient to address growing heat risk for U.S. agricultural workers. Environmental Research Letters, 15 (9), 094035. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab86f4
de Lima, C.Z., J.R. Buzan, F.C. Moore, U.L.C. Baldos, M. Huber, and T.W. Hertel, 2021: Heat stress on agricultural workers exacerbates crop impacts of climate change. Environmental Research Letters, 16 (4), 044020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abeb9f
Al-Bazz, S.A., D. Béland, G.L. Lane, R.R. Engler-Stringer, J. White, and H. Vatanparast, 2022: Food security of temporary foreign farm workers under the seasonal agricultural worker program in Canada and the United States: A scoping review. Advances in Nutrition, 13 (5), 1603–1627. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmac027
Greene, C., 2018: Broadening understandings of drought—The climate vulnerability of farmworkers and rural communities in California (USA). Environmental Science & Policy, 89, 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.08.002
Baker, J.S., P. Havlík, R. Beach, D. Leclère, E. Schmid, H. Valin, J. Cole, J. Creason, S. Ohrel, and J. McFarland, 2018: Evaluating the effects of climate change on US agricultural systems: Sensitivity to regional impact and trade expansion scenarios. Environmental Research Letters, 13 (6), 064019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aac1c2
Beach, R.H., Y. Cai, A. Thomson, X. Zhang, R. Jones, B.A. McCarl, A. Crimmins, J. Martinich, J. Cole, S. Ohrel, B. DeAngelo, J. McFarland, K. Strzepek, and B. Boehlert, 2015: Climate change impacts on US agriculture and forestry: Benefits of global climate stabilization. Environmental Research Letters, 10 (9), 095004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/095004
Chodur, G.M., X. Zhao, E. Biehl, J. Mitrani-Reiser, and R. Neff, 2018: Assessing food system vulnerabilities: A fault tree modeling approach. BMC Public Health, 18 (1), 817. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5563-x
Thomas, K., R.D. Hardy, H. Lazrus, M. Mendez, B. Orlove, I. Rivera-Collazo, J.T. Roberts, M. Rockman, B.P. Warner, and R. Winthrop, 2019: Explaining differential vulnerability to climate change: A social science review. WIREs Climate Change, 10 (2), e565. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.565
Young, S.K. and H. Stewart, 2022: U.S. fruit and vegetable affordability on the Thrifty Food Plan depends on purchasing power and safety net supports. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 (5). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052772
Darmon, N. and A. Drewnowski, 2015: Contribution of food prices and diet cost to socioeconomic disparities in diet quality and health: A systematic review and analysis. Nutrition Reviews, 73 (10), 643–660. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuv027
Koch, C.A., P. Sharda, J. Patel, S. Gubbi, R. Bansal, and M.J. Bartel, 2021: Climate change and obesity. Hormone and Metabolic Research, 53 (9), 575–587. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1533-2861
Thompson, D., K.R. Johnson, K.M. Cistrunk, A. Vancil-Leap, T. Nyatta, L. Hossfeld, G. Rico Méndez, and C. Jones, 2020: Assemblage, food justice, and intersectionality in rural Mississippi: The Oktibbeha Food Policy Council. Sociological Spectrum, 40 (6), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2020.1801541
Cohen, A., 2021: The challenges of intersectionality in the lives of older adults living in rural areas with limited financial resources. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, 7, 23337214211009363. https://doi.org/10.1177/23337214211009363
Rhoades, J.L., J.S. Gruber, and B. Horton, 2018: Developing an in-depth understanding of elderly adult’s vulnerability to climate change. The Gerontologist, 58 (3), 567–577. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw167
Kindle, A., 2021: A Hunter’s & Angler’s Guide to Climate Change: Challenges, Opportunities & Solutions. National Wildlife Federation. https://azwildlife.org/resources/Documents/10-05-21_NWF_Outdoors%20_Climate_Report.pdf
Niles, M.T., K.B. Wirkkala, E.H. Belarmino, and F. Bertmann, 2021: Home food procurement impacts food security and diet quality during COVID-19. BMC Public Health, 21 (1), 945. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10960-0
Smith, E., S. Ahmed, V. Dupuis, M. Running Crane, M. Eggers, M. Pierre, K. Flagg, and C. Byker Shanks, 2019: Contribution of wild foods to diet, food security, and cultural values amidst climate change. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 9 (B), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2019.09b.011
Norton-Smith, K., K. Lynn, K. Chief, K. Cozzetto, J. Donatuto, M.H. Redsteer, L.E. Kruger, J. Maldonado, C. Viles, and K.P. Whyte, 2016: Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-944. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, 136 pp. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/53156
Morton, J.F., 2007: The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104 (50), 19680–19685. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701855104
Rodríguez-Cruz, L.A., M. Moore, and M.T. Niles, 2021: Puerto Rican farmers’ obstacles toward recovery and adaptation strategies after Hurricane Maria: A mixed-methods approach to understanding adaptive capacity. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5, 662918. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.662918
Lovell, S.T., J. Hayman, H. Hemmelgarn, A.A. Hunter, and J.R. Taylor, 2021: Community orchards for food sovereignty, human health, and climate resilience: Indigenous roots and contemporary applications. Forests, 12 (11), 1533. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12111533
ERS, 2016: American Diet Includes Many High-Value Imported Products. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, accessed February 21 2022. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartid=58398
ERS, 2019: Nearly Two-Thirds of U.S. Agricultural Imports Consist of Horticultural and Tropical Products. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, accessed February 21 2022. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartid=58362
Lin, X., P.J. Ruess, L. Marston, and M. Konar, 2019: Food flows between counties in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 14 (8), 084011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab29ae
Crippa, M., E. Solazzo, D. Guizzardi, F. Monforti-Ferrario, F.N. Tubiello, and A. Leip, 2021: Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2 (3), 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9
EPA, 2021: From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste. EPA 600-R21 171. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. https://www.epa.gov/land-research/farm-kitchen-environmental-impacts-us-food-waste
Read, Q.D., S. Brown, A.D. Cuéllar, S.M. Finn, J.A. Gephart, L.T. Marston, E. Meyer, K.A. Weitz, and M.K. Muth, 2020: Assessing the environmental impacts of halving food loss and waste along the food supply chain. Science of The Total Environment, 712, 136255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136255
Cromartie, J., 2022: Population & Migration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, accessed May 19, 2022. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/population-migration/
FRB of St. Louis, 2021: Investing in Rural Prosperity. Dumont, A. and D.P. Davis, Eds. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. https://www.stlouisfed.org/community-development/publications/invest-in-rural
Cutter, S.L., K.D. Ash, and C.T. Emrich, 2016: Urban–rural differences in disaster resilience. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106 (6), 1236–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1194740
Jerch, R., M.E. Kahn, and G.C. Lin, 2020: Local Public Finance Dynamics and Hurricane Shocks. Working Paper 28050. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28050
Liao, Y. and C. Kousky, 2022: The fiscal impacts of wildfires on California municipalities. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 9 (3), 455–493. https://doi.org/10.1086/717492
Fannin, J.M., 2018: Ch. 15. Financial resilience of local governments impacted by natural disasters: A framework for calculating climate change risk and liability. In: Addressing Climate Change at the Community Level in the United States. Lachapelle, P.R. and D.E. Albrecht, Eds. Routledge, 232–242. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351211727
Jensen, J.K., 2009: Climate Change and Rural Communities in the U.S. Rural Policy Research Institute, 13 pp. https://rupri.org/wp-content/uploads/Climate_Change_Brief.pdf
FEMA, 2020: National Risk Index: Primer. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_national-risk-index_primer.pdf
Yabe, T., P.S.C. Rao, S.V. Ukkusuri, and S.L. Cutter, 2022: Toward data-driven, dynamical complex systems approaches to disaster resilience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119 (8), e2111997119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111997119
Cain, C., 2021: Ch. 33. Developing climatic capacity in rural places. In: Investing In Rural Prosperity. Dumont, A. and D.P. Davis, Eds. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 475–486. https://www.stlouisfed.org/-/media/project/frbstl/stlouisfed/files/pdfs/community-development/investing-rural/chapters/chapter33.pdf
Cutter, S.L., K.D. Ash, and C.T. Emrich, 2014: The geographies of community disaster resilience. Global Environmental Change, 29, 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.005
Cheung, W.W.L. and T.L. Frölicher, 2020: Marine heatwaves exacerbate climate change impacts for fisheries in the northeast Pacific. Scientific Reports, 10 (1), 6678. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63650-z
NMFS, 2022: Fishery Disaster Determinations. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, accessed May 19, 2022. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/funding-and-financial-services/fishery-disaster-determinations
Peterson Williams, M.J., B. Robbins Gisclair, E. Cerny-Chipman, M. LeVine, and T. Peterson, 2022: The heat is on: Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod and climate-ready fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 79 (2), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsab032
McIlgorm, A., S. Hanna, G. Knapp, P. Le Floc’H, F. Millerd, and M. Pan, 2010: How will climate change alter fishery governanceʔ Insights from seven international case studies. Marine Policy, 34 (1), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.06.004
Szymkowiak, M. and S. Kasperski, 2021: Sustaining an Alaska coastal community: Integrating place based well-being indicators and fisheries participation. Coastal Management, 49 (1), 107–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846165
Leibensperger, C., P. Yang, Q. Zhao, S. Wei, and X. Cai, 2021: The synergy between stakeholders for cellulosic biofuel development: Perspectives, opportunities, and barriers. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 137, 110613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110613
Proctor, K.W., G.S. Murthy, and C.W. Higgins, 2021: Agrivoltaics align with Green New Deal goals while supporting investment in the US’ rural economy. Sustainability, 13 (1), 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010137
Briske, D.D., J.P. Ritten, A.R. Campbell, T. Klemm, and A.E.H. King, 2021: Future climate variability will challenge rangeland beef cattle production in the Great Plains. Rangelands, 43 (1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rala.2020.11.001
Franzluebbers, A.J. and M.H. Poore, 2021: Tall fescue management and environmental influences on soil, surface residue, and forage properties. Agronomy Journal, 113 (2), 2029–2043. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20577
Nouri, A., D.C. Yoder, M. Raji, S. Ceylan, S. Jagadamma, J. Lee, F.R. Walker, X. Yin, J. Fitzpatrick, B. Trexler, P. Arelli, and A.M. Saxton, 2021: Conservation agriculture increases the soil resilience and cotton yield stability in climate extremes of the southeast US. Communications Earth & Environment, 2 (1), 155. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00223-6
ERS. 2022: Annual Cash Receipts by Commodity. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?id=17832
Dayer, A.A., S.H. Lutter, K.A. Sesser, C.M. Hickey, and T. Gardali, 2018: Private landowner conservation behavior following participation in voluntary incentive programs: Recommendations to facilitate behavioral persistence. Conservation Letters, 11 (2), e12394. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12394
Prokopy, L.S., K. Floress, J.G. Arbuckle, S.P. Church, F.R. Eanes, Y. Gao, B.M. Gramig, P. Ranjan, and A.S. Singh, 2019: Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: Evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 74 (5), 520. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.74.5.520
Prokopy, L.S., K. Floress, D. Klotthor-Weinkauf, and A. Baumgart-Getz, 2008: Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 63 (5), 300. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.63.5.300
Ranjan, P., S.P. Church, K. Floress, and L.S. Prokopy, 2019: Synthesizing conservation motivations and barriers: What have we learned from qualitative studies of farmers’ behaviors in the United States? Society & Natural Resources, 32 (11), 1171–1199. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1648710
Conant, R.T., C.E.P. Cerri, B.B. Osborne, and K. Paustian, 2017: Grassland management impacts on soil carbon stocks: A new synthesis. Ecological Applications, 27 (2), 662–668. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1473
Franzluebbers, A.J., 2010: Achieving soil organic carbon sequestration with conservation agricultural systems in the southeastern United States. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 74 (2), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2009.0079
Rizzo, G., J.P. Monzon, F.A. Tenorio, R. Howard, K.G. Cassman, and P. Grassini, 2022: Climate and agronomy, not genetics, underpin recent maize yield gains in favorable environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119 (4), e2113629119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2113629119
Snyder, C.S., T.W. Bruulsema, T.L. Jensen, and P.E. Fixen, 2009: Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 133 (3), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.021
Aubert, B.A., A. Schroeder, and J. Grimaudo, 2012: IT as enabler of sustainable farming: An empirical analysis of farmers' adoption decision of precision agriculture technology. Decision Support Systems, 54 (1), 510–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.07.002
Delgado, J.A., N.M. Short, D.P. Roberts, and B. Vandenberg, 2019: Big data analysis for sustainable agriculture on a geospatial cloud framework. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3, 54. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00054
Guinée, J.B., R. Heijungs, G. Huppes, A. Zamagni, P. Masoni, R. Buonamici, T. Ekvall, and T. Rydberg, 2011: Life cycle assessment: Past, present, and future. Environmental Science & Technology, 45 (1), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1021/es101316v
Prasad, R., A. Bhattacharyya, and Q.D. Nguyen, 2017: Nanotechnology in sustainable agriculture: Recent developments, challenges, and perspectives. Frontiers in Microbiology, 8, 1014. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01014
Howden, S.M., J.-F. Soussana, F.N. Tubiello, N. Chhetri, M. Dunlop, and H. Meinke, 2007: Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104 (50), 19691–19696. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701890104
Bünemann, E.K., G. Bongiorno, Z. Bai, R.E. Creamer, G. De Deyn, R. de Goede, L. Fleskens, V. Geissen, T.W. Kuyper, P. Mäder, M. Pulleman, W. Sukkel, J.W. van Groenigen, and L. Brussaard, 2018: Soil quality–A critical review. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 120, 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.01.030
Qiao, L., X. Wang, P. Smith, J. Fan, Y. Lu, B. Emmett, R. Li, S. Dorling, H. Chen, S. Liu, T.G. Benton, Y. Wang, Y. Ma, R. Jiang, F. Zhang, S. Piao, C. Mϋller, H. Yang, Y. Hao, W. Li, and M. Fan, 2022: Soil quality both increases crop production and improves resilience to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 12 (6), 574–580. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01376-8
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2015: A Framework for Assessing Effects of the Food System. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 444 pp. https://doi.org/10.17226/18846
Letta, M. and R.S.J. Tol, 2019: Weather, climate and total factor productivity. Environmental and Resource Economics, 73 (1), 283–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-018-0262-8
Janssens, C., P. Havlík, T. Krisztin, J. Baker, S. Frank, T. Hasegawa, D. Leclère, S. Ohrel, S. Ragnauth, E. Schmid, H. Valin, N. Van Lipzig, and M. Maertens, 2020: Global hunger and climate change adaptation through international trade. Nature Climate Change, 10 (9), 829–835. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0847-4
STACCWG, 2021: The Status of Tribes and Climate Change Report. Marks-Marino, D., Ed. Northern Arizona University, Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals, Flagstaff, AZ. http://nau.edu/stacc2021
Fujimori, S., T. Iizumi, T. Hasegawa, J.y. Takakura, K. Takahashi, and Y. Hijioka, 2018: Macroeconomic impacts of climate change driven by changes in crop yields. Sustainability, 10 (10), 3673. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103673
Caro, J.C., P. Valizadeh, A. Correa, A. Silva, and S.W. Ng, 2020: Combined fiscal policies to promote healthier diets: Effects on purchases and consumer welfare. PLoS ONE, 15 (1), e0226731. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226731
Ali Bhuttor, Z., 2019: Agriculture & America’s Rural Economy. Harvest Returns. https://www.harvestreturns.com/blog/2019/7/15/agriculture-americas-rural-economy
NCSL, 2020: Challenges Facing Rural Communities. National Conference of State Legislatures. https://www.ncsl.org/agriculture-and-rural-development/challenges-facing-rural-communities
Arjomand, S. and D. Haight, 2017: Greener Fields: Combating Climate Change by Keeping Land in Farming in New York. American Farmland Trust. https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/greener-fields-combating-climate-change-by-keeping-land-in-farming-in-new-york/
NALC, 2022: Conservation Programs. National Agricultural Law Center, accessed May 19, 2022. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/research-by-topic/conservation-programs/
Bush, H., J. Leonard, C. Metrick, and J. Wilson, 2019: Investing to Revitalize Rural America: Practical Ways to Tackle the Growing Urban/Rural Divide. Cornerstone Capital Group, 25 pp. https://www.pathstone.com/investing-to-revitalize-rural-america/
Coffin, A.W., F. Akhter, M.A. Drummond, and D.R. Huggins, 2022: Editorial: Rural land change and the capacity for ecosystem conservation and sustainable production in North America. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 850424. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.850424
Dabson, B., 2020: Equitable Recovery and Resilience in Rural America. The Aspen Institute, 17 pp. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/equitable-recovery-and-resilience-in-rural-america/
Inungu, J.N. and M.J. Minelli, 2022: Foundations of Rural Public Health in America, 1st ed. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 528 pp. https://www.jblearning.com/catalog/productdetails/9781284182453
Johnson, K.M. and D.T. Lichter, 2019: Rural depopulation: Growth and decline processes over the past century. Rural Sociology, 84 (1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12266
Parker, K., J.M. Horowitz, A. Brown, R. Fry, D. Cohn, and R. Igielnik, 2018: Demographic and Economic Trends in Urban, Suburban and Rural Communities. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/
Horney, J., M. Nguyen, D. Salvesen, C. Dwyer, J. Cooper, and P. Berke, 2017: Assessing the quality of rural hazard mitigation plans in the southeastern United States. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 37 (1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x16628605
Jayawardhan, S., 2017: Vulnerability and climate change induced human displacement. Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development, 17 (1), 103–142. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26188784
Johnson, E., J. Bell, D. Coker, E. Hertz, N. Labarge, and G. Blake, 2018: A lifeline and social vulnerability analysis of sea level rise impacts on rural coastal communities. Shore and Beach, 86, 36–44. https://asbpa.org/publications/shore-and-beach/shore-beach-vol-86-no-4-fall-2018-abstracts/
Shen, S., R.H. Chang, K. Kim, and M. Julian, 2022: Challenges to maintaining disaster relief supply chains in island communities: Disaster preparedness and response in Honolulu, Hawai’i. Natural Hazards, 114, 1829–1855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05449-x
Abrash Walton, A., J. Marr, M.J. Cahillane, and K. Bush, 2021: Building community resilience to disasters: A review of interventions to improve and measure public health outcomes in the northeastern United States. Sustainability, 13 (21), 11699. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111699
Gibson, A., P. Fletcher, and M.H. McSweeney-Feld, 2018: Disaster preparedness and age-friendly cities and communities: An opportunity to impact community resilience. Innovation in Aging, 2 (suppl_1), 46–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igy023.172
Jones, B.A., 2021: Can community resilience to disaster be taught? International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management, 10 (4), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijrcm.2021100105
Mayer, B., 2019: A review of the literature on community resilience and disaster recovery. Current Environmental Health Reports, 6 (3), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-019-00239-3
Wilson, L.A., 2022: Ch. 2. Resilience and sustainability development: Lessons from climate change adaptation research. In: Research Anthology on Environmental and Societal Impacts of Climate Change. Information Resources Management Association, Ed. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 17–43. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-3686-8.ch002
Eisenberg, D., T. Seager, and D.L. Alderson, 2019: Rethinking resilience analytics. Risk Analysis, 39 (9), 1870–1884. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13328
Hong, B., B.J. Bonczak, A. Gupta, and C.E. Kontokosta, 2021: Measuring inequality in community resilience to natural disasters using large-scale mobility data. Nature Communications, 12 (1), 1870. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22160-w
Kontokosta, C.E. and A. Malik, 2018: The resilience to emergencies and disasters index: Applying big data to benchmark and validate neighborhood resilience capacity. Sustainable Cities and Society, 36, 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.10.025
Parker, E., L. Tach, and C. Robertson, 2022: Do federal place-based policies improve economic opportunity in rural communities? RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 8 (4), 125. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2022.8.4.06
Shambaugh, R. and R. Nunn, 2018: Place-Based Policies for Shared Economic Growth. The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/place-based-policies-for-shared-economic-growth/
ERS, 2022: Rural Poverty & Well-Being. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, accessed May 19, 2022. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-poverty-well-being/
Niccolai, A.R., S. Damaske, and J. Park, 2022: We won’t be able to find jobs here: How growing up in rural America shapes decisions about work. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 8 (4), 87. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2022.8.4.04
Sorensen, A.A., J. Freedgood, J. Dempsey, and D.M. Theobald, 2018: Farms Under Threat: The State of America’s Farmland. American Farmland Trust. https://farmlandinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/05/AFT_FUT_SAF_2020final.pdf
Theobald, D.M., I. Leinwand, J.J. Anderson, V. Landau, and B.G. Dickson, 2019: Loss and Fragmentation of Natural Lands in the Conterminous U.S. from 2001 to 2017. Conservation Science Partners, 9 pp. https://www.csp-inc.org/public/CSP%20Disappearing%20US%20Exec%20Summary%20011819.pdf
Thiede, B.C., D.T. Lichter, and T. Slack, 2018: Working, but poor: The good life in rural America? Journal of Rural Studies, 59, 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.02.007
Clark, S., S. Harper, and B. Weber, 2022: Growing up in rural America. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 8 (3), 1. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2022.8.3.01
HRSA, 2022: Defining Rural Population. Health Resources and Services Administration, accessed September 7, 2022. https://www.hrsa.gov/rural-health/about-us/what-is-rural
Goetz, S.J., M.D. Partridge, and H.M. Stephens, 2018: The economic status of rural America in the President Trump era and beyond. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 40 (1), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppx061

Previous Chapter

View All Figures

Next Chapter

Likelihood

Virtually Certain	Very Likely	Likely	As Likely as Not	Unlikely	Very Unikely	Exceptionally Unlikely
99%–100%	90%–100%	66%–100%	33%–66%	0%–33%	0%–10%	0%–1%

Confidence Level

Very High	High	Medium	Low
Strong evidence (established theory, multiple sources, well-documented and accepted methods, etc.) High consensus	Moderate evidence (several sources, some consistency, methods vary and/or documentation limited, etc.) Medium consensus	Suggestive evidence (a few sources, limited consistency, methods emerging, etc.) Competing schools of thought	Inconclusive evidence (limited sources, extrapolations, inconsistent findings, poor documentation and/or methods not tested, etc.) Disagreement or lack of opinions among experts

Looking for U.S. government information and services?

Visit USA.gov

INTRODUCTION

Agricultural Adaptation Increases Resilience in an Evolving Landscape

Climate Change Disrupts Our Food Systems in Uneven Ways

Climate Change Impacts on Food System Security

Socioeconomic Costs of Climate Change in Food Systems

Climate Change Impacts on Food Security Are Distributed Unevenly

Rural Communities Face Unique Challenges and Opportunities

Climate Change Risk in Rural America

Rural Community Resilience

TRACEABLE ACCOUNTS

Process Description

KEY MESSAGES

KM 11.1

Agricultural Adaptation Increases Resilience in an Evolving Landscape

Description of Evidence Base

Agricultural Production at Risk

Adoption of Agroecological Practices

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Mitigation via Agroecological Management

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

KM 11.2

Climate Change Disrupts Our Food Systems in Uneven Ways

Description of Evidence Base

Food System Resilience

Socioeconomic Costs of Climate Change in Food Production

Implications of Climate Change for Food Prices

Climate Change Impacts on Food Security Are Distributed Unevenly

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Socioeconomic Costs of Climate Change in Food Production

Implications of Climate Change for Food Prices

Climate Change Impacts on Food Security Are Distributed Unevenly

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

KM 11.3

Rural Communities Face Unique Challenges and Opportunities

Description of Evidence Base

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

REFERENCES

Likelihood

Confidence Level