Home and wild food procurement were associated with improved food security during the COVID-19 pandemic in two rural US states.

Both food insecurity and home and wild food procurement (HWFP), including gardening, increased in many countries during the COVID-19 pandemic; yet little evidence has demonstrated what impact HWFP had on food security. Using data from a representative sample of nearly 1000 residents in the two most rural US states (Vermont and Maine) conducted via an online survey in Spring/Summer 2021, as well as matching techniques, we compare food security outcomes among households who did and did not participate in HWFP in the first year of the pandemic. Nearly 60% of respondents engaged in HWFP in some way during the first year of the pandemic, with food insecure households more likely to do HWFP. Furthermore, HWFP early in the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with improved food security in the 9-12 months later, though these improvements were primarily associated with newly, not chronically, food insecure households. Newly and chronically food insecure households were more likely to want to continue these activities in the future, but also exhibited greater barriers to land access and costs associated with these activities. These results suggest that HWFP may provide food security improvements for certain households that utilize them, especially during crisis situations. Future research about HWFP should continue to explore multiple HWFP strategies, their barriers, and their potentially myriad relationships to food security, diet, and health outcomes, especially with longitudinal data.

A Mixed-Methods Approach to the Development of a Disaster Food Security Framework.

BACKGROUND: Limited research on food systems and food insecurity (FI) following disasters finds contextual differences in post-disaster food systems that shape dimensions of FI. Measurement limitations make it difficult to address FI and develop effective practices for disaster-affected communities. OBJECTIVE: To develop, validate, and test a Disaster Food Security Framework (DFSF). DESIGN: Mixed-methods approach was used, including in-depth interviews to understand lived experiences during disasters; expert panel input to validate DFSF designed using responses from in-depth interviews; and quantitative testing of robustness of DFSF using the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic as a disaster example. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: The in-depth interviews included participants from Vermont (n = 5), North Carolina (n = 3), and Oklahoma (n = 2) who had been living in those states during Hurricane Irene (2011), Hurricane Florence (2018), the Moore tornadoes (2013), and coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic (2020). The expert panel consisted of researchers and practitioners from different US geographical regions and food-related disciplines (n = 18). For the quantitative testing survey, data from 4 US states (New York, New Mexico, Vermont, and Maryland; n = 3,228) from the National Food Access and COVID Research Team was used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcomes from the in-depth interviews were dimensions of disaster FI, those from the expert panel was a content validity ratio, and those from the quantitative testing was the number of items and components to be included. ANALYSES PERFORMED: Inductive and deductive reasoning were using when reporting on the in-depth interviews and expert panel results, including frequencies. The quantitative testing was conducted using multiple correspondence analysis. RESULTS: The in-depth interviews revealed four dimensions of FI: availability (supply and donation), accessibility (economic, physical, and social), acceptability (preference and health), and agency (infrastructure and self-efficacy). The panel of experts reported high content validity for the DFSF and its dimensions (content validity ratio >0.42), thus giving higher credibility to the DFSF. Multiple correspondence analysis performed on 25 food-related variables identified one component with 13 indicators representing three of the four dimensions: availability, acceptability, and accessibility, but not agency.

Ecological Economics Beyond Markets.

Non-market practices and institutions make up much of every economy. Even in today's most developed capitalist societies, people produce things that are not for sale and allocate them through sharing, gifts, and redistribution rather than buying and selling. This article is about why and how ecological economists should study these non-market economies. Historically, markets only emerge when states forcibly create them; community members do not tend to spontaneously start selling each other goods and services. Markets work well for coordinating complex industrial webs to satisfy individual tastes, but they are not appropriate for governing the production or distribution of entities that are non-rival, non-excludable, not produced for sale, essential need satisfiers, or culturally important. Moreover, we argue, markets do not serve justice, sustainability, efficiency, or value pluralism, the foundations of ecological economics. We sketch an agenda for research on economic practices and institutions without markets by posing nine broad questions about non-market food systems and exploring the evidence and theory around each. By ignoring and demeaning non-market economies, researchers contribute to creating markets' dominance over social life. Observing, analyzing, theorizing, supporting, promoting, creating, and envisioning non-market economies challenges market hegemony.