The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: after a brief overview of the conceptual background and methodology, we articulate the dynamic problem (i.e., select the system’s boundary) and conceptualize the European food system from a feedback perspective. Next, we qualitatively analyze the food system’s vulnerabilities by focusing on the interplay between internal structure and feedback processes of the system and external disturbances. Finally, we discuss organic farming as an alternative approach and close the paper with conclusions.

In this paper, we adopt a system dynamics approach [ 45 ] to understand the European food system’s vulnerabilities and to assess the potential of organic farming to reduce them and enhance its resilience [ 15 ] through sustainability lenses. System dynamics is a computer-aided modelling approach to policy analysis and design that takes an explicit feedback perspective and enables capturing the dynamic complexity of SES, such as the food systems [ 40 42 ]. This approach is based on the underlying assumption that the internal structure and the feedback processes in a system determine its dynamic behavior over time and how it responds to disturbances [ 15 45 ]. By adopting this approach we do not provide new data, introduce new variables or measure the strengths of a particular causal-effect link. Rather, our main contribution is the reorganization of existing knowledge and the promotion of structural insights from variables already established in the literature. More specifically, we combine an in-depth literature review and secondary data analysis with system dynamics diagramming tools to fulfill three objectives. The first objective is to understand the different sources of vulnerabilities in the European food system based on conventional agriculture by analyzing its internal structure and feedback processes, where the entry points for disturbances are, and the mechanisms by which the disturbances are transmitted throughout the system. The second objective is to assess whether organic farming is a viable strategy to reduce the vulnerabilities and enhance the resilience of the European food system. The third objective is to illustrate throughout the analyses how the system dynamics approach can address some of the current challenges posed by SES modelling. Ultimately, we provide decision makers—e.g., policymakers, NGOs, farm associations, etc.—at EU level with a framework that could support them in developing more effective strategies for the European food system.

Conceptualizing and modelling of SES has the potential to assist decision makers in managing complex human-environment relationships that form the basis of food systems [ 42 43 ]. The development of SES models is, however, challenging as it requiresintegration of knowledge scattered across many disciplines on variables and their relationships from both the social and the ecological domains as well as explicit modelling of feedbacks between the social and ecological systems along with their cross-scale and cross-level interactions [ 38 44 ]. There are various approaches to the interdisciplinary modelling of SES with differing underlying assumptions and anchored in different scientific perspectives, so there is always the likelihood that another model of a particular food system might give diverse outcomes [ 43 44 ].

With regard to the nature of the assessments on which the debate draws, the majority is based on comparisons of outcomes delivered by organic versus conventional farming system (e.g., crop yields, profitability, environmental impacts, etc.) (e.g., [ 21 33 ]) as well as individual causal connections (e.g., the effect of organic farming practices on biodiversity, food quality or crop yield, etc.) ([ 34 36 ]), at a given point in time. A system’s perspective over time is, however, missing. Food systems, no matter whether they are based on conventional, organic or any other food production approach, are dynamic and complex social-ecological systems (SES) [ 37 ]. Their structures are formed by many internal and external variables which interact with each other often across multiple, hierarchically linked subsystems [ 38 ] and through feedback mechanisms to generate outcomes [ 39 40 ]. These feedback mechanisms are largely masked to farmers, consumers and policymakers [ 11 ]. They also involve nonlinearities, time delays and accumulations, which complicate information and material flows in the food system and hence lead to counterintuitive system behavior [ 15 41 ]. Inherent to these features of food systems such as SES are the synergies and trade-offs between outcomes that they produce [ 37 41 ]. Given the dynamic complexity inherent in food systems, it is not immediately apparent where and how the vulnerabilities to disturbances occur in the system and how resilience is generated. Therefore, it is challenging for decision makers to design and implement effective strategies to farming and other aspects related to food systems that would reduce its vulnerabilities and enhance its resilience [ 15 ].

Given this development, an important question that arises is whether organic farming can reduce the vulnerabilities and enhance the resilience of the European food system and hence deliver sustainable and equitable FNS? Organic farming seems to be a promising approach as it is built on four systemic principles formulated by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM): “health”, “ecology”, “fairness” and “care”. Organic farming thus aims to produce wholesome food in an environmentally-friendly way, as well as to contribute to economic sustainability and social justice [ 19 21 ]. In research and public debate, however, organic farming has a history of being contentious [ 21 ]. At the same time, understanding and operationalization of the concepts of the food system’s vulnerability and resilience themselves is limited [ 22 ]. On the one hand, many studies provide evidence for organic farming’s ability to balance the multiple sustainability goals [ 19 21 ] and build resilience to disturbances, especially at farm level [ 23 27 ]. On the other hand, critics consider organic farming as an inefficient approach to FNS, one that will become irrelevant in the future, because of too many shortcomings and poor solutions to agriculture problems [ 4 21 ]. Furthermore, some argue that organic farming undergoes ‘conventionalization’ and is a mere substitution of inputs rather than a redesign of farming operations [ 28 ]. Consequently, organic farming may violate many of the ecologically, socially and economically progressive principles originally valued [ 20 28 ], further exacerbating vulnerabilities and undermining resilience of the European food system [ 5 ].

In order to cope with the challenges and uncertainties, we need a new approach to agriculture in the food system [ 7 15 ]. Such an approach must change both the farming practices as well as the socio-economic organization of food production to increase the food system’s resilience and its ability to deliver sustainable and equitable FNS today and in the future [ 1 9 ]. One of the potential candidates is organic farming [ 5 16 ], which from all the alternate approaches is the only one that has been regulated and supported at EU level by a vast array of legal, financial and knowledge-based policy instruments for several decades [ 17 18 ]. Accordingly, the number of organic farms, the extent of organically farmed land, funding devoted to organic farming and the market size for organic foods have steadily increased across Europe [ 18 ].

These FNS achievements in Europe are, however, far from ideal and looking ahead Europeans may not be as food secure as they perceive themselves to be. Most of the European consumers rely on a complex system, in which conventional farmers, driven by profit maximization, are continuously intensifying, specializing, standardizing, expanding their operations and becoming even more dependent on the application of off-farm sourced modern tools such as chemicals to manage fertility and pests, diesel-powered machines, biotechnology and proprietary seeds [ 2 ]. These processes and practices, in turn, feed back to the environment and to society with numerous unintended consequences,, soil degradation, nutrient runoff, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, biodiversity loss, pesticide-born health damage and socio-economic decline in rural communities. These consequences pose risks to FNS and well-being of future generations [ 4 ]. Moreover, much of the productivity advances and associated trends in the European food system were realized in times of relatively stable climate, when natural resources seemed to be infinite, and the human population was considerably smaller [ 5 6 ]. In the face of already observed changing climate, deteriorating natural resources, growing population largely driven by migration as well as many other emerging challenges and uncertainties, there are growing concerns that the European food system is vulnerable and thus unable to withstand disturbances without undesirable outcomes [ 1 14 ].

Food is of key relevance to human health and survival. Europeans take their food and nutrition security (FNS) for granted and rely on a food system in which most of the food is produced by conventional farmers subsidized from the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) [ 1 ]. Over the last decades this system, hugely depending on public support, has achieved tremendous improvements in productivity [ 2 ]. As a result, nowadays more food is supplied than demanded at historically low prices. This allows European consumers to spend only a small percentage of their household disposable income on food [ 1 3 ].

2. Methodology: System Dynamics Structural Thinking Tools for Food System and Vulnerability Analysis

39,40,46,39, Food systems are coupled SES formed by many internal and external variables that are interconnected through feedback processes at various scales and levels and that determine FNS along with other environmental and socio-economic outcomes [ 38 47 ]. When exposed to various and unforeseen disturbances, the emergence of undesirable outcomes indicates that somewhere in the food system a critical capacity is failing and that the structure and processes driving the functioning of the system make it vulnerable [ 47 ]. We thus define vulnerability as a system’s inability to respond to disturbances without generating undesirable outcomes. In vulnerable food systems, even small disturbances may cause detrimental changes from which it is difficult to recover [ 15 47 ]. Resilience, on the other hand, is the capacity of a food system to withstand disturbances and continue providing the same or possibly even improved desirable outcomes [ 47 ]. Vulnerability and resilience are dynamic and normative concepts in the sense that the value judgement of what is desirable and what constitutes improvement or damage over what period of time depends on the observer [ 47 48 ]. Hence, to assess whether a food system is resilient or vulnerable we have to define: (1) the boundaries of the system (vulnerability/resilience of what); (2) relevant disturbances (vulnerability/resilience to what) and (3) what constitutes desirable change over what time frame and to whom [ 47 48 ]. We address these questions by adopting a system dynamics approach.

49,49, System dynamics is an approach designed to examine and manage complex systems that change over time. It is applicable to any dynamic systems of which integral features are interdependence, mutual interaction and feedback loops [ 45 50 ]. System dynamics modelling is an iterative process that begins with defining dynamic problem, proceeds through developing dynamic hypothesis and modeling stages, to building confidence in the model and analyzing policy implications [ 45 50 ].

51, Conceptually, the central principle of this modelling approach is that the endogenous structure of a system determines its dynamic behavior over time and how it responds to disturbances and policy changes [ 16 46 ]. Thus, in system dynamics the emphasis is given to a continuous view (i.e., ‘the large picture’), shifting the attention from events to behavior to structure. The endogenous point of view implies that the causes are contained within the internal structure of the system itself, while exogenous disturbances are seen at most as triggers of system behavior. Feedback loops are central for conceptualizing the internal structure of complex systems. These closed loops of causal links involve delays and nonlinearities as well as processes of accumulation and draining. The internal structure of a system is a combination of such feedback loops, which by interacting with each other can generate all kinds of dynamic patterns of behavior. However, the concept of underlying feedback loops is not exhaustive for explaining the dynamic behavior of a system. The explanatory power of feedback understanding lies in the shifting interplay between loops, implying that different parts of a system become dominant over the others at different times [ 50 52 ].

53,54,55, The system dynamics methodology provides structural thinking tools—closed boundary, feedback loops, stocks, flows, etc.—used to communicate the boundary of the system and to represent its causal structure in a structural diagram. The goal of a system dynamics modeler is to assemble such a structural diagram that can endogenously, by itself, explain the dynamic problem. The closed boundary refers to the effort to view a system as causally closed as opposed to the open and closed systems in the general system sense. In turn, causality refers to causes as pressures which produce aggregated patterns of behavior rather than events, actions, individual stimuli and decisions [ 52 ]. This implies that feedback processes between levels (such as agriculture production and consumption) can be captured providing that the individual levels are modelled in an aggregated way [ 41 ]. The causally closed system boundary identifies the endogenous perspective as the feedback view pressed to an extreme. A causally closed structural diagram provides important qualitative insights into the system’s behavior [ 15 55 ] and can facilitate the identification of leverage points for intervention in the system [ 15 ]. Based on structural diagrams computer simulation models can be created to experiment on how the system behaves under unanticipated disturbances or policy interventions [ 15 56 ].

52,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62, decisions are not entirely ‘free will’ but are strongly conditioned by the environment ” [58,62,62,58,62, The theoretical assumptions of system dynamics have been addressed in several studies (e.g., [ 51 63 ]), but usually system dynamists take them for granted. System dynamics appears to be ontologically a realist approach, as models are presented as abstract representations of the real physical and information flows in a system, with feedbacks implying that, “” [ 51 ]. However, this objective stance of system dynamics models mixes with subjectivity, as the purpose of system dynamics is also to engage with ‘mental models’. These mental models range from hard, quantitative information to more subjective, or even judgmental aspects of a given situation [ 57 59 ]. In consequence, a model should be focused around a particular issue (dynamic problem). The focus on trying to understand the real-world phenomena reflects the practical engineering origin of system dynamics [ 58 ]. From social theoretic perspective, however, divergent practice within this field makes it difficult to place it in one paradigm. Superficially, system dynamics can be positioned within the functionalist sociology paradigm, its ideas seeming to be a version of social systems theory [ 58 63 ]. However, the practice of system dynamics, and hence its theory in use, has many features of more interactionist paradigm and also some links to interpretativism [ 58 63 ]. The uncertainty related to positioning system dynamics within a social theoretic perspective leads to the conclusion that this approach appears to be best locatable within those theories that try to integrate the agency and structure views of the social realm (for detailed analysis see [ 52 63 ]).

any examination of food supply vulnerability to disturbances, or ability to withstand disturbances that could lead to food supply disruption, should start by examining the food system’s components, causal connections, and feedback mechanisms and describing system interactions in terms of material and information flows that pass changes in one component on to other components ” [ In this paper, we adapt the approach taken by Stave and Kopainsky [ 15 ]. They used system dynamics to promote qualitative structural insights on mechanisms and pathways of food supply vulnerability, arguing that “” [ 15 ]. The approach taken in this study consists of three iterative steps inspired by the system dynamics modelling process: 1. problem articulation; 2. system conceptualization as well as 3. vulnerability and policy analysis [ 45 49 ]. The implementation of these steps addresses the abovementioned three prerequisites for vulnerability/resilience assessment and hence leads to qualitative structural insights into the food system’ vulnerability/resilience as presented in Figure 1 . Quantitative analysis of system behavior when exposed to disturbances would require a fully specified computer simulation model and is beyond the scope of this paper.

45, The starting point of a system dynamics analysis is the identification of the dynamic problem at stake, that is, the pattern of behavior of the system’s outcome of interest, unfolding over time, which shows how the problem arose and how it might evolve in the future [ 15 49 ]. The initial articulation of the dynamic problem predetermines the system’s boundary and the scope of the iterative modeling effort.

To define the dynamic problem in our study and accordingly select the boundary of the modelled food system we analyzed relevant literature and time series of secondary data. Prior to an in-depth search in electronic databases, a general Google Scholar search was run to gather key documents. These papers were used to collect terms and phrases pertaining to the performance of conventional and organic farming in relation to their contribution to sustainable development as well as drivers of change influencing the food system in general, and of agricultural production in particular. Based on the terms and phrases we conducted an in-depth search from November 2015 to February 2016 without any restrictions on publication dates to ensure that the broadest set of data could be captured, yet with imposed limitation to English language publications only. The search strategy was applied to four databases: Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY, USA), Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), ScienceDirect (Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and Organic E-prints (International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems, Tjele, Denmark). In addition, we searched relevant organizational websites (e.g., European Commission, International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement EU, Food and Agriculture Organization) in order to capture the grey literature. Reference lists of included publications were also hand-searched for additional relevant studies. The content of the pertinent papers was then manually reviewed with support of automatic word frequency and text search queries in NVivo11® (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia) (a software for qualitative data analysis) to elicit a list of key indicative outcomes of the European food systems based on conventional and/or organic agriculture along with related internal and external variables that are relevant for the subsequent analytical steps. The insights from literature and additional analyses of time series data obtained from EUROSTAT, FAOSTAT and FADN, allowed us to articulate the dynamic problem by specifying the several reference modes of historically observed trends in selected indicative outcomes of the European food system as well as of their desirable and undesirable developments in the face of disturbances. The analysis was conducted on a selection of outcomes being a simplified representation of the European food system’s performance from different stakeholders’ perspectives (e.g., price for consumer, profits for producers, etc.). We focused on the selective list of indicative outcomes to demonstrate the way in which the system dynamics approach can be used to study synergies and trade-offs in outcomes relevant for different stakeholders. For a comprehensive analysis many more outcomes delivered by the European food system and valued by various stakeholders would have to be further diversified.

Once the dynamic problem has been articulated over an appropriate time horizon, system dynamics modelers specify the model boundary by conceptualizing the system. The boundary of a system is defined in a causal rather than in a geographical way. It implies that system dynamists look for processes that explain observed or anticipated problematic behavior (the dynamic problem), irrespective of where these processes unfold. In system dynamics language, the modelers formulate a theory, called a dynamic hypothesis, which provides an endogenous explanation of the dynamics characterizing the problem at stake in terms of the underlying causal structure of the system. It is a hypothesis as it is always an interim, working theory, subject to reconsideration or abandonment as the knowledge base about the real world develops [ 45 49 ]. The concentration on endogenous explanations does not mean that exogenous variables are excluded from the model. They are included in models, but each of the candidate for an exogenous variable is carefully examined, to determine whether there is any relevant feedback from the endogenous variables to the candidate. If so, the boundary of the model is extended and the candidate exogenous variable is modelled endogenously [ 45 ].

To communicate the system conceptualization a variety of tools can be used. These range from qualitative structural thinking tools (e.g., causal loop diagrams, stock and flow maps), which visually represent different types of variables and their interconnectedness, to operational tools, which express relationships between variables in terms of mathematical equations [ 15 ].

®(Ventana Systems Inc., Harvard, United States) (i.e., software for system dynamics modelling), in which we marked important feedback processes forming the endogenous explanation. Specifically, we built the system’s internal causal structure by tracing from the previously selected indicative food system outcomes (i.e., of which dynamic behavior was considered problematic) outward along the chains of cause and effect, variable-by-variable, rather than from system boundary inward. In developing our dynamic hypothesis we did not aim at explaining all possible dimensions of the food system outcomes. Instead, we focused on the key dimensions, represented by the selected indicative outcomes of the European food system, to exemplify how system dynamics structural thinking tools can be used to study complex food system issues. In our study, the development of dynamic hypothesis started with insights from the Sustainability Institute [ 64 ]. Further, the dynamic hypothesis was enriched with internal and external variables and the associated causal connections elicited from the in-depth literature review, analyzed time series data, theory and general knowledge. Guided by the dynamic problem, we conceptualized the European food system in the form of causal loop diagram drawn in Vensim DSS(Ventana Systems Inc., Harvard, United States) (i.e., software for system dynamics modelling), in which we marked important feedback processes forming the endogenous explanation. Specifically, we built the system’s internal causal structure by tracing from the previously selected indicative food system outcomes (i.e., of which dynamic behavior was considered problematic) outward along the chains of cause and effect, variable-by-variable, rather than from system boundary inward. In developing our dynamic hypothesis we did not aim at explaining all possible dimensions of the food system outcomes. Instead, we focused on the key dimensions, represented by the selected indicative outcomes of the European food system, to exemplify how system dynamics structural thinking tools can be used to study complex food system issues.

ceteris paribus , an increase in price leads to an increase in supply. If, on the other hand, supply is a cause and price is an effect, a negative link means that, all else equal, an increase in supply causes a decrease in price or vice versa a decrease in supply causes an increase in price. Arrows represent the causal links between variables, which indicate both the direction of causality and whether the variables change in the same—a positive link (+)—or in the opposite—a negative link (−)—direction ( Figure 2 ). For example, if price is a cause and supply is an effect, a positive link indicates that,, an increase in price leads to an increase in supply. If, on the other hand, supply is a cause and price is an effect, a negative link means that, all else equal, an increase in supply causes a decrease in price or vice versa a decrease in supply causes an increase in price.

When a feedback loop arises around two or more variables, we classify it either as a balancing (B; stabilizing, negative; Figure 2 a) or a reinforcing (R; amplifying, positive; Figure 2 b) feedback loop. To determine the polarity of the loops we trace the effect of change in one of the variables as it propagates around the loop. The classification rule is that if the feedback loop effect reinforces or amplifies the original change, it is a reinforcing loop (e.g., the more savings we have on a bank account, the more interest we earn and in turn the more savings we accumulate); if it counteracts or opposes the original change, it is a balancing loop (e.g., the higher the supply, the lower the price and in turn the lower the supply) [ 45 49 ]. Reinforcing are sources of growth, explosion, erosion, and collapse in systems. Balancing loops are self-correcting. For clearer and more insightful analysis, we also indicated in the causal loop diagrams important stocks in rectangles ( Figure 2 b). Stocks are accumulations, which characterize the state of the system and generate the information upon which decisions and actions are based. They create also inertia in systems that could either be source of disequilibrium dynamics (i.e., instability and oscillations) or filter out unwanted variability [ 45 ]. Other delays and flows are also inherent in the structural diagrams, but for readability purposes we did not signify them in any special form.

Once internal structure and feedback processes in the European food system that determine its outcomes were formulated, the resulting causal loop diagram guided the identification of entry points that expose the system to external drivers of change. Finally, we examined the systemic impacts of the internal processes and external unanticipated disturbances on the outcomes of the food system to assess qualitatively both (1) vulnerabilities of the European food systems and (2) the potential of organic farming to reduce the vulnerabilities and enhance resilience of the system. We assessed the direction of the change in the food system’s outcomes that internal processes and unexpected disturbances cause. Specifically, we analyzed how the disturbances could be either intensified or reduced throughout the system internal structure and change its outcomes.

By formulation of the internal causal structure and the identification of the external disturbances we did not aim to capture the complete, real, yet only vaguely understood European food system as a SES. Alternatively, we illustrate how system dynamics structural thinking tools can be used to study where complex food systems might be vulnerable to external disturbance and how these disturbances are transmitted throughout the internal feedback structure; more generally what kind of insights can result from taking such an approach and how it addresses some of the challenges involved in SES modelling.