This paper uses the Community Capitals Framework (CCF) to look at community change from a systems perspective. We find that social capital—both bonding and bridging—is the critical resource that reversed the downward spiral of loss to an upward spiral of hope—a process we call “spiraling-up.” Focusing on the example of a change process implemented in Nebraska, HomeTown Competitiveness, we delineate the assets invested, created, and expanded by the project. We also apply the CCF to understanding the flow among the capitals and the impact of this flow on community capacity to initiate and sustain a process of change, particularly in building social capital.

The Midwestern U.S. landscape is one of the most highly altered and intensively managed ecosystems in the country. The predominant crops grown are maize (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr]. They are typically grown as monocrops in a simple yearly rotation or with multiple years of maize (2 to 3) followed by a single year of soybean. This system is highly productive because the crops and management systems have been well adapted to the regional growing conditions through substantial public and private investment. Furthermore, markets and supporting infrastructure are highly developed for both crops. As maize and soybean production have intensified, a number of concerns have arisen due to the unintended environmental impacts on the ecosystem. Many areas across the Midwest are experiencing negative impacts on water quality, soil degradation, and increased flood risk due to changes in regional hydrology. The water quality impacts extend even further downstream. We propose the development of an innovative system for growing maize and soybean with perennial groundcover to recover ecosystem services historically provided naturally by predominantly perennial native plant communities. Reincorporating perennial plants into annual cropping systems has the potential of restoring ecosystem services without negatively impacting grain crop production and offers the prospect of increasing grain crop productivity through improving the biological functioning of the system.

Objective: This study aimed to identify and rank the different aspects of households’ vulnerability to food insecurity.Design: The data were collected by a standard online questionnaire. The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale was used to assess food insecurity levels, and first-order structural equation modelling was applied to determine factors that affect food insecurity. Seven dimensions of vulnerability were measured: economic, social, cultural, human, physical, psychology and information, using thirty-seven items extracted from the related literature review.Setting: This study was implemented in Tehran province in Iran.Participants: The sample included 392 families residing in Tehran province which was determined using random sampling.Results: About 61 % of the total sample faced food insecurity, at marginal, moderate and severe levels. Economic, psychological and human aspects of vulnerability had the highest effect on food insecurity during the initial COVID-19 lockdown.Conclusions: Authorities and policymakers must provide economic and financial support to vulnerable households. Abolition of US economic and financial sanctions imposed on Iran must be implemented to battle with COVID-19 in this country.

Food insecurity remains high in most of sub-Saharan African. That insecurity is made even more acute by the increasing scarcity and degradation of natural resources. Low soil fertility is a consistent problem faced by agriculturalists and herders. The dominant international thrust to increase food production has been to stimulate trade, enhanced by technology and its transfer. While international bodies acknowledge the importance of small farmers, they operate as if improving the technologies, trade regimes and value chains that are characteristic of industrial agriculture will have the same results in local ecosystems in developing countries. Price volatility makes access to purchased inputs more risky for smallholders and the governments that subsidize those inputs. The diverse local contexts that serve as the base of African agriculture are thus assumed to be overridden by technology. In contrast, a systems approach that focuses on sustainability of the local ecosystem, social and cultural relationships and economic security can be as, or more productive than industrial agriculture and have a much better opportunity to increase food security in developing countries. Such a systems-based shift in practices, such as the application of conservation agriculture and integrated systemic approaches in Millennium Villages, have potential of addressing household livelihood strategies and production issues in a sustainable, farmer-based way. Resource-conserving agriculture has been shown to increase yields in developing countries. Priority should be given to developing technologies that follow the systems principles of sustainable agriculture, integrating biological and ecological processes (such as nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation, soil regeneration and biodiversity) into the production processes; minimizing use of non-renewable inputs that cause harm to the environment or to the health of farmers and consumers; and making productive use of the knowledge and skills of farmers and their collective capacities to work together to solve common problems. A variety of models are on the ground in Africa, and there is political will in the African Union to increase investment in agriculture. What sort of investments, policy interventions and capacity building are more effective in increasing productivity and the well-being of agricultural producers? Are strategies aimed at reducing the number of people involved in farming and herding viable in the context of a stagnant world economy?