Abstract
Food insecurity in Nigeria has persisted for decades, resisting various agricultural policies and programmes since the 1970s. This study investigates the impacts of traditional agriculture (TA), sustainable agriculture (SA), and industrial agriculture (IA) on food security in Nigeria from 2000 to 2022, using a system dynamics modelling approach supported by optimization and linear programming techniques. The model also accounts for climate change and land resource dynamics, integrating data from Nigeria and nine comparable countries to enhance robustness. Results show that while crop yield increased over time, food security fluctuated due to factors including land degradation and uneven food distribution. The findings highlight that improving agricultural productivity alone is insufficient; sustainable practices, climate adaptation, and improved distribution systems are essential for long-term food security in Nigeria.
Keywords: Agricultural practices, Food security, System dynamics, Sustainable agriculture, Climate change, Land resources
Introduction
Background and problem statement
As the population grows, there is a greater demand for food, necessitating improved agricultural practices. However, the choice of agricultural practices (traditional agriculture, sustainable agriculture and industrial agriculture) has significant implications for food security, especially in the context of land resources and climate change (Onwe et al. [1]; Rahut et al. [2]; Pawlak and Kołodziejczak [3]). Research has shown that sustainable agricultural practice, which prioritizes soil health and ecosystem conservation, has long-term benefits for food security (FAO [4]). In contrast, industrial agriculture, while increasing yield, often leads to soil degradation and loss of biodiversity, posing risks to food security in the long-run (Pretty [5]). Furthermore, climate change has been identified as a major factor affecting crop productivity, food availability, and land resources (IPCC [6]). In fact, the four pillars of food security—availability, access, utilization, and stability—are variably affected by different agricultural practices and external pressures such as climate change.
Significance and knowledge gap
Despite several intervention programmes to improve agricultural productivity, Nigeria continues to face challenges related to food insecurity, fluctuating crop yields, and land degradation (Onwe et al. [1]; Eneh [7]; FAO [4]). There is the need for a comprehensive analysis to determine how traditional agriculture (TA), industrial agriculture (IA) and sustainable agriculture (IA) influence food security amist external factors such as climate change and land resources. Could an analysis of system dynamics longitudinal data provide insights for the effectiveness of different agricultural practices in addressing food security challenges to inform policy decisions aimed at improving food security and promoting sustainable agricultural practices in the country?
Previous studies often focused narrowly on productivity, neglecting how agricultural practice choices (TA, SA, IA) interact with land and climate factors to shape food security (Rahut et al. [2]; Pawlak and Kołodziejczak [3]; FAO [4]; Pretty [5]). Moreover, few works use system dynamics to simulate these interactions over time and explore policy implications specific to Nigeria.
This study was aimed at investigating how these factors influence food security in Nigeria, with a view to proposing solutions to food insecurity. Data used covered 2000–2022 period.
Study objectives
The specific objectives of the study were to:
evaluate the impact of traditional agriculture (TA), sustainable agriculture (SA) and industrial agriculture (IA) on food security in Nigeria;
assess the influence of climate change and land resources on food security outcomes;
develop a system dynamics model to simulate these relationships and quantify policy options.
Theoretical foundation
The analysis combines sustainable development theory (Brundtland Commission, [8]), agricultural economics, and system dynamics modelling. Sustainable development emphasizes balancing current agricultural productivity with future resource conservation. System dynamics provides tools for modelling nonlinear feedback among crop yield, food security, land, and climate change (Azar [9]).
Literature review
Agriculture advanced dramatically in the 1960s, leading to a green revolution. Notwithstanding, food insecurity, food crisis, chronic hunger and malnutrition threaten the life and well-being of billions of people, especially in low and middle-income countries (Sustainable Agriculture Network, [10]). One in eleven people in the world faced hunger in 2023. This amounted to 733 million people facing hunger in the world and one in five people facing hunger in Africa in 2023. Hunger numbers remain stubbornly high for three consecutive years (WHO, [11]; Rahut et al. [2]; Pawlak and Kołodziejczak [3]).
Rapid increase in population leads to rising demand for food and increasing pressure on supply of water, energy and land resources for agricultural productivity. People need to be food-secure by having access to sufficient food of the right dietary mix quality at all times. The developing countries of the world urgently need to tackle the four pillars of food security - availability, access, utilization and stability. Agricultural sustainability needs to be rooted in productivity, stability, sustainability, and equitability. Therefore, long-term productivity that increases human carrying capacity has rightly become a basic goal of agriculture (Huang et al. [12]; Sustainable Agriculture Network, [10]; Rahut et al. [2]; Pawlak and Kołodziejczak [3]).
Traditional agriculture (TA) has failed to achieve long-term agricultural productivity because of its characteristic subsistence small-holder output. Commercial agriculture or industrial agriculture (CA or IA) has also failed to address food insecurity because its use of fossil fuel powered mechanization has serious environmental pollution and degradation effects. But, sustainable agriculture (SA) - an integrated environmentally friendly system that produces safe and high-quality food, feed, and fibre in an economically viable manner - efficiently, safely and sustainably increases food production to address the availability pillar of food security. It maintains a viable rural community, as it uses renewable and on-farm resources. It integrates, where necessary, natural biological cycles and controls. SA causes less environmental damage in form of greenhouse effect, tropical deforestation, and water and air quality. It conserves land and reclaims natural resources like mineral and water, while sparing species habitats for native ecosystems, forests, and prairie land. It minimizes soil erosion and added costs due to erosion control, water-borne pollutants (pesticides, fertilizers and sediments), and reservoir sedimentation rates to extend the useful life of lakes and other agricultural drainage settings, wildlife and other desirable habitats and species and biodiversity. SA avoids the root practices of IA, including intensive use of chemicals and concentration of animal which undermine long-term productivity. SA engages agro-ecological practices (nutrient cycling, agrobiodiversity, and soil organic matter content) that sustain top productivity while minimizing regular inputs and associated negative environmental effects. It sustains stable food production from year to year. SA practices include ecological service (biosphere management), prevention (early intervention), and adaptation (complex systems management). SA systems do not compromise the ability of future generation to meet its food needs at indigenous, individual farm, and local, national and global levels. Hence, SA systems and practices have become the framework for addressing food insecurity in the developed economies of the world (Huang et al. [12]; Sustainable Agriculture Network, [10]; Rahut et al. [2]; Pawlak and Kołodziejczak [3]).
Poverty and inequality of peoples’ access to food are global food security challenges. Other challenges are insufficient public and private funding for agricultural development, low prices received by farmers, and failure to cause benefits of economic development to trickle down to the poor. Poverty and inequality are reasons why SA underpins food security, yet over 840 million people go hungry. Food is produced and available in a quantity and quality sufficient to meet dietary needs, but poverty hinders access to food and education, which needs to be decentralized. Climate change is another challenge to global food security (Huang et al. [12]; Sustainable Agriculture Network, [10]; Rahut et al. [2]; Pawlak and Kołodziejczak [3]).
Food security needs to be improved by changing people’s local environmental behaviours by raising incomes to stimulate consumption of important local food, and by improving ecological services. Public sector investments in research, extension, rural infrastructure, and healthcare to support all aspects of the agricultural system are essential, in addition to tackling private household social and environmental externalities. Addressing food security requires a comprehensive approach, with the objective of helping food producers better respond to the evolving market diversification, product differentiation, and risk management in increasingly integrated supply chains by enhancing their social and environmental performance (Sustainable Agriculture Network, [10]). Food policies need to recognize agricultural and food businesses as unique not only in commodities prices but also in costs and risk factors. In addition to price signals, off-farm consideration in rural education, immigration, health, and social services are needed in an integrated development approach that complements liberalized trade and production policies (Huang et al. [12]; Sustainable Agriculture Network, [10]; Rahut et al. [2]; Pawlak and Kołodziejczak [3]).
Adeshua [13] reports that Nigeria has significant agricultural potential, but grapples with food insecurity and the attendant chronic malnutrition. Eneh [7] submits that food security remains a major challenge in many parts of the world, particularly in developing countries, such as Nigeria. FAO [14] reports that about 22 million Nigerians were hungry 2019 to 2022. UNICEF, WHO and World Bank [15] report that, in 2020, 39 million Nigerians suffered acute hunger, and an estimated 2.6 million under-five Nigerian children faced severe to acute malnutrition, leading to higher mortality rate and health complications. Climate change is responsible for erratic rainfall patterns with droughts and land degradation that negatively impact food production. This necessitates investment in sustainable land management and implementation of climate-smart agricultural practices in order to build resilience (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, [16]). Gender inequality limits women access to decision-making and finance, despite making up a significant fraction of the agricultural labour force. This calls for removal of barriers hindering women’s full participation in agriculture and empowerment (FAO [17]). Loss and waste of 15 million metric tons of food across the value chain from post-harvest handling to storage to distribution and consumption is contributory to food insecurity. This calls for investment in technology, infrastructure and consumer awareness (FAO [18]). Conflict is a primary driver of hunger. This keeps domestic food inflation high in concerned countries (World Bank, [19]). The world has 195 recognized countries. Two of them (Vatican City and Palestine) are not member states of the United Nations Organization; other 193 countries are (BBC Science Focus [20]). The world faces a global food crisis, as 343 million people in 74 countries face acute hunger (World Food Program [21]). Noting that the world had 828 million hungry people, who include 349 million people with severe hunger, and addressing the question of how to end global hunger, World Food Program USA [22] offers six solutions. They were breaking the cycle of conflict and hunger, increasing sustainability and building resilience to climate change, addressing poverty and inequality through social safety nets, helping farmers to connect to markets, reducing food waste and losses, and eliminating malnutrition in mothers and children.
Therefore, to address food insecurity, Nigeria needs to prioritize sustainable agriculture with its multifaceted strategies and practices. In addition, Nigeria needs to promote climate-smart agriculture, empower small-holder farmers, diversify agricultural production, support the value chain, and foster innovations. This study aimed to interrogate the prospects of Nigeria adopting sustainable agriculture to solve food insecurity and to examine the potential of sustainable agriculture in fixing food insecurity in Nigeria.
The theoretical foundation of this research was based on a blend of agricultural economics, sustainable development theory, and system dynamics modelling. The study utilized key concepts from these disciplines to investigate how traditional agricultural practice, industrial agricultural practice and sustainable agricultural practice impact food security over time amist other factors such as land resources and climate change. Sustainable development theory emphasizes the need for practices that meet current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland Commission, [8]). System dynamics provides a framework for understanding complex, nonlinear interactions between variables (e.g., crop yield, food security, and climate change). This model is used to simulate different agricultural scenarios and predict their outcomes over time. By synthesizing these theories, the study built a model for evaluating the contributions of the three agricultural practices to food security, taking into account external factors like climate change and land resource availability.
Methodology
Area of study
Agriculture forms the mainstay of the economic activities in Nigeria. An agricultural map of Nigeria (Fig. 1) shows that the main agricultural products are cocoa, cotton, oil palm, peanuts and rubber. Northern Nigeria is of cereal crops economy, while southern Nigeria is root crops economy. Coal, limestone, columbite, tin and iron ore are resources availbale in commercial quantities in Nigeria. The industrial sector have cement, hydroelectric power, motor vehicle assembly, textitle, thermal power and wood processing. The country faces climate-induced variability, land degradation, and a rapidly growing population.
Fig. 1.
Map of agricultural nigeria. Source: Google Map of agricultural nigeria
Data and integration approach
Primary data (2000–2022) from Nigeria were complemented with data from nine countries with similar agro-climatic and socio-economic contexts (Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Honduras, India, Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa, Sudan, and Vietnam). These data were used for model calibration and validation, ensuring that simulations reflect diverse but comparable systems.
Analytical framework
The comprehensive analytical framework employed in the study integrated several methodologies to evaluate the impact of agricultural practices on food security in Nigeria, with particular emphasis on land resources and climate change. The framework consists of a combination of SWOT analysis, system dynamics modelling, optimization techniques, and linear programming to provide a holistic understanding of the agricultural landscape and the factors influencing food security. Each of these methods offers unique insights into different aspects of the problem, facilitating a multifaceted approach to policy development and decision-making.
The SWOT analysis served as the foundational tool for understanding the internal and external factors affecting agricultural practices and food security (Ali et al. [23]). It evaluated the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to agricultural practices in Nigeria. This method is particularly useful for identifying the areas where interventions could lead to the most significant improvements in food security. The SWOT analysis highlights strengths, which include technological advancements, such as improved crop varieties and modern irrigation systems, along with government support for agricultural growth and provision of opportunities for increasing productivity (FAO [4]). Weakness include infrastructure challenges, land degradation, and inconsistent agricultural policies that hinder the effective development of the agricultural sector (Pretty [5]). The opportunities include the emerging global markets for Nigerian agricultural products, the potential for climate-smart agriculture, and the availability of international funding and collaboration to support sustainable agriculture initiatives (World Bank [24]). Threats include climate change, political instability, and over-exploitation of land resources (IPCC [6]). By understanding these dynamics, policymakers can make informed decisions on where to focus efforts and resources for optimal results in improving food security in Nigeria.
System dynamics model was used to simulate the interactions and feedback loops between agricultural practices, food security, land resources, and climate change over time. This modelling technique is especially useful in understanding complex, nonlinear systems where multiple variables interact (Schünemann et al. [25]; Eidin et al. [26]; Ali et al. [23]; Azar [9]). For instance, increasing crop yield may improve food availability, but land degradation could reduce the long-term viability of agricultural production, affecting food security. System dynamics was applied to simulate different scenarios based on agricultural practices (traditional, sustainable, and industrial agriculture) and their interactions with land resources and climate factors. The model uses historical data to predict future outcomes and guide decision-making. The feedback loops within the model help highlight the unintended consequences of agricultural practices and suggest the most suitable path for going forward. The explicit equations used in system dynamics are of the form:
Crop Yieldt+1=0.9×Crop Yieldt+0.1×Climate Impact.
Food Securityt+1=Crop Yieldt×Food Availabilityt.
These equations capture the evolution of crop yields and food security in response to changing climate impacts and land resources. The system dynamics model helps visualize and quantify the relationships among different agricultural practices, food security, and environmental factors, offering a powerful tool for policy analysis.
To determine the best strategies for improving food security, optimization techniques were employed. Specifically, techniques such as Linear Programming (LP) and Nonlinear Programming (NLP) were used to optimize the allocation of limited resources (e.g., land, water, and financial capital) across different agricultural practices while maximizing food security and sustainability. Linear programming models aim to find the optimal mix of agricultural practices that will maximize food security while minimizing negative outcomes such as land degradation or environmental damage. The objective function in the LP model is typically formulated as:
Maximize Z = 
ixi.
subject to constraints related to land resources, water availability, and economic factors, such as:
Land Resourcei ≤ Total Land Available.
Climate Impacti ≤ Acceptable Climate Threshold.
where Z represents the total food security, and the constraints ensure that the agricultural practices do not exceed available resources or cause adverse climate effects. By solving these optimization problems, the study identifies the most efficient agricultural strategies that balance crop yields with sustainable land use and climate resilience.
Linear programming (LP) was utilized to model the optimal distribution of land, labour, and capital among various agricultural practices to maximize food security, subject to constraints such as available land and labor. LP is particularly useful for modelling resource allocation decisions in agriculture, where resources are often limited, and there is a need to find the best possible combination of practices that yield the highest benefit. The LP formulation can be expressed as:
Maximize Z = c1 × 1 + c2 × 2 + ⋯ + cnxn.
subject to constraints:
A1 × 1 + A2 × 2 + ⋯ + Anxn ≤ B.
where c1, c2,…, cn are the coefficients representing the benefits associated with each agricultural practice (e.g., food security), x1, x2,…, xn are the decision variables (e.g., hectares of land allocated to each practice), and A1, A2,…, An represent the constraints on land, labor, or capital. This method ensures that the agricultural practices chosen align with the objective of maximizing food security while taking into account resource limitations and environmental constraints.
By integrating SWOT analysis, system dynamics modelling, optimization, and linear programming, this study provides a comprehensive, data-driven approach to understanding the impact of agricultural practices on food security in Nigeria. Each method complements the others by addressing different aspects of the problem, namely SWOT analysis (identifies strategic areas of focus), system dynamics (models long-term feedback loops and relationships), optimization and LP (find the best allocation of resources to maximize food security), and linear programming (helps refine these strategies for resource allocation, making the solutions practical and implementable.
To ensure the statistical robustness and relevance of the analysis, the methodology incorporated countries with similar agri-environmental and socio-political/economic characteristics as Nigeria. These countries (Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Honduras, India, Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa, Sudan, and Vietnam) were selected due to their comparable agricultural systems, climate vulnerabilities, land resource challenges, and socio-political contexts. By including these countries in the analysis, the study was able to account for a wide range of factors that influence food security, thus enabling a more comprehensive and reliable evaluation of agricultural practices and their impacts on food security across different but similar settings. This approach enhances the validity of the findings, ensuring they are applicable not only to Nigeria but also to other countries facing similar agricultural and environmental challenges. This multi-method approach ensures that the results are not only comprehensive but also feasible, offering actionable recommendations for policymakers in Nigeria.
Further, this multi-method framework that combined:
SWOT analysis to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (Ali et al. [23]).
System dynamics modelling to simulate long-term feedback between agricultural practices, food security, land resources, and climate (Schünemann et al. [25]).
Optimization (LP/NLP) to identify optimal allocation of land, labour, and capital.
Linear programming (e.g., Maximize Z = c1 × 1 + c2 × 2+⋯+cnxn, subject to A1 × 1+⋯+Anxn≤B) to quantify trade-offs and policy choices.
The system dynamics explicitly captured the potential impact of improved food distribution infrastructure on food security, showing that better distribution mitigates negative climate and land resource effects.
Operationalization and normalization
“Food Security” is a composite index based on food availability, stability, and access indicators, normalized using z-score standardization for comparability (Gujarati and Porter [27]). This normalization improves cross-year analysis robustness (Hafemeister and Satija [28]). Hence, the study’s model assessed not just yield trends but differentiated TA, SA, IA contributions and climate/land impacts.
Results
Table 1 presents a comprehensive overview of Nigeria’s agricultural situation from 2000 to 2022, focusing on crop yield, food security, land resources, and food availability. These values have been normalized (scaled) to ensure comparability, accounting for potential biases related to different data units, magnitudes, or ranges across different years. Normalization techniques, such as standardization, are commonly used in econometrics to make cross-country and cross-time comparisons more robust (Lima & Alves de Souza, [29]; Raju et al. [30]; Hafemeister and Satija [28]; Gujarati and Porter [27]; Belsley et al. [31]). This approach allows for the identification of trends and patterns without being influenced by scale-related discrepancies.
Table 1.
Agricultural situation in Nigeria 2000–2022
| Year | Crop Yield | Food Security | Land Resource | Food Availability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 2000 | 11.772 | 3.55964 | 0.657304 | 0.302382 |
| 1 | 2001 | 11.773 | 1.63051 | 0.701248 | 0.138496 |
| 2 | 2002 | 11.772 | 0.184326 | 1.16775 | 0.015658 |
| 3 | 2003 | 11.772 | 7.51058 | 0.981324 | 0.638004 |
| 4 | 2004 | 11.772 | 0.277548 | 0.854769 | 0.023577 |
| 5 | 2005 | 11.772 | 0.651945 | 0.67407 | 0.055381 |
| 6 | 2006 | 11.772 | 19.1073 | 0.473029 | 1.62312 |
| 7 | 2007 | 11.0884 | 14.2834 | 0.763088 | 1.28815 |
| 8 | 2008 | 12.2234 | 55.4197 | 0.697416 | 4.53389 |
| 9 | 2009 | 13.5627 | 45.2866 | 0.801825 | 3.33907 |
| 10 | 2010 | 16.5485 | 29.7191 | 0.383619 | 1.79588 |
| 11 | 2011 | 16.4759 | 88.2183 | 0.572623 | 5.3544 |
| 12 | 2012 | 16.2884 | 82.278 | 0.44433 | 5.05133 |
| 13 | 2013 | 18.5669 | 34.7657 | 0.401632 | 1.87246 |
| 14 | 2014 | 21.1035 | 61.0787 | 0.350858 | 2.89425 |
| 15 | 2015 | 19.216 | 37.7648 | 0.414675 | 1.96527 |
| 16 | 2016 | 19.4686 | 35.6424 | 0.282059 | 1.83076 |
| 17 | 2017 | 18.8658 | 37.4056 | -0.20454 | 1.98273 |
| 18 | 2018 | 18.358 | 33.0054 | -0.12538 | 1.79787 |
| 19 | 2019 | 21.209 | 63.2606 | 0.191392 | 2.98272 |
| 20 | 2020 | 22.7235 | 74.5349 | -0.22763 | 3.28009 |
| 21 | 2021 | 23.0049 | 63.3525 | -0.02523 | 2.75388 |
| 22 | 2022 | 23.6462 | 89.4612 | 0.515427 | 3.78331 |
*Values were scale/normalized
Figure 2 provides a comprehensive view of the agricultural situation over time in Nigeria (2000 to 2022), with specific focus on key variables such as crop yield, food security, land resource, and food availability. As indicated, all values in the table were scaled/normalized.
Fig. 2.
Impact of agricultural practices on food security in Nigeria. Source: Authors computation
Crop yield
An upward trend is observed, increasing from 11.77 in 2000 to 23.65 in 2022. This suggests improvements in agricultural productivity, possibly due to the adoption of modern farming techniques, better seed varieties, and favorable climate conditions over time.
Food security
Fluctuations in food security values indicate that it has not followed a straightforward upward trajectory. The lowest value was 0.18 in 2002, and the highest was 89.46 in 2022. These fluctuations suggest that, despite an increase in crop yield, food security has been influenced by various external factors such as food distribution systems, access to food, and economic policies.
Land resource
Significant variation is noted in land resources, with negative values appearing in certain years (e.g., -0.20 in 2017 and − 0.13 in 2018), indicating a decline in land resources, possibly due to overexploitation, soil degradation, and land-use conflicts. However, towards the end of the study period, land resources show some improvement, potentially reflecting interventions in land management or restoration.
Food availability
Food availability also fluctuates, peaking at 5.35 in 2011 and reaching lower levels in subsequent years. These fluctuations suggest that while availability has improved, challenges related to distribution and access might still limit its effectiveness in improving food security.
Findings on objectives
TA contributed modestly to yield, but SA showed higher stability and better resilience to climate shocks.
IA improved yield rapidly but caused faster land resource depletion.
Climate change negatively affected food security by reducing crop yield variance and land productivity.
Improved distribution infrastructure (modelled via system dynamics) raised food security index by ~ 15% in simulations.
Discussion
The results highlight the complexity of the relationship between agricultural productivity, food security, land resources, and food availability in Nigeria. While crop yield has generally increased, this has not directly translated into improved food security. The variability in food security and food availability underscores that agricultural productivity alone does not guarantee food security. Several underlying factors, such as the effectiveness of food distribution systems, economic access to food, and regional disparities, also play significant roles. These findings align with previous research (Wudil et al. [32]; Louisa [33]), which emphasized the multifaceted nature of food security.
Land resource degradation
The negative values for land resources during certain years suggest a decline in land health, likely driven by unsustainable farming practices, soil erosion, and land-use changes. The improvement observed in the latter part of the period might reflect efforts to address these issues, such as land restoration programs or more sustainable agricultural practices. This is consistent with findings from other studies (Rahut et al. [2]; Pawlak and Kołodziejczak [3]; Saheed & Isa [34]). However, further research is required to conclusively attribute this improvement to specific interventions.
Why yield growth didn’t ensure food security
Crop yield growth was offset by land degradation, inefficient distribution, and limited access for vulnerable groups—aligning with Rahut et al. [2] and Pawlak and Kołodziejczak [3].
Causal mechanisms
IA’s quick yield boost was undermined by environmental costs.
SA offered slower gains but preserved soil and reduced climate vulnerability.
Unequal market access, conflict, and infrastructure deficits amplified food insecurity.
Implications for policy and development
The findings underscore the need for more comprehensive agricultural policies that go beyond boosting productivity to also address food distribution, land resource management, and equitable access to food. Sustainable agricultural practices must be promoted, ensuring that long-term productivity does not come at the cost of environmental health. Climate-resilient crops and better infrastructure for food distribution are critical for achieving food security, particularly in a country as diverse as Nigeria (FAO [4]). Further findings show policy must address both production and distribution. SA, combined with climate-smart practices and better logistics, most effectively improved food security.
Strengths and limitations
Strengths
Combines modelling and optimization with empirical calibration.
Integrates cross-country data to validate trends.
Limitations
Data gaps in some years may reduce precision.
Policy recommendations
Promote sustainable agriculture: Policies should encourage sustainable land management, crop diversification, and the adoption of climate-smart agriculture to preserve land resources and increase productivity without depleting the environment. It (policy) should incentivize agroforestry, conservation tillage, and crop diversification.
Enhance food distribution systems: Investments in transportation, storage, and market access are needed to ensure that food produced is accessible to all Nigerians, especially in remote areas.
Focus on food access and equity: Ensure that all segments of the population have access to nutritious food, addressing socio-economic disparities that affect food security.
Invest in climate-smart agriculture: Develop resilient seed varieties.
Improve distribution infrastructure: Enhance storage, roads, and markets to reduce regional disparities.
Policy targeting: Design interventions by region and farming type.
Conclusions
This study highlights the increasing trend in crop yield in Nigeria from 2000 to 2022, while food security fluctuates due to issues like land resource depletion and food distribution challenges. The Crop yield improvements (2000–2022) did not ensure food security due to climate risks, land degradation, and uneven access. A shift toward SA, climate adaptation, and better distribution systems is vital for Nigeria’s long-term food security.
This emphasizes that agricultural productivity improvements alone are insufficient to guarantee food security. A multifaceted approach is necessary, incorporating sustainable agricultural practices, climate adaptation strategies, and improved food distribution infrastructure. Further, the four pillars of food security—availability, access, utilization, and stability—can be better addressed through these measures, contributing to long-term food security for Nigeria.
Author contributions
OC Eneh conceptualized the study and wrote the manuscript text. CA Eneh designed the methodology, sourced and analyzed the data. Both authors peer-reviewed the manuscript.
Funding
No funder.
Data availability
Materials and data embedded in this work are available from the corresponding author on request at reasonable time.
Code availability
Materials and data are in Microsoft Word with custom code.
Declarations
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publishing
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Onwe JC, Ojide MG, Subhan M, Forgenie D. Food security in Nigeria amidst globalization, economic expansion, and population growth: A wavelet coherence and QARDL analysis. J Agric Food Res. 2024;18:e101413. 10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101413. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Rahut DB, Aryal JP, Manchanda N, Sonobe T. (2022). Expectations for household food security in the coming decades: A global scenario. In: D.B. Rahut, J.P. Aryal, N. Manchanda, T. Sonobe, editors, Global Trends, Opportunities, and Sustainability Challenges. Future Foods. 1:107–131. 10.1016/B978-0-323-91001-9.00002-5
- 3.Pawlak K, Kołodziejczak M. The role of agriculture in ensuring food security in developing countries: considerations in the context of the problem of sustainable food production. Sustainability. 2020;12(13):e5488. 10.3390/su12135488. [Google Scholar]
- 4.FAO. The state of food insecurity in the world. U.S.: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Pretty J. Sustainable agriculture: reconnecting food, nature, and community. U.K.: Earthscan; 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 6.IPCC. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. U.S.: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2014. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Eneh OC. (2021). Nagging food insecurity amidst numerous public agricultural policies, strategies, programmes and projects in Nigeria: Identifying and fixing the key issues. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology 2021, 6(4):103–112. 10.22161/ijeab.64.13
- 8.Brundtland GH. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Azar AT. System dynamics as a useful technique for complex systems. Int J Ind Syst Eng. 2012;10(4):377–410. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN). (2024). Addressing food insecurity through Sustainable Agriculture practices. https://www.sustainableagriculture.eco/post/addressing-food-security-through-sustainable-agricultural-practices
- 11.WHO. (2024). Hunger numbers stubbornly high for three consecutive years as global crises deepen: UN report. 1 in 11 people worldwide faced hunger in 2023, 1 in 5 in Africa. https://www.who.int/news/item/24-07-2024-hunger-numbers-stubbornly-high-for-three-consecutive-years-as-global-crises-deepen--un-report
- 12.Huang J, Lu H, Du M. Regional differences in agricultural carbon emissions in china: measurement, decomposition, and influencing factors. Land. 2025;14(4):682. 10.3390/land14040682. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Adeshua V. Understanding food security challenges in Nigeria and the path to progress. Lagos: Lagos Food Bank Initiative; 2024. [Google Scholar]
- 14.FAO. (2021). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021. http://www.fao.org/3/cb4476en/cb447enpdf
- 15.UNICEF, WHO & World Bank. (2021). Levels and Trends in Child Malnutrition: Key Findings of the 2021 Edition of the Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates. https://www.who.int/publications/I/item/9789240031828
- 16.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2024). 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. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-4
- 17.FAO. (2011). The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-11: Women in Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/3/i2050e/i2050e.pdf
- 18.FAO. (2024). Food Loss and Waste: Facts and Figures. http://www.fao.org/3/cb4273en/cb4273en.pdf
- 19.World Bank. (2024). Food Security Update: World Bank Response to Rising Food Insecurity. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/brief/food-security-update
- 20.BBC Science Focus. (2024). How many countries are there in 2024? https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/how-many-countries-are-there
- 21.World Food Program. (2024). A global food crisis. https://www.wfp.org/global-hunger-crisis
- 22.World Food Program USA. (2022). How to End World Hunger: 6 Solutions for Zero Hunger. https://www.wfpusa.org/articles/how-to-end-world-hunger-6-zero-hunger-solutions/
- 23.Ali EB, Agyekum EB, Adadi P. Agriculture for sustainable development: A SWOT-AHP assessment of ghana’s planting for food and jobs initiative. Sustainability. 2021;13(2):628. 10.3390/su13020628. [Google Scholar]
- 24.World Bank. Agriculture and food security in Sub-Saharan africa: the role of sustainable intensification. Geneva: World Bank; 2019. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Schünemann C, Johanning S, Reger E, Herold H, Bruckner T. Complex system policy modelling approaches for policy advice– comparing systems thinking, system dynamics and agent-based modelling. Political Res Exch. 2024;6(1):e237. 10.1080/2474736X.2024.2387438. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Eidin E, Bielik T, Touitou I, Bowers J, McIntyre C, Damelin D, Krajcik J. Thinking in terms of change over time: opportunities and challenges of using system dynamics models. J Sci Educ Technol. 2024;33:1–28. 10.1007/s10956-023-10047-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Gujarati DN, Porter DC. Basic econometrics. 5th ed. U.S.: McGraw-Hill; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Hafemeister C, Satija R. Normalization and variance stabilization of single-cell RNA-seq data using regularized negative binomial regression. Genome Biol. 2019;20:e296. 10.1186/s13059-019-1874-1. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/288881614092961033/pdf/93107-WP-P148186-PUBLIC-Nigeria-Agribusiness-and-Agri-Finance-Sector-Report-Sustaining-the-Transformation.pdf [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Lima FT, de Alves V. A large comparison of normalization methods on time series. Big Data Res. 2023;34:e100407. 10.1016/j.bdr.2023.100407. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Raju VN, Prasanna K, Vinod JM, Archana K, Padma V. (2020). Study the Influence of Normalization/Transformation process on the Accuracy of Supervised Classification. 10.1109/ICSSIT48917.2020.9214160.
- 31.Belsley DA, Kuh E, Welsch RE. Regression diagnostics: identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. U.S.: Wiley; 1980. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Wudil AH, Usman M, Rosak-Szyrocka J, Pilař L, Boye M. Reversing years for global food security: A review of the food security situation in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(22):e14836. 10.3390/ijerph192214836. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Louisa NA. (2018). Food Security and Sustainable Agricultural Development in Nigeria. The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention. 5:4765–4768. 10.18535/ijsshi/v5i6.01.
- 34.Saheed M, Isa O. E. The challenges of food security in Nigeria. Open Access Libr J. 2017;04(12):1–22. 10.4236/oalib.1104185. [Google Scholar]
- 35.World Bank. (2022). Nigeria Agricultural Sector Report: Sustaining the Transformation.
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Materials and data embedded in this work are available from the corresponding author on request at reasonable time.
Materials and data are in Microsoft Word with custom code.