International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 9, Issue 2 (February 2022), Pages: 22-30

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Title: A system dynamics approach to food security: The case of Turkey

 Author(s): Muhammed Çelik 1, *, Zehra Vildan Serin 2

 Affiliation(s):

 1Institute of Social Sciences, Hasan Kalyoncu University, Gaziantep, Turkey
 2Faculty of Economics, Administrative and Social Sciences, Hasan Kalyoncu University, Gaziantep, Turkey

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3189-0141

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2022.02.003

 Abstract:

Predicting a sustainable food safety policy for the near future is among Turkey's priority problems. In this context, this study aims to predict Turkey's sustainable food safety policies. For this reason, the system dynamics model, which is a dynamic cycle-based method with stock and flow diagrams, is used in this paper. This study supposed the six different scenarios for 2020 and 2050. Data were selected as population, productivity rate, arable land fertility rate, and annual food consumption (per capita). The purpose of creating these scenarios; To determine the most appropriate policy to ensure food safety in Turkey. In the first scenario, we assumed that the current situation continues. In the second scenario, the average productivity rate was increased by 1.5%. The third scenario assumes that annual per capita food consumption rises to 1.2 tonnes per year. In the fourth scenario, the total fertility rate is accelerated by 2%. In the fifth scenario, we assumed that the arable land loss rate decreased by 1/3. Finally, we assumed that the sixth scenario covers all the second, third, fourth, and fifth scenarios and that 2 points reduce food losses. In conclusion, the findings show that food security responds positively in scenarios 2 and 6. However, in other scenarios, food security is negatively affected. The findings show that the sixth scenario is the best-case scenario. To ensure food security, it is necessary to reduce arable land losses and food waste. Training farmers and control of the food supply chain will be beneficial for sustainable food security in Turkey. We recommend that policymakers consider these recommendations. 

 © 2022 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Food security, System dynamic, Turkey, Food waste

 Article History: Received 5 July 2021, Received in revised form 23 October 2021, Accepted 26 November 2021

 Acknowledgment 

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Çelik M and Serin ZV (2022). A system dynamics approach to food security: The case of Turkey. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 9(2): 22-30

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 

 Tables

 Table 1    

----------------------------------------------    

 References (30)

  1. Ali Q, Khan MTI, and Ashfaq M (2017). Economics of open field tomato production in Punjab. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 4(2): 78-82. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2017.02.014   [Google Scholar]
  2. Alreshidi E (2020). SAAONT: Ontological knowledge-based development to support intelligent decision-making systems for Saudi Arabian agriculture. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 7(1): 49-59. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2020.01.005   [Google Scholar]
  3. Bala BK and Hossain MA (2013). Modeling of ecological footprint and climate change impacts on food security of the Hill Tracts of Chittagong in Bangladesh. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 18(1): 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-012-9326-2   [Google Scholar]
  4. Barlas Y (1996). Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society, 12(3): 183-210. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1727(199623)12:3<183::AID-SDR103>3.0.CO;2-4   [Google Scholar]
  5. Besar JA, Jali MM, Yusof ARM, Othman AA, and Fauzi R (2020). Socio-economic development of palm oil smallholders in Malaysia. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 7(7): 109-118. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2020.07.014   [Google Scholar]
  6. Christos K, Naoum T, Dimitrios V, and Eleftherios I (2014). A system dynamics approach towards food security in agrifood supply networks: A critical taxonomy of modern challenges in a sustainability context. MIBES Transactions-International Journal, 8: 68-83.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Coyle RG (1997). System dynamics modelling: A practical approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(5): 544-544. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600682   [Google Scholar]
  8. Dağdur E and Olhan E (2015). KÜRESEL gida güvencesi endeksi kapsaminda türkiye'nin değerlendirilmesi. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Economics, 21(2): 49-61.   [Google Scholar]
  9. Eştürk Ö and Ören MN (2014). Türkiye'de tarım politikaları ve gıda güvencesi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 24(2): 193-200. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.235933   [Google Scholar]
  10. FAO (2019). The state of food security and nutrition in the world. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.   [Google Scholar]
  11. Forrester JW (1961). Industrial dynamics. MIT Press, Cambridge, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  12. Heikkinen A and Pakkala J (2015). The significance of workers proficiency in industries. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Science, 2(7): 1-8.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Hena S, Jingdong L, Rehman A, and Zhang O (2019). A comparative analysis of agricultural development and modernization between China and Pakistan. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 6(4): 81-94. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2019.04.010   [Google Scholar]
  14. Jereme IA, Siwar C, Begum RA, and Abdul B (2017). Food waste and food security: The case of Malaysia. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 4(8): 6-13. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2017.08.002   [Google Scholar]
  15. Kiymaz T and Şahinöz A (2010). Dünya ve türkiye–gida güvencesi durumu. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 76(21): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.5455/ey.20045   [Google Scholar]
  16. Koç G and Uzmay A (2015). Gida güvencesi ve gida güvenliği: Kavramsal çerçeve, gelişmeler ve Türkiye. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Economics, 21(1): 39-48.   [Google Scholar]
  17. Koç G and Uzmay A (2019). Küresel gıda güvencesinin izlenmesi ve haritalanması üzerine bir değerlendirme. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(2): 237-244. https://doi.org/10.25308/aduziraat.562781   [Google Scholar]
  18. Mabhaudhi T, Nhamo L, Chibarabada TP, Mabaya G, Mpandeli S, Liphadzi S, and Chivenge PP (2021). Assessing progress towards sustainable development goals through nexus planning. Water, 13(9): 1321. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091321   [Google Scholar]
  19. Muetzelfeldt R (2010). Extended system dynamics modelling of the impacts of food system drivers on food security, livelihoods and the environment. CCAFS: Climate, Change, Agriculture, and Food Security, Copenhagen, Denmark.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Müller B, Hoffmann F, Heckelei T, Müller C, Hertel TW, Polhill JG, and Webber H (2020). Modelling food security: Bridging the gap between the micro and the macro scale. Global Environmental Change, 63: 102085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102085   [Google Scholar]
  21. Noviandi N, Kusumantoro IP, Tasrif M, and Pradono P (2016). Development of land use and transport dynamics model for the impact evaluation of urban development policy. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 3(10): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2016.10.001   [Google Scholar]
  22. Pigini D and Conti M (2017). NFC-based traceability in the food chain. Sustainability, 9(10): 1910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101910   [Google Scholar]
  23. Şahinöz A (2016). Food security from local to global. Turkish Journal of Bioethics, 3(4): 184-197. https://doi.org/10.5505/tjob.2016.17894   [Google Scholar]
  24. Şenaras AE (2017). Su Kaynakları Yönetimi İçin Bir Öneri: Sistem Dinamiği. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(3): 668-692.   [Google Scholar]
  25. Severová L, Svoboda R, Šrédl K, Prášilová M, Soukup A, Kopecká L, and Dvořák M (2021). Food safety and quality in connection with the change of consumer choice in Czechia (A case study). Sustainability, 13(11): 6505. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116505   [Google Scholar]
  26. Taleghani M and Yeh CT (2016). Assess the level of development of Guilan agricultural using numerical taxonomy (Case study: The rural areas the central city district of Rasht). International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 3(1): 32-36.   [Google Scholar]
  27. Tokatlioğlu M, Selen U, and Reyhan LEBA (2018). The strategic importance of agriculture in the globalization process and the role of the state in ensuring agricultural supply security. Journal of Life Economics, 5(4): 151-176. https://doi.org/10.15637/jlecon.267   [Google Scholar]
  28. Wang J (2010). Food security, food prices and climate change in China: A dynamic panel data analysis. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 1: 321-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2010.09.040   [Google Scholar]
  29. Yang J and Lin Y (2019). Study on evolution of food safety status and supervision policy: A system based on quantity, quality, and development safety. Sustainability, 11(23): 6656. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236656   [Google Scholar]
  30. Zougmoré RB, Läderach P, and Campbell BM (2021). Transforming food systems in Africa under climate change pressure: Role of climate-smart agriculture. Sustainability, 13(8): 4305. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084305   [Google Scholar]