foods

Article
Food Security and Sustainability: Discussing the Four Pillars to
Encompass Other Dimensions
Raquel de Pinho Ferreira Guiné , Maria Lúcia de Jesus Pato, Cristina Amaro da Costa ,
Daniela de Vasconcelos Teixeira Aguiar da Costa, Paulo Barracosa Correia da Silva
and Vítor João Pereira Domingues Martinho *

Agricultural School (ESAV) and CERNAS-IPV Research Centre, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu (IPV),
3504-510 Viseu, Portugal; [email protected] (R.d.P.F.G.); [email protected] (M.L.d.J.P.);
[email protected] (C.A.d.C.); [email protected] (D.d.V.T.A.d.C.); [email protected] (P.B.C.d.S.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The unadjusted intake of food constitutes a real challenge for the several sustainability
dimensions. In this perspective, the main objectives of this research are to characterise the current
contexts of food security, its relationship with sustainability, and identify proposals and actions
that may support the design of more adjusted policies in the future. In addition, it is intended
to assess if the food security pillars properly address the sustainability goals and if the evolution



of undernutrition is accompanied by sustainable frameworks. In this way, statistical information


from the FAOSTAT database was considered for the several dimensions of food security over the
Citation: Guiné, R.d.P.F.; Pato,
period 2000–2020. These data were analysed through factor-cluster approaches and panel data
M.L.d.J.; Costa, C.A.d.; Costa,
methodologies, namely those related to quantile regressions. As main insights, we may refer that
D.d.V.T.A.d.; Silva, P.B.C.d.; Martinho,
undernutrition is more impacted by the availability of food and nutrients and political stability
V.J.P.D. Food Security and
than by the level of GDP—Gross Domestic Product (except for the extreme cases). This means that
Sustainability: Discussing the Four
Pillars to Encompass Other
the level of development is not the primary explanation for the problems of nutrition. The main
Dimensions. Foods 2021, 10, 2732. focus of the national and international policies must be to improve the agrifood supply chains and
https://doi.org/10.3390/ to support political stability, in order to mitigate undernutrition worldwide and ensure a global
foods10112732 access to sustainable and healthy diets. In addition, it is suggested to rethink the four pillars of food
security (availability, access, utilisation and stability), in order to encompass other dimensions, such
Academic Editors: António Raposo, as climate change.
Renata Puppin Zandonadi,
Raquel Braz Assunção Botelho Keywords: FAOSTAT information; factor-cluster analyses; panel data approaches; quantile regressions
and Theodoros Varzakas

Received: 17 September 2021

Accepted: 5 November 2021
1. Introduction
Published: 8 November 2021
There is a significant relationship between the level of development of the countries
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
and food insecurity contexts [1]. Food insecurity is also impacted by political stability and
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
climate change [2].
published maps and institutional affil- Food security is a multidimensional concept characterised by four pillars related to
iations. availability, access, utilisation, and stability [3]. These dimensions are interrelated with,
for example, agricultural modernisation [4], social capital [5], kitchen equipment [6], and
worldwide shocks [7].
In a broader perspective, food security is interrelated with sustainable food and agri-
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
cultural sectors, where the needs of present and future generations are met in commitment
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
with the environmental, social, and economic dimensions [8]. The concepts of food secu-
This article is an open access article
rity and sustainability are interrelated. The sustainability concept was considered by the
distributed under the terms and international community associated with sustainable developments, according to which
conditions of the Creative Commons the societies evolve without compromising the future generations [9].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// In fact, food security is already considered by the Sustainable Development Goals
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ (SDGs), namely in the goal 2 for zero hunger [10]. Nonetheless, the pandemic context
4.0/). brought additional challenges for these world objectives increasing the problems associated

Foods 2021, 10, 2732. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10112732 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/foods

 variables, such as those related to climate change), considering that food security is al-
ready a target for the SDGs. In addition, it is the objective of this research to assess if food
security has been achieved with sustainable approaches.
Specific objectives: Specifically, it is intended to characterise the variables related to
Foods 2021, 10, 2732
the food security pillars over the period of 2000–2020 and quantify the impacts from2 of these
26
variables on food insecurity, identifying potentialities to encompass other variables (re-
lated to climate change, for example) in these security dimensions. This assessment al-
lowed us to identify weaknesses in the database (there is a lack of statistical information
with hunger countries
for several worldwide, andand it is expected
years), weaknessesthatin
it the
willgroup
worsen ofmalnutrition, namely among
variables considered for each
children
pillar (it[11].
would Onbethe other hand,
important the question
to consider here is ifsuch
other variables, the food security
as those relatedpillars
to thealso
tem-
specifically address the several dimensions of sustainability. The scientific literature
perature change) and the main impacts from the four pillars’ variables on the food inse- shows
that sustainability
curity couldfor
(with insights be the
better encompassed
several by thenamely
stakeholders, four pillars
for of food security [9,12–14].
policymakers). This over-
From this perspective, the general and specific objectives
view, considering the worldwide context and the approaches here carried are those presented in the
out, has its nov-
following (summarised in Figure
elty for the scientific community. 1):

•Sustainability needs to be more appropriately addressed towards food

security pillars: as a new dimension [9]; integrating other variables [12],
Gaps/Motivations such as climate change [14].

•Discuss the food security pillars;

•Assess if there is field to address more properly the sustainability by the
General objectives four pillars.

•Analyse the variables related with the food security pillars;

•Quantify the impacts from these variables on food insecurity and testing
Specific objectives for new variables.

•Improvements on the information available are needed;

•Climate change and food insecurity are interrelated and the political
Main insights stability is among the main drivers of the undernutrition.

Figure1.1.Gaps/motivations,
Figure Gaps/motivations,general
generaland
andspecific
specificobjectives,
objectives,and
andmain
maininsights.
insights.

In summary,
General the literature
objectives: showsaims
This research thatto
there are fieldsthe
characterize to be explored
current in these
context issues
of world
(“Sustainability needs to be more appropriately addressed towards food security pillars:
food security and its relationships with sustainability, through statistical information from
FAOSTAT
as a new and panel data
dimension regressionsother
[9]; integrating (withvariables
quantile[12],
approaches), in order
such as climate to suggest
change [14].”).
rethinking the four pillars to encompass other variables, such as climate change, and
propose new policy instruments. The main focus is to highlight if sustainability has been
sufficiently addressed by the food security pillars (namely testing for the impact of new
variables, such as those related to climate change), considering that food security is already
a target for the SDGs. In addition, it is the objective of this research to assess if food security
has been achieved with sustainable approaches.
Specific objectives: Specifically, it is intended to characterise the variables related
to the food security pillars over the period of 2000–2020 and quantify the impacts from
these variables on food insecurity, identifying potentialities to encompass other variables
(related to climate change, for example) in these security dimensions. This assessment
allowed us to identify weaknesses in the database (there is a lack of statistical information
for several countries and years), weaknesses in the group of variables considered for each
pillar (it would be important to consider other variables, such as those related to the temper-
ature change) and the main impacts from the four pillars’ variables on the food insecurity
(with insights for the several stakeholders, namely for policymakers). This overview, con-
sidering the worldwide context and the approaches here carried out, has its novelty for the
scientific community.
In summary, the literature shows that there are fields to be explored in these issues
(“Sustainability needs to be more appropriately addressed towards food security pillars:
as a new dimension [9]; integrating other variables [12], such as climate change [14].”).
These fields were addressed through “—Analyse the variables related with the food secu-
rity pillars; —Quantify the impacts from these variables on food insecurity and testing for
new variables” that highlight “—Improvements on the information available are needed;
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 3 of 26

—Climate change and food insecurity are interrelated and the political stability is among
the main drivers of the undernutrition”.
The paper consists of six sections. After the introduction (Section 1), Section 2 contains
a review of the concepts of food security and sustainability. The study design and materials
are explained in Section 3, while Section 4 presents the main results of the study. To better
assess the impacts of climate change on food security, Section 5 emphasises that the
focus on food security should shift beyond the four pillars (availability, access, utilization,
and stability) towards a vision that includes other sustainability variables. In Section 6,
the discussion of the study is presented, as well as the main conclusions. In this last
section, the study’s many results are emphasized, the theoretical, political, and practical
contributions are highlighted, and the limitations of the study as well as areas for future
research are presented.
A preliminary literature survey shows that there are few (or none) studies about the
topic of food security and sustainability considering the methodologies hereby described,
namely the quantile regressions with the approaches addressed, highlighting the novelty
of this research and the potential to analyse deeper these domains.

2. Literature Survey
Food security is an old concern [15] that motivated international organizations, such
as the Food and Agriculture Organization, to define it with the following four dimensions
(or pillars): availability, accessibility, utilization, and stability [16]. Food security is part
of the Sustainable Development Goals [11]. Nonetheless, it is accepted that sustainability
needs to be more appropriately addressed in the pillars of food security, maybe as a new
dimension [9], or integrating other variables [12], where the food crises [13] and climate
change [14] have its importance.
Food security is interrelated with sustainability. However, the associated contexts
are complex and uncertain [17], showing that these interrelationships deserve continuous
attention from several stakeholders and organizations [18], including the subnational
governments [19], and multidisciplinary approaches [20] for particular cases [21].
Agricultural practices have a great impact on the interrelationships between food
security and sustainability [22] around the world [23] and for the more diverse contexts [24];
namely, those related with chemical approaches [25], water use [26], soil salinity [27], pests
and diseases control [28], concentration/diversification of farming productions [29], inten-
sification/extensification [30], and associated with management strategies [31]. The same
happens with the different pressures over the agricultural land associated with, for exam-
ple, the urbanization and ever-growing population [32]. In any case, the farming sector and
the associated dimensions are determinants for sustainable food security [33], including
animal welfare [34], and the new technologies open new opportunities [35], including for
monitoring [36] and assessments [37]. The population growth is particularly worrying in
countries such as India, for example [38], but other specific contexts also deserve special
attention [39], including those from Africa [40].
For more sustainable food security, alternative sources of food supply, as edible insects,
may be interesting solutions [41,42] in a framework of protein transition [43] and farm
to fork perspective [44]. Urban agriculture may be another solution; however, in this
case, additional studies are needed for a more complete assessment [45]. Farming fish is
another possibility to achieve more sustainable food security [46], as are the home food
gardens [47], revitalising local food systems [48], using insects as bioconverters of organic
waste [49], obtaining protein from food waste [50], food forestry [51], natural food [52],
better governance and conception [53], hydroponic farm [54], organic farming [55], crops
resilience assessments [56], wild edible greens [57], food loss, and waste management [58].
Food security and sustainability are worldwide concerns, specifically for the policy-
makers [59]. In fact, the policies are crucial for sustainable food security [60]. In any case,
the paradigms of food security often change with international crises, as happens currently
Foods 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 27

Foods 2021, 10, 2732 4 of 26

Food security and sustainability are worldwide concerns, specifically for the policy-
makers [59]. In fact, the policies are crucial for sustainable food security [60]. In any case,
the paradigms of food security often change with international crises, as happens cur-
with the
rently withCOVID −19 pandemic
the COVID−19 [61], [61],
pandemic and these frameworks
and these bring
frameworks newnew
bring challenges for the
challenges for
different
the stakeholders
different [62][62]
stakeholders to promote
to promotebalanced andand
balanced healthy diets
healthy [63].[63].
diets
In these interrelationships
In interrelationshipsbetween
betweenfood security
food andand
security sustainability, the circular
sustainability, econ-
the circular
omy approaches may play a relevant role, namely through insect larvae
economy approaches may play a relevant role, namely through insect larvae that biocon-that bioconvert
foodfood
vert waste in animal
waste feedfeed
in animal [64].[64].

3. Material
3. Material and
and Methods
Methods
To better
To better clarify
clarify the
the several
several steps
steps of
of this
this section
section for
for material
material and
and methods,
methods, Figure
Figure 22
presents a schematic description of the various phases.
presents a schematic description of the various phases.

•Statistical information obtained, for the food security pillars and food
insecurity, from FAOSTAT database for the period 2000−2020.
Material

•Collection of the several variables related with the food security

dimensions to identify the availability of data;
•Selection of variables with greater availability of data and more
interrelated with the food insecurity;
•Characterisation of the most adjusted variables for the objectives proposed;
•Factor and cluster analyses to understand the context worlwide about food
Methods security variables;
•Quantile regressions to quantify the impacts from the four pillars on food
insecurity.

Figure
Figure 2.
2. Schematic
Schematic representation
representation of
of the
the different
different steps
steps under
under material
material and
and methods.
methods.

The
The quantile
quantile regressions
regressions are are adjusted
adjustedmethodologies
methodologiestotodeal dealwith
withproblems
problemsofof outli-
outliers
ers
andand non-normality
non-normality in in
thethe statisticaldatabases,
statistical databases,and andthey
theywere
were considered,
considered, for example,
example,
in
in the
thefollowing
followingstudiesstudiesrelated
relatedtotothe food
the food security
security dimensions:
dimensions: factors affecting
factors food
affecting di-
food
versity
diversity in in
Iran
Iran[65];
[65];impacts
impactsononrice riceand
andwheat
wheatproduction
productionin inPakistan
Pakistan [66];
[66]; implications
from
from soil
soil erosion
erosion on on socio-economic
socio-economic domains domains in in Malawi
Malawi [67];
[67]; climate
climate effects
effects on on the rice
yield
yield in in India
India [68];
[68]; dietary
dietary deficiencies
deficiencies in in the
the Indian
Indian context
context [69]; analysis of explanatory
explanatory
variables
variables of calorie
calorie consumption
consumptionin inIndia
India[70];
[70];food
fooddemand
demandinin Slovakia
Slovakia [71];
[71]; food
food insecu-
insecurity
in the
rity in population
the population fromfromthe Afghanistan
the Afghanistan [72]; [72];
relationships between
relationships oil-export
between and food
oil-export and
insecurity
food [73]; [73];
insecurity impacts fromfrom
impacts foodfoodinsecurity
insecurity on children [74];[74];
on children foodfood
security in Nigerian
security in Nige-
urban
rian households
urban households [75]; main drivers
[75]; main of healthy
drivers ageingageing
of healthy in Indiain[76]; effects
India [76];from thefrom
effects internet
the
use on the agricultural sustainability in China [77]; relationships
internet use on the agricultural sustainability in China [77]; relationships among poverty among poverty and food
security
and foodin Vietnam
security in [78];
Vietnamrelations
[78]; between
relationsreligion
betweenand food security
religion and foodinsecurity
India [79]; food
in India
security
[79]; foodpolicies
security in policies
India [80]; impacts
in India from
[80]; food prices
impacts on theprices
from food nutrients
on theintake in India
nutrients [81];
intake
interrelations
in between thebetween
India [81]; interrelations efficiency theofefficiency
wheat and climateand
of wheat change in Pakistan
climate change in[82]; crop
Pakistan
diversity
[82]; crop and welfare
diversity andinwelfare
Ugandain[83]; drivers
Uganda of drivers
[83]; food insecurity [84]; horticultural
of food insecurity sector
[84]; horticul-
dynamics in Senegal [85]; and financial crisis and food supply in
tural sector dynamics in Senegal [85]; and financial crisis and food supply in Mexico [86]. Mexico [86].
The statistical
The statistical information
information was was obtained
obtained from from the
the FAOSTAT
FAOSTAT database
database [87] [87] for
for the
the
variables presented in Table 1 (and for the temperature change
variables presented in Table 1 (and for the temperature change as an indicator for the as an indicator for the
climate changes)
climate changes) disaggregated
disaggregated across across world
world countries
countries andand over
overthetheperiod
periodof of2000–2020.
2000–2020.
The temperature change is correlated with the climate dimensions [88], being, in this
way, an interesting indicator for the climate change contexts. Furthermore, it is one
of the most straightforward quantitative indicators of climate change. These variables
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 5 of 26

were grouped into five groups (level of development, nutritional and food availability,
food insecurity, stability conditions, social and environmental conditions), following the
suggestions from the statistical database. These five groups are relative to the four pillars of
the food security concept (availability, access, utilization, stability) and a fifth set for food
insecurity indicators (namely related to the number and prevalence of undernourishment
and moderate and severe food insecurity). The four pillars were renamed as a suggestion
to encompass other dimensions and to highlight the importance of rethinking these pillars
and the food security dimensions. Some of these variables are presented in the database on
average for periods of three years (Table 1). In these cases, to compare with other variables
presented in annual values, it was considered the middle year as a reference. In addition,
Table 1 shows that there is a lack of information for some countries and years. Due to this,
the variables with lower observations were not considered in the analysis carried out in the
following sections. The variables removed were: variable “Rail lines density (total route in
km per 100 square km of land area)” from the group “level of development”; most variables
related with the group “food insecurity”; and the variables “Percentage of children under
5 years affected by wasting (percent)” and “Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding among
infants 0–5 months of age” from the group “social and environmental conditions”.

Table 1. Summary statistics for several variables related to food security and sustainability, worldwide over the
period 2000–2020.

Standard
Groups of Variables Observations Mean Min Max
Deviation
Level of development
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP,
3883 18,905.540 21029.290 630.700 161,971.000
dissemination (constant 2011 international $)
Rail lines density (total route in km per 100
1452 2.753 2.903 0.000 12.100
square km of land area)
Nutritional and food availability
Average dietary energy supply adequacy
3238 118.464 15.244 37.000 160.000
(percent) (3-year average)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day)
2802 78.804 20.510 23.200 143.300
(3-year average)
Average supply of protein of animal origin
2802 35.464 20.350 3.000 103.000
(g/cap/day) (3-year average)
Average value of food production (constant
3116 259.279 241.337 1.000 2425.000
2004–2006 I$/cap) (3-year average)
Dietary energy supply used in the estimation
of prevalence of undernourishment 3238 2793.793 467.732 903.000 3901.000
(kcal/cap/day) (3-year average)
Share of dietary energy supply derived from
cereals, roots and tubers (kcal/cap/day) 2802 46.807 14.640 8.000 83.000
(3-year average)
Food insecurity
Number of moderately or severely food
483 8.809 14.699 0.100 116.000
insecure people (million) (3-year average)
Number of people undernourished (million)
1708 6.833 23.229 0.100 249.600
(3-year average)
Number of severely food insecure people
391 3.117 4.897 0.100 43.000
(million) (3-year average)
Prevalence of moderate or severe food
insecurity in the total population (percent) 520 25.865 21.698 2.000 88.300
(3-year average)
Prevalence of severe food insecurity in the
502 9.187 11.469 0.500 61.800
total population (percent) (3-year average)
Prevalence of undernourishment (percent)
2047 14.322 11.401 2.500 71.300
(3-year average)
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 6 of 26

Table 1. Cont.

Standard
Groups of Variables Observations Mean Min Max
Deviation
Stability conditions
Cereal import dependency ratio (percent)
2645 27.914 57.439 −342.500 100.000
(3-year average)
Per capita food production variability
3090 12.323 13.048 0.200 107.700
(constant 2004–2006 thousand int$ per capita)
Per capita food supply variability
3361 42.027 28.035 1.000 259.000
(kcal/cap/day)
Percent of arable land equipped for irrigation
2797 28.430 31.498 0.000 100.000
(percent) (3-year average)
Political stability and absence of
3486 −0.032 0.962 −3.180 1.760
violence/terrorism (index)
Value of food imports in total merchandise
3227 41.389 89.288 1.000 1380.000
exports (percent) (3-year average)
Social and environmental conditions
Percentage of children under 5 years affected
616 6.136 4.382 0.000 21.300
by wasting (percent)
Percentage of children under 5 years of age
who are overweight (modelled estimates) 3047 7.049 4.467 0.700 29.300
(percent)
Percentage of children under 5 years of age
3047 21.918 14.624 1.200 62.300
who are stunted (modelled estimates) (percent)
Percentage of population using at least basic
3803 85.024 17.929 18.100 99.000
drinking water services (percent)
Percentage of population using at least basic
3802 72.130 29.831 2.800 99.000
sanitation services (percent)
Percentage of population using safely
2372 67.400 31.055 2.300 99.000
managed drinking water services (Percent)
Percentage of population using safely
2384 53.409 29.468 2.100 99.000
managed sanitation services (Percent)
Prevalence of anaemia among women of
3607 27.772 13.305 7.300 62.900
reproductive age (15–49 years)
Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding among
425 35.945 19.595 0.100 88.400
infants 0–5 months of age
Prevalence of low birthweight (percent) 2255 10.312 4.920 2.400 36.200
Prevalence of obesity in the adult population
3044 16.407 10.246 0.600 61.000
(18 years and older)

Table 1 reveals that, on average, the world had, between 2000 and 2020, a Gross Domes-
tic Product per capita (PPP, constant 2011) of 18905.540 I$, 2.753 km per 100 square km of
land area for the rail density, 78.804 g/cap/day of average protein supply, 35.464 g/cap/day
for average supply of protein of animal origin, 46.807 kcal/cap/day for the share of dietary
supply derived from cereals, roots, and tubers, 14.322% of prevalence of undernourishment,
27.914% for cereal import dependency ratio, 28.430% for arable land equipped for irrigation,
−0.032 for the political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) and several
problems with social and environmental conditions. These results reveal that there is still
much more to improve the nutritional conditions and the political stability, as well as the
absence of violence/terrorism. In fact, Western Balkans and the European Union had, over
the last years, values of 101.340 for average protein supply (g/cap/day), 57.300 average
supply of protein of animal origin (g/cap/day) and 0.550 for political stability and absence
of violence/terrorism (index), highlighting the way that must be run by some parts of the
world in these domains [89].
In the different groups with the remaining variables, after the first selection identified
before, the results presented in Table A1 (Appendix A) were considered to select the most
representative variables in each group. Considering the great number of variables available
in the database for four pillars, the correlation matrix brings insights that support the
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 7 of 26

selection of the correlated variables. These are important findings to build the models for
the regression approaches. These results were obtained following Stata procedures [90–95]
for pairwise correlation matrices.
Table A1 (Appendix A) shows that there are positive and relatively strong correlations
between the GDP (PPP, constant 2011 international $) and the supply of protein, political
stability and access of the population to drinking water and sanitation services. In turn,
there are negative and relatively strong relationships among the GDP and share of dietary
energy supply from vegetables, percentage of children under 5 years of age who are stunted,
and prevalence of anaemia among women of reproductive age (15–49 years). In addition,
for the prevalence of undernourishment (percent), there are negative and relatively strong
correlations with the GDP and the variables related to the “nutritional and food availability”
group, with the exception of the variable “share of dietary energy supply derived from
cereals, roots and tubers”, for which there is a positive correlation. The prevalence of
undernourishment is also negatively correlated with political stability and with the access
of the population to drinking water and sanitation services.
Considering this assessment and the relevance of the variables for the objectives pro-
posed, the following variables were selected for each one of the groups considered: gross do-
mestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination (constant 2011 international $) for the “level
of development”, average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) for the group “nu-
tritional and food availability”, prevalence of undernourishment (percent) (3-year average)
for the “food insecurity”, political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) for
“stability conditions” and percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
services (percent) for “social and environmental conditions”. It could be interesting to
consider also the prevalence of severe and moderate food insecurity, however, the limited
availability of data for these variables hampers its consideration in regressions with panel
data. 1. In fact, it is not possible to consider these variables with around 500 observations
(or less) as shows Table 1, when the “Prevalence of undernourishment (percent) (3-year av-
erage)”, for example, has more than 2000 observations. In any case, for the cases (countries
and years) where the observations are coincident the “Prevalence of undernourishment
(percent) (3-year average)” (variable used by us) is strongly correlated (Table 2 obtained
following Stata software procedures) with the severe and moderate undernourishment
(showing that it is indifferent to use any of these variables and that our variable represents
well the world context of undernutrition).

Table 2. Spearman’s rank correlation matrix for the several forms of prevalence of undernourishment worldwide over the
period of 2000–2020.

Prevalence of Moderate or Prevalence of Severe Food

Prevalence of
Severe Food Insecurity in Insecurity in the Total
Undernourishment (Percent)
the Total Population Population (Percent)
(3-Year Average)
(Percent) (3-Year Average) (3-Year Average)
Prevalence of moderate or
severe food insecurity in the
1.000
total population (percent)
(3-year average)
Prevalence of severe food
insecurity in the total
0.9200 * 1.000
population (percent)
(3-year average)
0.000
Prevalence of
undernourishment (percent) 0.7917 * 0.7421 * 1.000
(3-year average)
0.000 0.000
Note: *, statistically significant at 1%.
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 8 of 26

To better analyse the evolution of these variables over the countries, averages over the
period considered were calculated based on the summary statistics presented in Table 3,
these being presented in Figures 3–7.
Figure 3 shows that the five higher averages for the gross domestic product per capita,
PPP, dissemination (constant 2011 international $), over the period considered, were verified
in Luxembourg, China (Macao SAR), Qatar, Bermuda, and Singapore. For the average
protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average), the five countries with higher averages are
Iceland, Israel, Lithuania, China (Hong Kong SAR), and Portugal (Figure 4). Luxembourg,
Ireland, Norway, USA and Denmark are among the countries with higher average GDP
and average protein supply. These results confirm the findings described before for the
correlations between the level of development and the nutrients supply [96]. The prevalence
Foods 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW of undernourishment (percent) (3-year average) has higher averages in countries such 8 of as
27
Somalia, Haiti, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, and
Madagascar, among others (Figure 5). Some of the countries with higher averages for the
GDPTo and nutrients
better supply
analyse the are also those
evolution with higher
of these averages
variables for countries,
over the the political stabilityover
averages and
absence of violence/terrorism index (Figure 6) and percentage of population using
the period considered were calculated based on the summary statistics presented in Table safely
managed
3, drinking
these being waterinservices
presented Figures(Figure
3–7. 7).

3. Summary
Table 3.
Table Summary statistics
statisticsfor
forselected
selectedvariables
variablesrelated
relatedtotofood security
food and
security sustainability
and worldwide
sustainability on on
worldwide average overover
average the
period of 2000–2020.
the period of 2000–2020.

Standard Devi-
Standard
Variables
Variables ObservationsObservations
Mean Mean Min Min Max
Max
Deviation ation
Grossdomestic
Gross domestic product
productper
percapita,
capita,PPP,
PPP, dissemination
187.000 18,809.910 18,809.910
187.000 20,670.98020,670.980
817.519817.519107,015.200
107,015.200
dissemination (constant 2011
(constant 2011 international $) international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average)
(3-year average)
167.000 167.000
78.724 78.724
19.928 19.92836.547 36.547 133.135
133.135
Prevalence
Prevalence of undernourishment
of undernourishment (percent) (3-year aver-
(percent)
123.000 123.000
13.446 13.446
11.047 11.047 2.600 2.600 61.529
61.529
age)
(3-year average)
Politicalstability
Political stability and
andabsence
absenceofof violence/terrorism (in-
186.000 −0.036
186.000 −0.0360.920 0.920 −2.473 −2.473 1.417
1.417
violence/terrorism (index)
dex)
Percentage of population using safely
Percentage of population using safely 115.000
managed drinking 67.658 30.806 5.600 99.000
managed drinking water services (Percent) 115.000 67.658 30.806 5.600 99.000
water services (Percent)

120,000
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination (constant 2011

100,000

80,000

60,000
international $)

40,000

20,000

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Top
Top 35
35 countries
countries for
for the
the level
level of
of development.
development.
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 9 of 26
Foods 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 27
Foods 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 27
Foods 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 27

140
average)

140
average)

120
140
average)
(3-year

120
100
120
(3-year

100
(g/cap/day)
(3-year

80
100
(g/cap/day)

80
(g/cap/day)

60
80
supply

60
40
60
supply
protein

40
supply

20
40
protein

20
Average
protein

0
20
Average

0
Average

Figure 4. Top 35 countries for the nutritional and food availability.

Figure 4. Top 35 countries for the nutritional and food availability.
Figure 4. Top 35 countries for the nutritional and food availability.
70
Figure 4. Top 35 countries for the nutritional and food availability.
average)

70
average)

70
60
average)
(3-year

60
(3-year

60
50
(percent)
(3-year

50
(percent)

50
40
(percent)
of undernourishment

40
40
30
of undernourishment
of undernourishment

30
30
20

20
20
10
Prevalence

10
Prevalence

100
Prevalence

0
0

Figure 5. Top 35 countries for the level of food insecurity.

Figure5.
Figure 5. Top
Top 35
35 countries
countries for
for the
the level
level of
of food
food insecurity.
insecurity.
1.6
Figure 5. Top 35 countries for the level of food insecurity.
(index)

1.6
(index)

1.4
1.6
of violence/terrorism
(index)

1.4
1.2
of violence/terrorism

1.4
1.2
of violence/terrorism

1
1.2
1
0.8
1
0.8
0.6
absence

0.8
0.6
absence

0.4
0.6
absence
and

0.4
0.2
andand
stability

0.4
0.2
stability

0
0.2
stability
Political

0
0
Political
Political

Figure 6. Top 35 countries for the stability conditions.

Figure 6. Top 35 countries for the stability conditions.
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Top
Top 35
35 countries
countries for
for the
the stability
stabilityconditions.
conditions.
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 10 of 26
Foods 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 27

100
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking

99

98

97
water services (percent)

96

95

94

93

92

Figure
Figure 7.
7. Top
Top 35
35 countries
countries for
for the
the social
social and
and environmental conditions.
environmental conditions.

Figure
To better3 explore
shows these
that the
data,five higher averages
a factor-cluster analysis forfollowing
the gross domestic
Stata proceduresproduct per cap-
[93–95,97–100]
ita, PPP, dissemination (constant 2011 international $), over the
was performed in the next section, to identify world clusters for variables that mightperiod considered, were
be
verified
considered in Luxembourg,
better driversChina (Macao SAR),
to implement and Qatar,
designBermuda, and Singapore.
joint policies. In addition, Forquantile
the av-
erage protein
regressions insupply (g/cap/day)
panel data (3-year
[93,101–103] average),
were carriedthe outfive countries awith
considering modelhigher
basedaverages
on the
Verdoorn–Kaldor
are Iceland, Israel, laws [104–107]
Lithuania, China and taking
(Hong intoSAR),
Kong account,andfor example,
Portugal Martinho
(Figure [108].
4). Luxem-
In the developments
bourg, Ireland, Norway, associated
USA andwith the Verdoorn–Kaldor
Denmark are among the countries laws, the withoutput
higher growth
average is
exogenous
GDP and promotes
and average productivity
protein supply. These growth, benefiting
results confirm all the economy
the findings described and society.
before for
Thus,
the followingbetween
correlations these developments, in this research,
the level of development and thea nutrients
model considering
supply [96].the Theoutput
prev-
growthofasundernourishment
alence an explanatory variable was(3-year
(percent) considered.
average) Due to higher
has the existence
averages of outliers and
in countries
lack of
such as normality for some
Somalia, Haiti, data,African
Central the quantile regression,
Republic, basedRepublic
Democratic on the median
of the estimation,
Congo, Li-
was considered.
beria, and Madagascar, among others (Figure 5). Some of the countries with higher aver-
A factor
ages for the GDP analysis was carried
and nutrients supplyoutare
toalso
obtain
those uncorrelated
with higherfactors
averages andfortothedeal with
political
stability and absence of violence/terrorism index (Figure 6) and percentage of populationa
problems of collinearity among the variables in the cluster assessment [100]. For that,
principal-component
using safely managedfactorsdrinking methodology with(Figure
water services rotation 7).was considered.
To better explore these data, a factor-cluster analysis following Stata procedures [93–
4. Results
95,97–100] was performed in the next section, to identify world clusters for variables that
mightFigure 8 summarises
be considered betterthedrivers
differentto phases
implementof thisandsection regarding
design the results
joint policies. obtained
In addition,
with the variables selected for the dimensions associated with food
quantile regressions in panel data [93,101–103] were carried out considering a model security.
basedThe fiveVerdoorn–Kaldor
on the variables considered laws are correlated
[104–107] with factor1,
and taking explaining
into account, 65.8% ofMar-
for example, the
variability (Table 4). The less relevant variables in the definition
tinho [108]. In the developments associated with the Verdoorn–Kaldor laws, the output of factor 1 are the gross
domestic
growth isproduct per capita,
exogenous PPP, dissemination
and promotes productivity (constant
growth,2011 international
benefiting all the$)economy
and political
and
stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index). Inversely, the
society. Thus, following these developments, in this research, a model considering percentage of population
the
using safely managed drinking water services is the most relevant.
output growth as an explanatory variable was considered. Due to the existence of outliers The results for the
KMO in Table 4 show the sampling adequacy.
and lack of normality for some data, the quantile regression, based on the median estima-
tion, was considered.
A factor analysis was carried out to obtain uncorrelated factors and to deal with prob-
lems of collinearity among the variables in the cluster assessment [100]. For that, a princi-
pal-component factors methodology with rotation was considered.

4. Results
Figure 8 summarises the different phases of this section regarding the results ob-
tained with the variables selected for the dimensions associated with food security.
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 11 of 26
Foods 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 27

•Factor analysis was carried out to remove potential problems among the
variables related with the food security dimensions.
Factor analysis

•The cluster analysis was considered to better understand the interrelatioships

between the several countries and to highlight the lack of data for some
countries.
Cluster analysis

•All the information available for worldwide and over the period considered,
related with the variables selected, was used for quantile regressions. Quantile
regressions allow to deal with problems of outliers and heterogeneity.
Regressions

Figure 8. Summary of the several phases considered for the results.

Table 4. Results for rotated factorThe five variables

loadings considered
(pattern matrix) are correlated
and unique variances,with factor1,
worldwide onexplaining 65.8%
average over of the var-
the period
of 2000–2020. iability (Table 4). The less relevant variables in the definition of factor 1 are the gross do-
mestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination (constant 2011 international $) and political
Variables Factor1 (index). Inversely,
Uniqueness KMO 1
stability and absence of violence/terrorism the percentage of popula-
tionPPP,
Gross domestic product per capita, using safely managed drinking water services is the most relevant. The results for the
dissemination
0.738 0.455 0.695
(constant 2011 international $) KMO in Table 4 show the sampling adequacy.
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) 0.882 0.222 0.832
Prevalence
Table 4.ofResults
undernourishment (percent)
for rotated factor (3-year
loadings average)
(pattern −0.850
matrix) and unique 0.278
variances, worldwide on average over the0.715
period
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index)
of 2000–2020. 0.666 0.556 0.815
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
0.896 0.198 0.768
services (Percent)
Variables Factor1 Uniqueness KMO 1
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination (constant 2011 interna-
Overall 0.762
0.738 0.455 0.695
tional $) 1
Note: Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy.
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) 0.882 0.222 0.832
Prevalence of undernourishment (percent) (3-year average) −0.850 0.278
Considering the information from Figure 9, four clusters were used for the cluster 0.715
Political stability and absence analysis
of violence/terrorism
whose results(index)
are presented in Table 5. Combining 0.666 the results
0.556from Table 0.815
5 with
Percentage of population using thesafely
data managed
analysis carried
drinkingoutwater
previously,
servicesthe(Percent)
cluster 1 identifies
0.896 a set of countries0.768
0.198 where it
Overall is crucial to solve problems of food insecurity, namely those related to the prevalence 0.762 of
undernourishment (percent) (3-year average).
Note: Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy.
1 For the countries in cluster 2 and cluster 4,
there are also problems of undernourishment, but they are not so expressive as in the
countries of cluster1.
Considering Japan and Republic
the information from Figureof Korea
9, fourappear in cluster
clusters were used3 duefortothe
relatively
cluster
lower scores
analysis whose forresults
the protein supply, in
are presented below
Table Turkmenistan
5. Combiningand the Kazakhstan, respectively.
results from Table 5 with
In addition,
the the Republic
data analysis carried outof Korea has relatively
previously, lower
the cluster averagesafor
1 identifies setpolitical stability
of countries and
where it
the absence of violence/terrorism (index). Table 5 is missing other world
is crucial to solve problems of food insecurity, namely those related to the prevalence of countries due to
the lack of information
undernourishment for some
(percent) variables.
(3-year average). The countries
For for which
the countries there2isand
in cluster lack of data
cluster 4,
there are also problems of undernourishment, but they are not so expressive as match
for some variables are removed from the analysis, because the observations do not in the
when different
countries variables
of cluster1. are and
Japan interrelated.
Republic of Korea appear in cluster 3 due to relatively
lower scores for the protein supply, below Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, respectively.
In addition, the Republic of Korea has relatively lower averages for political stability and
the absence of violence/terrorism (index). Table 5 is missing other world countries due to
the lack of information for some variables. The countries for which there is lack of data for
Foods 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 27

Foods 2021, 10, 2732 12 of 26

some variables are removed from the analysis, because the observations do not match
when different variables are interrelated.

Dendrogram for _clus_1 cluster analysis

G1 G2 G3 G4
n=13 n=22 n=23 n=12

Figure 9. Results for cluster assessment, worldwide on average over the period of 2000–2020. Note: G1–G4 are branches
Figure 9. Results for cluster assessment, worldwide on average over the period of 2000–2020. Note: G1–G4 are branches
(one for each cluster); and n is the number of observations in each branch.
(one for each cluster); and n is the number of observations in each branch.
Table 5. Identification of clusters, worldwide on average over the period of 2000–2020.
Table 5. Identification of clusters, worldwide on average over the period of 2000–2020.
Clusters
Clusters
1 2 3 4
1
Afghanistan 2
Bangladesh 3
Albania 4
Algeria
Afghanistan
Central African Republic Bangladesh
Cambodia Albania
Belarus Algeria
Armenia
Central African Republic Cambodia Belarus Armenia
Chad Colombia Bosnia and Herzegovina Azerbaijan
Chad Colombia Bosnia and Herzegovina Azerbaijan
Congo
Congo Ecuador
Ecuador Brazil
Brazil Georgia
Georgia
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire Gambia
Gambia Bulgaria
Bulgaria Iran (Islamic Republicof)of)
Iran (Islamic Republic
Ethiopia
Ethiopia Ghana
Ghana Chile
Chile Jordan
Jordan
Iraq
Iraq Guatemala
Guatemala China,
China, Macao SARSAR
Macao Mexico
Mexico
Madagascar Kiribati Costa Rica Morocco
Madagascar
Nigeria
Kiribati
Kyrgyzstan
Costa Rica
Croatia
Morocco
North Macedonia
Nigeria Kyrgyzstan
Lao People’s Democratic Croatia North Macedonia
Pakistan Cyprus Samoa
Pakistan Lao People’sRepublic
Democratic Republic Cyprus Samoa
Rwanda
Rwanda Lebanon
Lebanon Estonia
Estonia Serbia
Serbia
Sierra Leone Lesotho Japan Ukraine
Sierra Leone Lesotho Japan Ukraine
Togo Mongolia Kazakhstan
Togo Mongolia
Myanmar Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Myanmar
Nepal Kuwait
Latvia
Nicaragua
Nepal Malaysia
Latvia
Paraguay Montenegro
Nicaragua Malaysia
Peru Oman
Paraguay
Philippines Montenegro
Republic of Korea
Sao TomePeru
and Principe Oman
Russian Federation
Suriname
Philippines Slovakiaof Korea
Republic
Uzbekistan
Sao Tome and Principe Tunisia
Russian Federation
Turkmenistan
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 13 of 26

Before the panel data regressions, considering the characteristics of the sample, the
data used for the variables were tested for normality, following, for example, Alejo et al. [103].
The results shown in Table 6 confirm the lack of normality. To deal with these statistical
problems, quantile regressions with panel data were considered [109]. This approach is
also adjusted to deal with the heterogeneity of the countries in the sample. For that, it
was considered a model based on the Verdoorn–Kaldor laws, where the food insecurity
variable (prevalence of undernourishment (percent) (3-year average)) was regressed with
variables related to several dimensions of sustainability (level of development, nutritional
and food availability, stability conditions and social and environmental conditions).

Table 6. Normality analysis, worldwide over the period of 2000–2020.

Coefficient z p > |z|

Skewness_e −0.271 −0.760 0.447
Kurtosis_e 4.186 * 2.720 0.006
Skewness_u −0.862 −1.280 0.201
Kurtosis_u 2.994 * 2.560 0.010
Joint test for Normality on e: chi2(2) = 8.000 *, Prob > chi2 = 0.018
Joint test for Normality on u: chi2(2) = 8.200 *, Prob > chi2 = 0.017
Note: *, statistically significant at 5%.

The results in Table 7 reveal that the undernourishment growth rates are mainly
explained by the average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) growth rates and
political stability, and absence of violence/terrorism (index) growth rates. Nonetheless,
the political stability and absence of violence/terrorism improvement is not always syn-
onymous of lower problems of undernutrition (as indicated by the sign found for the
coefficient and the data analysis carried out before). On the other hand, the gross domestic
product per capita, PPP, dissemination (constant 2011 international $) growth rates, and
the percentage of the population using safely managed drinking water services (percent)
growth rates are only statistically significant for the extreme cases (extreme quantiles).
Furthermore, in the countries with lower growth rates for the prevalence of undernourish-
ment (quantiles 0.10 and 0.20), the improvements in the GDP and drinking water services
do not contribute to reducing the problems of undernutrition (the signals of the coefficients
are positive).

Table 7. Results for panel data quantile regressions with the variables in growth rates, worldwide over the period
of 2000–2020.

Prevalence of Undernourishment (Percent) (3-Year Average) Coefficient z p > |z|

Quantile 0.10
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
0.150 * 4.100 0.000
(constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) −2.691 * −49.820 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) 0.001 * 3.060 0.002
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
0.311 * 9.210 0.000
services (Percent)
Quantile 0.20
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
0.135 * 3.030 0.002
(constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) −2.407 * −14.720 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) 0.002 * 5.440 0.000
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
0.165 *** 1.670 0.094
services (Percent)
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 14 of 26

Table 7. Cont.

Prevalence of Undernourishment (Percent) (3-Year Average) Coefficient z p > |z|

Quantile 0.30
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
−0.014 −0.440 0.657
(constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) −2.275 * −14.940 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) 0.003 * 19.480 0.000
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
−0.113 ** −2.400 0.017
services (Percent)
Quantile 0.40
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
−0.040 −1.140 0.256
(constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) −2.259 * −28.070 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) 0.003 * 15.510 0.000
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
−0.139 *** −1.670 0.094
services (Percent)
Quantile 0.50
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
−0.005 −0.200 0.842
(constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) −2.339 * −26.550 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) 0.003 * 9.100 0.000
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
−0.063 −0.410 0.685
services (Percent)
Quantile 0.60
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
0.007 0.310 0.756
(constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) −2.225 * −23.670 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) 0.004 * 8.940 0.000
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
−0.100 −0.740 0.462
services (Percent)
Quantile 0.70
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
−0.005 −0.210 0.834
(constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) −2.297 * −16.500 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) 0.003 * 5.100 0.000
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
−0.021 −0.220 0.828
services (Percent)
Quantile 0.80
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
−0.045 ** −2.090 0.037
(constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) −2.162 * −24.610 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) 0.003 ** 2.430 0.015
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
−0.225 −1.080 0.280
services (Percent)
Quantile 0.90
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
−0.119 * −18.110 0.000
(constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) −2.537 * −168.980 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) 0.001 * 9.460 0.000
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
−0.094 * −3.500 0.000
services (Percent)
Mean VIF = 1.030
Note: *, statistically significant at 1%; **, statistically significant at 5%; ***, statistically significant at 10%.

5. Encompassing the Climate Change among the Pillars for a More Sustainable
Food Security
Figure 10 reveals a negative relationship between the prevalence of undernourishment
and the temperature change over the period considered in the world countries. In other
words, the increase in temperature change verified since 2000 was accompanied by a
decrease in the prevalence of undernourishment.
 Foods 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 27

Foods 2021, 10, 2732 15 of 26

other words, the increase in temperature change verified since 2000 was accompanied by
a decrease in the prevalence of undernourishment.

18 1.8

16 1.6

14 1.4

12 1.2

10 1

8 0.8

6 0.6

4 0.4

2 0.2

0 0

Prevalence of undernourishment (percent) (3-year average) - main axis

Temperature change (°C) - secondary axis

Figure10.
Figure 10. Benchmarking
Benchmarking the
the prevalence
prevalenceofofundernourishment
undernourishmentand
andthe temperature
the change,
temperature on on
change, av-
erage across the world over the period of 2000–2020.
average across the world over the period of 2000–2020.

Tobetter
To betterassess
assessthetheimpacts
impactsof ofclimate
climatechange
changeon onfood
foodinsecurity,
insecurity,several
severalregressions
regressions
were repeated, considering now the temperature change as an
were repeated, considering now the temperature change as an indicator for climate indicator for change
climate
change (Table 8). The granger causality test for balanced panel data, using the
(Table 8). The granger causality test for balanced panel data, using the Stata software, sup- Stata soft-
ware, supports the temperature change as an explanatory variable. For the
ports the temperature change as an explanatory variable. For the period of 2000–2020, the period of 2000–
2020, the
results for results for thepreviously
the variables variables considered
previously are considered are findings
similar. The similar. The findings
for the for the
temperature
temperature
change growth change growth
rates are, rates are,
in general, in general,significant
statistically statisticallysince
significant since the
the quantile quantile
is 0.30 and
is 0.30 and negative.
consistently consistently negative.
This means thatThisincreases
means that increases
in the in thechange
temperature temperature
growthchange
rates
growth
that rates decreases
promote that promote decreases
in the prevalencein theofprevalence of undernourishment
undernourishment growth rates,growth rates,
nonetheless
nonetheless
with witharound
coefficients −0.001
coefficients around
(when −0.001 (when the temperature
the temperature change1%
change increases increases 1%
point, the
point, the undernutrition
undernutrition decreases
decreases 0.001% 0.001% points).
points).

Table8.8.Results
Table Resultsfor
forpanel
paneldata
dataquantile
quantileregressions
regressionswith
withthe
thevariables
variablesiningrowth
growthrates
rates(encompassing
(encompassingclimate
climatechange)
change)
worldwideover
worldwide overthe
theperiod
periodofof2000–2020.
2000–2020.

Prevalence
Prevalence of ofUndernourishment
Undernourishment (Percent)
(Percent) (3-Year
(3-Year Average) Coefficient
Average) Coefficient
z z p > |z|
p > |z|
Quantile 0.10
Quantile 0.10
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination (constant 2011 international
0.077 ** 0.077 **
2.090 2.0900.037 0.037
(constant 2011 international $)
$)
Average protein
Average proteinsupply
supply(g/cap/day)
(g/cap/day) (3-year average)
(3-year average) −2.674 * −55.580
−2.674 * −55.5800.000 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) 0.001 * 4.080 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index)
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
0.001 * 4.080 0.000
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water services 0.337 * (Percent) 3.740
0.337 * 3.7400.000 0.000
services (Percent)
Temperature change
Temperature change ◦ (°C)
( C) 0.000 0.000
0.160 0.1600.875 0.875
Quantile 0.20
Quantile 0.20
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination (constant 0.077 2011 *international 3.080 0.002
(constant 2011 international $) 0.077 * 3.080 0.002
$)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) −2.718 * −63.810 0.000
Average proteinand
Political stability supply (g/cap/day)
absence (3-year average)
of violence/terrorism (index) 0.002 * −2.718 *
5.370 −63.8100.000 0.000
Percentage
Political of population
stability using safely
and absence managed drinking water
of violence/terrorism (index) 0.002 * 5.3700.101 0.000
0.152 1.640
services (Percent)
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water services (Percent) 0.152 1.640 0.101
Temperature change ( C) ◦ 0.000 0.810 0.420
Temperature change (°C) 0.000 0.810 0.420
Quantile 0.30
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 16 of 26

Table 8. Cont.

Prevalence of Undernourishment (Percent) (3-Year Average) Coefficient z p > |z|

Quantile 0.30
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
−0.010 −0.450 0.652
(constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) −2.280 * −22.880 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) 0.003 * 12.740 0.000
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
−0.090 * −2.760 0.006
services (Percent)
Temperature change ( C) ◦ −0.002 * −6.060 0.000
Quantile 0.40
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
−0.029 −0.800 0.424
(constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) −2.243 * −25.910 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) 0.003 * 13.550 0.000
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
−0.135 *** −1.750 0.080
services (Percent)
Temperature change ( C) ◦ −0.001 * −2.780 0.005
Quantile 0.50
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
−0.021 −0.690 0.489
(constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) −2.309 * −28.610 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) 0.003 * 8.410 0.000
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
−0.165 *** −1.710 0.087
services (Percent)
Temperature change ( C) ◦ −0.001 * −3.670 0.000
Quantile 0.60
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
−0.002 −0.090 0.927
(constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) −2.302 * −16.810 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) 0.003 * 3.070 0.002
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
0.117 0.880 0.379
services (Percent)
Temperature change ( C) ◦ −0.001 *** −1.690 0.091
Quantile 0.70
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
−0.034 * −3.150 0.002
(constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) −2.510 * −24.620 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) 0.004 * 4.860 0.000
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
0.022 0.540 0.590
services (Percent)
Temperature change ( C) ◦ −0.001 * −6.570 0.000
Quantile 0.80
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
0.000 0.060 0.952
(constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) −2.276 * −31.300 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) 0.003 * 2.600 0.009
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
−0.398 * −8.350 0.000
services (Percent)
Temperature change (◦ C) −0.001 ** −2.220 0.026
Quantile 0.90
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination
−0.131 * −50.320 0.000
(constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day) (3-year average) −2.644 * −195.770 0.000
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index) 0.001 * 29.020 0.000
Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water
−0.160 * −30.880 0.000
services (Percent)
Temperature change (◦ C) −0.000 * −4.170 0.000
Mean VIF = 1.030
Note: *, statistically significant at 1%; **, statistically significant at 5%; ***, statistically significant at 10%.
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 17 of 26

These findings highlight that, despite the lower marginal impacts, the improvements
in the mitigation of malnutrition in the world have been supported by unsustainable
approaches, showing that there are here fields that deserve special attention by the national
and international organizations.
To benchmark, shorter periods (2000–2013 and 2014–2020) were considered to carry
out the regressions and the results are those presented in Table 9. These findings highlight,
again, the relevance of the protein supply to reduce the prevalence of undernourishment.
In addition, the results show that there are differences between the two shorter periods.
For example, the importance of the political stability and the absence of violence to reduce
the prevalence of undernourishment was more evident in the second (2014–2020) period
(quantiles 0.50 and 0.60). The impacts from the temperature change were less visible in the
second period; nonetheless, when these impacts are statistically significant, the coefficient
is positive (quantiles 0.60 and 0.90), showing that in the most recent years, the impacts from
climate change are more dramatic and related with increasing levels of undernourishment.

Table 9. Results for panel data quantile regressions with the variables in growth rates (encompassing climate change)
worldwide over the periods of 2000–2013 and 2014–2020.

Prevalence of Undernourishment (Percent) 2000–2013 2014–2020

(3-Year Average) Coefficient z p > |z| Coefficient z p > |z|
Quantile 0.10
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP,
0.018 0.190 0.851 0.726 ** 2.400 0.017
dissemination (constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day)
−2.444 * −42.520 0.000 −3.049 * −2.660 0.008
(3-year average)
Political stability and absence of
0.004 *** 1.710 0.087 0.007 0.440 0.658
violence/terrorism (index)
Percentage of population using safely managed
0.336 * 2.990 0.003 1.596 1.110 0.267
drinking water services (Percent)
Temperature change (◦ C) 0.000 0.210 0.836 −0.013 −0.500 0.615
Quantile 0.20
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP,
0.007 0.160 0.877 0.430 1.640 0.100
dissemination (constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day)
−2.527 * −39.840 0.000 −3.248 * −2.870 0.004
(3-year average)
Political stability and absence of
0.003 * 4.690 0.000 0.010 1.270 0.205
violence/terrorism (index)
Percentage of population using safely managed
−0.206 * −5.320 0.000 3.117 1.430 0.153
drinking water services (Percent)
Temperature change (◦ C) 0.000 −0.200 0.844 0.001 0.040 0.965
Quantile 0.30
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP,
−0.147 * −10.660 0.000 0.557 ** 2.210 0.027
dissemination (constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day)
−2.042 * −28.890 0.000 −4.736 * −4.110 0.000
(3-year average)
Political stability and absence of
0.003 * 11.760 0.000 0.010 1.460 0.145
violence/terrorism (index)
Percentage of population using safely managed
−0.012 −0.850 0.397 6.153 ** 2.310 0.021
drinking water services (Percent)
Temperature change (◦ C) −0.002 * −11.510 0.000 −0.011 −0.320 0.748
Quantile 0.40
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP,
−0.049 ** −1.970 0.049 0.300 0.810 0.418
dissemination (constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day)
−2.310 * −28.600 0.000 −3.971 * −3.500 0.000
(3-year average)
Political stability and absence of
0.003 * 18.460 0.000 −0.009 −1.390 0.164
violence/terrorism (index)
Percentage of population using safely managed
−0.101 −0.820 0.411 6.022 *** 1.720 0.085
drinking water services (Percent)
Temperature change (◦ C) −0.001 * −2.580 0.010 −0.015 −0.480 0.631
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 18 of 26

Table 9. Cont.

Prevalence of Undernourishment (Percent) 2000–2013 2014–2020

(3-Year Average) Coefficient z p > |z| Coefficient z p > |z|
Quantile 0.50
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP,
−0.059 * −3.180 0.001 −0.076 −0.800 0.422
dissemination (constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day)
−2.387 * −20.700 0.000 −1.758 * −11.230 0.000
(3-year average)
Political stability and absence of
0.003 * 6.670 0.000 −0.002 * −4.270 0.000
violence/terrorism (index)
Percentage of population using safely managed
−0.246 * −3.630 0.000 0.482 * 3.530 0.000
drinking water services (Percent)
Temperature change (◦ C) −0.002 * −31.530 0.000 0.005 0.450 0.654
Quantile 0.60
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP,
−0.040 −1.500 0.132 −0.130 −1.410 0.158
dissemination (constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day)
−2.526 * −19.960 0.000 −2.682 * −11.300 0.000
(3-year average)
Political stability and absence of
0.004 * 8.610 0.000 −0.009 * −3.040 0.002
violence/terrorism (index)
Percentage of population using safely managed
0.006 0.040 0.971 0.776 * 4.590 0.000
drinking water services (Percent)
Temperature change (◦ C) −0.001 * −2.980 0.003 0.012 * 5.760 0.000
Quantile 0.70
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP,
−0.033 *** −1.780 0.074 0.245 1.400 0.162
dissemination (constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day)
−2.441 * −17.780 0.000 −2.323 * −3.620 0.000
(3-year average)
Political stability and absence of
0.004 * 9.720 0.000 −0.008 −1.200 0.230
violence/terrorism (index)
Percentage of population using safely managed
−0.046 −0.890 0.371 1.874 * 2.890 0.004
drinking water services (Percent)
Temperature change (◦ C) −0.001 * −6.520 0.000 −0.003 −0.270 0.787
Quantile 0.80
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP,
−0.041 ** −2.240 0.025 0.154 0.860 0.388
dissemination (constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day)
−2.336 * −34.910 0.000 −3.278 * −3.660 0.000
(3-year average)
Political stability and absence of
0.003 * 4.650 0.000 −0.002 −0.590 0.553
violence/terrorism (index)
Percentage of population using safely managed
0.053 0.400 0.688 0.978 0.840 0.401
drinking water services (Percent)
Temperature change (◦ C) −0.002 * −3.050 0.002 0.003 0.230 0.816
Quantile 0.90
Gross domestic product per capita, PPP,
−0.044 −1.300 0.194 −0.065 −1.050 0.294
dissemination (constant 2011 international $)
Average protein supply (g/cap/day)
−2.314 * −22.000 0.000 −3.601 * −12.630 0.000
(3-year average)
Political stability and absence of
0.005 * 16.760 0.000 −0.001 −0.630 0.531
violence/terrorism (index)
Percentage of population using safely managed
−0.212 ** −2.050 0.040 −1.012 * −2.890 0.004
drinking water services (Percent)
Temperature change (◦ C) 0.000 0.170 0.863 0.021 *** 1.740 0.083
Mean VIF = 1.030
Note: *, statistically significant at 1%; **, statistically significant at 5%; ***, statistically significant at 10%.
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 19 of 26

6. Discussion and Conclusions

The research here carried out intended to bring more insights into the world food
security context and its relationship with sustainability. In other words, it was aimed
to characterise the current context to understand if the four pillars associated with the
concept of food security are enough and well-designed to deal with the present challenges,
in a framework of sustainable development. To achieve these objectives, data from the
FAOSTAT were considered, for the period of 2000–2020, that were assessed through, namely
quantile regressions.
The food security concept is defined by four dimensions (availability, accessibility,
utilization, and stability) and is interrelated with the Sustainable Development Goals.
In fact, food security is part of the SDGs (goal 2 for zero hunger). Nonetheless, the question
is if the sustainability dimensions are adequately considered by the food security pillars.
The scientific literature highlights some concerns about these interrelationships and pro-
poses either a new pillar [9] or considering other variables [12], namely those associated
with climate change [14]. In addition, the several relationships between food security and
sustainability are complex and need further multidisciplinary assessments. Agricultural
practices, alternative sources of food supply, and public policies are determinants for more
sustainable food security.
The data used shows that, worldwide over the period taken into account, the av-
erage protein supply was 78.804 g/cap/day, the average supply of protein of animal
origin was 35.464 g/cap/day, the share of dietary supply derived from cereals, roots,
and tubers accounted for 46.807 kcal/cap/day, and the political stability and absence
of violence/terrorism (index) was −0.032. These results reveal that there is still much
more to account for to improve the nutritional conditions and the political stability and
absence of violence/terrorism. If we consider that the Western Balkans and the European
Union had, over the period of 2016–2020, values of 101.340 for average protein supply
(g/cap/day), 57.300 average supply of protein of animal origin (g/cap/day), and 0.550 for
political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index), there is a long way to run
worldwide [89]. These findings highlight that a part of the world deals with problems of
undernutrition while the other part has difficulties in reducing the prevalence of obesity.
In any case, political stability seems to be one of the most important variables to improve
the contexts of undernutrition.
The results from the regressions, for the period 2000–2020, show that undernutrition
is principally impacted by the growth rates for average protein supply and for the political
stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index). However, the political stability and
absence of violence/terrorism are not enough to guarantee reductions in undernutrition.
On the other hand, the economic and social conditions present evidences of statistically
significance, namely in the countries with extreme values for undernourishment growth
rates, but do not reduce the undernutrition in the countries with lower growth rates for the
prevalence of undernourishment (first two quantiles). Finally, the indicator for the climate
changes (temperature changes), in growth rates, contributed to reducing undernutrition
growth rates. Considering that we used dynamic models with panel data, these results high-
light, namely, that the undernutrition mitigation has been achieved through approaches
associated with increases in the temperature. In fact, in specific contexts, adopting healthy
diets may increase the environmental impacts [110]. In addition, the temperature changes
impacts depend on local conditions [111]. With shorter periods (2000–2013 and 2014–2020),
to benchmark, the findings highlight the importance of the political stability and absence
of violence/terrorism to reduce the undernutrition and the negative impacts from the
temperature change in the most recent years. Spearman’s rank correlation matrix [112]
highlights the importance of the dependent variable considered for food insecurity in
the regressions.
In terms of practical implications, it can be seen that the food security concept is part
of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, sustainability needs to be more appropri-
ately addressed inside the food security pillars, creating new dimensions or renaming the
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 20 of 26

current pillars. This is important to give adjusted signs for several stakeholders. In terms
of policy recommendations, it could be important to design instruments and measures
that mitigate undernutrition through sustainable and more environmentally compatible
practices. Regarding the limitations, the main constraints found to develop in this research
were associated with the availability of statistical information. For future research, it is
suggested to assess how the approaches used to mitigate undernutrition negatively impact
the environment and contribute to climate change.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.d.P.F.G., M.L.d.J.P., C.A.d.C., D.d.V.T.A.d.C., P.B.C.d.S.

and V.J.P.D.M.; methodology, V.J.P.D.M.; software, V.J.P.D.M.; validation, R.d.P.F.G., M.L.d.J.P.,
C.A.d.C., D.d.V.T.A.d.C., P.B.C.d.S. and V.J.P.D.M.; formal analysis, R.d.P.F.G., M.L.d.J.P., C.A.d.C.,
D.d.V.T.A.d.C., P.B.C.d.S. and V.J.P.D.M.; investigation, R.d.P.F.G., M.L.d.J.P., C.A.d.C., D.d.V.T.A.d.C.,
P.B.C.d.S. and V.J.P.D.M.; writing—original draft preparation, V.J.P.D.M.; writing—review and edit-
ing, R.d.P.F.G. and C.A.d.C.; supervision, V.J.P.D.M.; funding acquisition, R.d.P.F.G. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work is funded by National Funds through the FCT—Foundation for Science and
Technology, I.P., within the scope of the project Refª UIDB/00681/2020.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: Furthermore we would like to thank the CERNAS Research Centre and the
Polytechnic Institute of Viseu for their support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 21 of 26

Appendix A
Table A1. Pairwise correlation matrix between the variables related to the food security and sustainability worldwide over the period of 2000–2020.

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W
A 1.000
0.4924
B 1.000
*
(0.000)
0.6711 0.7896
C 1.000
* *
(0.000) (0.000)
D 0.7497 0.6022 0.8918 1.000
* * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
0.1955 0.3961 0.3968 0.4231
E 1.000
* * * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
0.6292 0.9521 0.8823 0.7537 0.4405
F 1.000
* * * * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
G
−0.6645 −0.4572 −0.6577 −0.8441 −0.4024 −0.6219 1.000
* * * * * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
H
−0.3220 −0.8478 −0.7302 −0.6002 −0.4028 −0.8871 0.4659
1.000
* * * * * * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
I −0.032 −0.1346 −0.1154 −0.1082 −0.3980 −0.1510 0.0507 0.027 1.000
* * * * * *
(0.105) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.009) (0.275)
J
0.0909 0.2301 0.2487 0.2585 0.5546 0.2768 −0.2774 −0.2669 −0.4459 1.000
* * * * * * * * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
K
−0.0393 −0.0845 −0.0627 −0.0491 −0.0945 −0.0698 0.014
0.0939 0.0650
0.008 1.000
* * * * * * * *
(0.023) (0.000) (0.001) (0.009) (0.000) (0.000) (0.446) (0.000) (0.001) (0.677)
L
0.1909 0.0809 0.1254 0.0661
0.018
0.1118 −0.0397 −0.3093 0.2841 −0.0629 0.025 1.000
* * * * * * * * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.001) (0.342) (0.000) (0.042) (0.000) (0.000) (0.001) (0.202)
M
0.5224 0.3307 0.5045 0.6388 0.2257 0.4623 −0.6006 −0.3959 0.039
0.1966 −0.0729 −0.0586 1.000
* * * * * * * * * * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.053) (0.000) (0.000) (0.003)
N
−0.2110 −0.2366 −0.2111 −0.1593 −0.1905 −0.2559 0.0803 0.1231 0.2130 −0.0904 0.0670
−0.016 0.022 1.000
* * * * * * * * * * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.409) (0.219)
0
0.1773 0.2945 0.4240 0.3412 0.2640 0.3978 −0.3242 −0.3133 −0.1089 0.2206 0.1737 0.1224 0.0605 −0.0718 1.000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.002) (0.000)
P
−0.5857 −0.5895 −0.6998 −0.7703 −0.3767 −0.7459 0.7829 0.6194
−0.005 −0.2767 −0.035 −0.2787 −0.4937 0.0590 −0.3245 1.000
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.827) (0.000) (0.074) (0.000) (0.000) (0.003) (0.000)
Q
0.5292 0.5721 0.6739 0.7133 0.2926 0.7096 −0.7021 −0.7030 −0.026 0.2225
−0.009 0.3283 0.4861 −0.1007 0.3804 −0.7775 1.000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.178) (0.000) (0.607) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
R 0.5875 0.5611 0.7268 0.7483 0.3185 0.7201 −0.7517 −0.6554 −0.0585 0.2391 0.013 0.3646 0.4581 −0.1524 0.4691 −0.7935 0.8803 1.000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.003) (0.000) (0.466) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 22 of 26

Table A1. Cont.

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W

S
0.7033 0.6639 0.7982 0.8070 0.3286 0.7996 −0.7625 −0.6652 −0.047 0.1855 −0.0468 0.1635 0.5583 −0.3489 0.3454 −0.8148 0.8565 0.8691
1.000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.057) (0.000) (0.033) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
T
0.6890 0.5886 0.7427 0.7695 0.3229 0.7129 −0.7042 −0.4581 −0.0704 0.1756 −0.0882 0.1051 0.5376 −0.2559 0.0788 −0.6304 0.6457 0.7157 0.7704
1.000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.004) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.001) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
U −0.5772 −0.4827 −0.6490 −0.7266 −0.4296 −0.6293 0.7274 0.4283 0.1163 −0.2737 0.0595 −0.1550 −0.5036 0.1357 −0.3943 0.5935 −0.6826 −0.7485 −0.7316 −0.6544 1.000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.001) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
V
−0.4089 −0.4257 −0.6067 −0.6238 −0.3829 −0.5464 0.6363 0.3434 0.2153 −0.2452 −0.0754 −0.1101 −0.3686 0.2607 −0.4712 0.5874 −0.4861 −0.6692 −0.6149 −0.4964 0.6058
1.000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.001) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
W
0.2944 0.5396 0.5513 0.5516 0.2140 0.6017 −0.6189 −0.4926 −0.014 0.2042 0.0425 0.2172 0.3923 0.0501 0.3431 −0.5739 0.5552 0.5537 0.4631 0.3194 −0.4476 −0.4938 1.000
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.490) (0.000) (0.025) (0.000) (0.000) (0.008) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Note: A, gross domestic product per capita, PPP, dissemination (constant 2011 international $); B, average dietary energy supply adequacy (percent) (3-year average); C, average protein supply (g/cap/day)
(3-year average); D, average supply of protein of animal origin (g/cap/day) (3-year average); E, average value of food production (constant 2004–2006 I$/cap) (3-year average); F, dietary energy supply used in
the estimation of prevalence of undernourishment (kcal/cap/day) (3-year average); G, share of dietary energy supply derived from cereals, roots and tubers (kcal/cap/day) (3-year average); H, prevalence of
undernourishment (percent) (3-year average); I, cereal import dependency ratio (percent) (3-year average); J, per capita food production variability (constant 2004–2006 thousand int$ per capita); K, per capita
food supply variability (kcal/cap/day); L, percent of arable land equipped for irrigation (percent) (3-year average); M, political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (index); N, value of food imports in
total merchandise exports (percent) (3-year average); O, percentage of children under 5 years of age who are overweight (modelled estimates) (percent); P, percentage of children under 5 years of age who
are stunted (modelled estimates) (percent); Q, percentage of population using at least basic drinking water services (percent); R, percentage of population using at least basic sanitation services (percent); S,
percentage of population using safely managed drinking water services (Percent); T, percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services (Percent); U, prevalence of anaemia among women of
reproductive age (15–49 years); V, prevalence of low birthweight (percent); W, prevalence of obesity in the adult population (18 years and older). *, statistically significant at 5%.
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 23 of 26

References
1. Pérez-Escamilla, R. Food security and the 2015–2030 sustainable development goals: From human to planetary health:
Perspectives and opinions. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 2017, 1, e000513. [CrossRef]
2. Wischnath, G.; Buhaug, H. On climate variability and civil war in Asia. Clim. Chang. 2014, 122, 709–721. [CrossRef]
3. FAO The State of Food and Agriculture. 1996. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/w1358e/w1358e00.htm (accessed on
29 August 2021).
4. Magrini, E.; Vigani, M. Technology adoption and the multiple dimensions of food security: The case of maize in Tanzania.
Food Secur. 2016, 8, 707–726. [CrossRef]
5. Nosratabadi, S.; Khazami, N.; Abdallah, M.B.; Lackner, Z.; Band, S.S.; Mosavi, A.; Mako, C. Social capital contributions to food
security: A comprehensive literature review. Foods 2020, 9, 1650. [CrossRef]
6. Oakley, A.R.; Nikolaus, C.J.; Ellison, B.; Nickols-Richardson, S.M. Food insecurity and food preparation equipment in US
households: Exploratory results from a cross-sectional questionnaire. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2019, 32, 143–151. [CrossRef]
7. Houessou, M.D.; Cassee, A.; Sonneveld, B.G.J.S. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on food security in rural and urban
settlements in benin: Do allotment gardens soften the blow? Sustainability 2021, 13, 7313. [CrossRef]
8. FAO. Building a Common Vision for Sustainable Food and Agriculture: Principles and Approaches; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014.
ISBN 978-92-5-108471-7.
9. Berry, E.M.; Dernini, S.; Burlingame, B.; Meybeck, A.; Conforti, P. Food Security and Sustainability: Can One Exist without the
Other? Public Health Nutr. 2015, 18, 2293–2302. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Brooks, J. Food security and the Sustainable Development Goals. In Debate the Issues: New Approaches to Economic Chal-
lenges; Love, P., Ed.; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2016.
11. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report. 2021. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2021
/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2021.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2021).
12. Richardson, R.B. Ecosystem services and food security: Economic perspectives on environmental sustainability. Sustainability
2010, 2, 3520–3548. [CrossRef]
13. Allen, T.; Prosperi, P.; Cogill, B.; Padilla, M.; Peri, I. A delphi approach to develop sustainable food system metrics. Soc. Indic. Res.
2019, 141, 1307–1339. [CrossRef]
14. Singh, N.P.; Anand, B.; Singh, S.; Srivastava, S.K.; Rao, C.S.; Rao, K.V.; Bal, S.K. Synergies and trade-offs for climate-resilient
agriculture in india: An agro-climatic zone assessment. Clim. Chang. 2021, 164, 11. [CrossRef]
15. Maxwell, S.; Smith, M. Household food security: A conceptual review. In Household Food Security: Concepts, Indicators, Measure-
ments: A Technical Review; Maxwell, S., Frankenberger, T.R., Eds.; UNICEF: New York, NY, USA; IFAD: Rome, Italy, 1992.
16. Peng, W.; Berry, E.M. The Concept of food security. In Encyclopedia of Food Security and Sustainability; Ferranti, P., Berry, E.M.,
Anderson, J.R., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2019; pp. 1–7. ISBN 978-0-12-812688-2.
17. Eakin, H.; Connors, J.P.; Wharton, C.; Bertmann, F.; Xiong, A.; Stoltzfus, J. Identifying attributes of food system sustainability:
Emerging themes and consensus. Agric. Hum. Values 2017, 34, 757–773. [CrossRef]
18. Guma, I.P.; Rwashana, A.S.; Oyo, B. Food security indicators for subsistence farmers sustainability: A system dynamics approach.
Int. J. Syst. Dyn. Appl. 2018, 7, 45–64. [CrossRef]
19. Van den Brande, K.; Happaerts, S.; Bruyninckx, H. Multi-level interactions in a sustainable development context: Different
routes for flanders to decision-making in the UN commission on sustainable development. Environ. Policy Gov. 2011, 21, 70–82.
[CrossRef]
20. Green, A.; Nemecek, T.; Chaudhary, A.; Mathys, A. Assessing nutritional, health, and environmental sustainability dimensions of
agri-food production. Glob. Food Secur.-Agric.Policy 2020, 26, 100406. [CrossRef]
21. Omotayo, A.O.; Ijatuyi, E.J.; Ogunniyi, A.I.; Aremu, A.O. Exploring the resource value of transvaal red milk wood
(Mimusops zeyheri) for food security and sustainability: An appraisal of existing evidence. Plants 2020, 9, 1486. [CrossRef]
22. Lin, J.; Frank, M.; Reid, D. No home without hormones: How plant hormones control legume nodule organogenesis.
Plant Commun. 2020, 1, 100104. [CrossRef]
23. Liu, L.; Yao, S.; Zhang, H.; Muhammed, A.; Xu, J.; Li, R.; Zhang, D.; Zhang, S.; Yang, X. Soil nitrate nitrogen buffer capacity and
environmentally safe nitrogen rate for winter wheat-summer maize cropping in Northern China. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 213,
445–453. [CrossRef]
24. Pereira-Dias, L.; Gil-Villar, D.; Castell-Zeising, V.; Quinones, A.; Calatayud, A.; Rodriguez-Burruezo, A.; Fita, A. Main root
adaptations in pepper germplasm (Capsicum spp.) to phosphorus low-input conditions. Agronomy 2020, 10, 637. [CrossRef]
25. Aharon, S.; Peleg, Z.; Argaman, E.; Ben-David, R.; Lati, R.N. Image-based high-throughput phenotyping of cereals early vigor
and weed-competitiveness traits. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3877. [CrossRef]
26. Liu, Y.; Zhuo, L.; Yang, X.; Ji, X.; Yue, Z.; Zhao, D.; Wu, P. Crop production allocations for saving water and improving calorie
supply in China. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 632199. [CrossRef]
27. Mangu, V.R.; Ratnasekera, D.; Yabes, J.C.; Wing, R.A.; Baisakh, N. Functional screening of genes from a halophyte wild rice
relative porteresia coarctata in arabidopsis model identifies candidate genes involved in salt tolerance. Curr. Plant Biol. 2019,
18, 100107. [CrossRef]
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 24 of 26

28. Qi, M.; Zheng, W.; Zhao, X.; Hohenstein, J.D.; Kandel, Y.; O’Conner, S.; Wang, Y.; Du, C.; Nettleton, D.; MacIntosh, G.C.; et al.
QQS orphan gene and its interactor NF-YC4 reduce susceptibility to pathogens and pests. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2019, 17, 252–263.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Campi, M.; Duenas, M.; Fagiolo, G. Specialization in food production affects global food security and food systems sustainability.
World Dev. 2021, 141, 105411. [CrossRef]
30. Scherer, L.A.; Verburg, P.H.; Schulp, C.J.E. Opportunities for sustainable intensification in European agriculture. Glob. Environ.
Chang.-Hum. Policy Dimens. 2018, 48, 43–55. [CrossRef]
31. Cui, Z.; Zhang, H.; Chen, X.; Zhang, C.; Ma, W.; Huang, C.; Zhang, W.; Mi, G.; Miao, Y.; Li, X.; et al. Pursuing sustainable
productivity with millions of smallholder farmers. Nature 2018, 555, 363–366. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Bhat, M.A.; Kumar, V.; Bhat, M.A.; Wani, I.A.; Dar, F.L.; Farooq, I.; Bhatti, F.; Koser, R.; Rahman, S.; Jan, A.T. Mechanistic insights
of the interaction of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) with plant roots toward enhancing plant productivity by
alleviating salinity stress. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1952. [CrossRef]
33. Borchert, F.; Emadodin, I.; Kluss, C.; Rotter, A.; Reinsch, T. Grass growth and N2O emissions from soil after application of jellyfish
in coastal areas. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 711601. [CrossRef]
34. Buller, H.; Blokhuis, H.; Jensen, P.; Keeling, L. Towards farm animal welfare and sustainability. Animals 2018, 8, 81. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
35. Ren, S.; Guo, B.; Wu, X.; Zhang, L.; Ji, M.; Wang, J. Winter wheat planted area monitoring and yield modeling using modis data in
the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain, China. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 182, 106049. [CrossRef]
36. Pott, L.P.; Carneiro Amado, T.J.; Schwalbert, R.A.; Corassa, G.M.; Ciampitti, I.A. Satellite-based data fusion crop type classification
and mapping in Rio Grande Do Sul, Brazil. ISPRS-J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2021, 176, 196–210. [CrossRef]
37. Rasool, R.; Fayaz, A.; ul Shafiq, M.; Singh, H.; Ahmed, P. Land use land cover change in kashmir himalaya: Linking remote
sensing with an indicator based dpsir approach. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 125, 107447. [CrossRef]
38. Boyer, D.; Sarkar, J.; Ramaswami, A. Diets, food miles, and environmental sustainability of urban food systems: Analysis of nine
indian cities. Earth Future 2019, 7, 911–922. [CrossRef]
39. Kakar, K.; Xuan, T.D.; Haqani, M.I.; Rayee, R.; Wafa, I.K.; Abdiani, S.; Tran, H.-D. Current situation and sustainable development
of rice cultivation and production in afghanistan. Agriculture 2019, 9, 49. [CrossRef]
40. Raheem, D.; Dayoub, M.; Birech, R.; Nakiyemba, A. The contribution of cereal grains to food security and sustainability in africa:
Potential application of UAV in Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda, and Namibia. Urban Sci. 2021, 5, 8. [CrossRef]
41. Aiking, H.; de Boer, J. Protein and sustainability—The potential of insects. J. Insects Food Feed 2019, 5, 3–7. [CrossRef]
42. Guiné, R.P.F.; Correia, P.; Coelho, C.; Costa, C.A. The role of edible insects to mitigate challenges for sustainability. Open Agric.
2021, 6, 24–36. [CrossRef]
43. Aiking, H.; de Boer, J. The next Protein Transition. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 105, 515–522. [CrossRef]
44. Bessa, L.W.; Pieterse, E.; Sigge, G.; Hoffman, L.C. Insects as human food; from farm to fork. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2020, 100, 5017–5022.
[CrossRef]
45. Armanda, D.T.; Guinee, J.B.; Tukker, A. The second green revolution: Innovative urban agriculture’s contribution to food security
and sustainability—A review. Glob. Food Secur.-Agric.Policy 2019, 22, 13–24. [CrossRef]
46. Ceppa, F.; Faccenda, F.; De Filippo, C.; Albanese, D.; Pindo, M.; Martelli, R.; Marconi, P.; Lunelli, F.; Fava, F.; Parisi, G. Influence of
essential oils in diet and life-stage on gut microbiota and fillet quality of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr.
2018, 69, 318–333. [CrossRef]
47. Csortan, G.; Ward, J.; Roetman, P. Productivity, resource efficiency and financial savings: An investigation of the current
capabilities and potential of south australian home food gardens. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0230232. [CrossRef]
48. Domingo, A.; Charles, K.-A.; Jacobs, M.; Brooker, D.; Hanning, R.M. Indigenous community perspectives of food security,
sustainable food systems and strategies to enhance access to local and traditional healthy food for partnering williams treaties
first nations (Ontario, Canada). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4404. [CrossRef]
49. Fowles, T.M.; Nansen, C. Artificial selection of insects to bioconvert pre-consumer organic wastes. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.
2019, 39, 31. [CrossRef]
50. Kamal, H.; Le, C.F.; Salter, A.M.; Ali, A. Extraction of protein from food waste: An overview of current status and opportunities.
Compr. Rev. Food. Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 2455–2475. [CrossRef]
51. Park, H.; Higgs, E. A criteria and indicators monitoring framework for food forestry embedded in the principles of ecological
restoration. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 113. [CrossRef]
52. Saraiva, A.; Carrascosa, C.; Raheem, D.; Ramos, F.; Raposo, A. Natural sweeteners: The relevance of food naturalness for
consumers, food security aspects, sustainability and health impacts. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6285. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
53. Scott, C. Sustainably sourced junk food? Big food and the challenge of sustainable diets. Glob. Environ. Polit. 2018, 18, 93–113.
[CrossRef]
54. Sisodia, G.S.; Alshamsi, R.; Sergi, B.S. Business valuation strategy for new hydroponic farm development—A proposal towards
sustainable agriculture development in united arab emirates. Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 1560–1577. [CrossRef]
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 25 of 26

55. Smith, O.M.; Cohen, A.L.; Rieser, C.J.; Davis, A.G.; Taylor, J.M.; Adesanya, A.W.; Jones, M.S.; Meier, A.R.; Reganold, J.P.;
Orpet, R.J.; et al. Organic farming provides reliable environmental benefits but increases variability in crop yields: A global
meta-analysis. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 3, 82. [CrossRef]
56. Song, Q.; Joshi, M.; Joshi, V. Transcriptomic analysis of short-term salt stress response in watermelon seedlings. Int. J. Mol. Sci.
2020, 21, 6036. [CrossRef]
57. Stark, P.B.; Miller, D.; Carlson, T.J.; de Vasquez, K.R. Open-source food: Nutrition, toxicology, and availability of wild edible
greens in the east bay. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0202450. [CrossRef]
58. Xue, L.; Liu, X.; Lu, S.; Cheng, G.; Hu, Y.; Liu, J.; Dou, Z.; Cheng, S.; Liu, G. China’s food loss and waste embodies increasing
environmental impacts. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 519–528. [CrossRef]
59. Appleby, M.C.; Mitchell, L.A. Understanding human and other animal behaviour: Ethology, welfare and food policy.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018, 205, 126–131. [CrossRef]
60. Eyduran, S.P.; Akin, M.; Eyduran, E.; Celik, S.; Erturk, Y.E.; Ercisli, S. Forecasting Banana harvest area and production in turkey
using time series analysis. Erwerbs-Obstbau 2020, 62, 281–291. [CrossRef]
61. Galanakis, C.M.; Rizou, M.; Aldawoud, T.M.S.; Ucak, I.; Rowan, N.J. Innovations and technology disruptions in the food sector
within the COVID-19 pandemic and post-lockdown era. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 110, 193–200. [CrossRef]
62. Knorr, D.; Augustin, M.A. Food processing needs, advantages and misconceptions. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 108, 103–110.
[CrossRef]
63. Markandya, A.; Salcone, J.; Hussain, S.; Mueller, A.; Thambi, S. COVID, the Environment and food systems: Contain, cope and
rebuild better. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 674432. [CrossRef]
64. Jagtap, S.; Garcia-Garcia, G.; Duong, L.; Swainson, M.; Martindale, W. Codesign of food system and circular economy approaches
for the development of livestock feeds from insect larvae. Foods 2021, 10, 1701. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Aliabadi, M.M.F.; Kakhky, M.D.; Sabouni, M.S.; Dourandish, A.; Amadeh, H. Food production diversity and diet diversification
in Rural and Urban area of Iran. J. Agric. Environ. Int. Dev. 2021, 115, 59–70. [CrossRef]
66. Arshad, M.; Amjath-Babu, T.S.; Aravindakshan, S.; Krupnik, T.J.; Toussaint, V.; Kaechele, H.; Mueller, K. Climatic variability and
thermal stress in Pakistan’s rice and wheat systems: A stochastic frontier and quantile regression analysis of economic efficiency.
Ecol. Indic. 2018, 89, 496–506. [CrossRef]
67. Asfaw, S.; Pallante, G.; Palma, A. Distributional impacts of soil erosion on agricultural productivity and welfare in Malawi.
Ecol. Econ. 2020, 177, 106764. [CrossRef]
68. Barnwal, P.; Kotani, K. Climatic impacts across agricultural crop yield distributions: An application of quantile regression on rice
crops in Andhra Pradesh, India. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 87, 95–109. [CrossRef]
69. Bhattacharya, P.; Mitra, S.; Siddiqui, M.Z. Dynamics of foodgrain deficiency in India. Margin 2016, 10, 465–498. [CrossRef]
70. Bhuyan, B.; Sahoo, B.K.; Suar, D. Quantile regression analysis of predictors of calorie demand in india: An implication for
sustainable development goals. J. Quant. Econ. 2020, 18, 825–859. [CrossRef]
71. Cupak, A.; Pokrivcak, J.; Rizov, M. Diversity of food consumption in Slovakia. Polit. Ekon. 2016, 64, 608–626. [CrossRef]
72. D’Souza, A.; Jolliffe, D. Food insecurity in vulnerable populations: Coping with food price shocks in afghanistan. Am. J. Agr. Econ.
2014, 96, 790–812. [CrossRef]
73. Djella, A.; Cembalo, L.; Furno, M.; Caraccaccacciolo, F. Is oil export a curse in developing economies? Evidence of paradox of
plenty on food dependency. New Medit 2019, 18, 51–63. [CrossRef]
74. Hobbs, S.; King, C. The unequal impact of food insecurity on cognitive and behavioral outcomes among 5-year-old urban children.
J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2018, 50, 687–694. [CrossRef]
75. Ikudayisi, A.; Okoruwa, V.; Omonona, B. From the lens of food accessibility and dietary quality: Gaining insights from urban
food security in Nigeria. Outlook Agric. 2019, 48, 336–343. [CrossRef]
76. Irshad, C.; Dash, U.; Muraleedharan, V.R. Healthy ageing in india; a quantile regression approach. J. Popul. Ageing 2021, 1–22.
[CrossRef]
77. Ma, W.; Wang, X. Internet use, sustainable agricultural practices and rural incomes: Evidence from China*. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ.
2020, 64, 1087–1112. [CrossRef]
78. Mahadevan, R.; Hoang, V. Is there a link between poverty and food security? Soc. Indic. Res. 2016, 128, 179–199. [CrossRef]
79. Mahadevan, R.; Suardi, S. Is there a role for caste and religion in food security policy? A look at Rural India. Econ. Model. 2013,
31, 58–69. [CrossRef]
80. Mahadevan, R.; Suardi, S. Regional differences pose challenges for food security policy: A case study of India. Reg. Stud. 2014,
48, 1319–1336. [CrossRef]
81. Mahajan, S.; Sousa-Poza, A.; Datta, K.K. Differential effects of rising food prices on indian households differing in Income.
Food Secur. 2015, 7, 1043–1053. [CrossRef]
82. Mahmood, N.; Arshad, M.; Kaechele, H.; Ullah, A.; Mueller, K. Economic efficiency of rainfed wheat farmers under changing
climate: Evidence from Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 34453–34467. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
83. Tesfaye, W.; Tirivayi, N. Crop diversity, household welfare and consumption smoothing under risk: Evidence from Rural Uganda.
World Dev. 2020, 125, 104686. [CrossRef]
84. Ugur, A.A.; Ozocakli, D. Some determinants of food insecurity (comparison of quantile regression method and fixed effect panel
method). Sosyoekonom 2018, 26, 195–205. [CrossRef]
Foods 2021, 10, 2732 26 of 26

85. Van den Broeck, G.; Swinnen, J.; Maertens, M. Global value value chains, large-scale farming, and poverty: Long-term effects in
Senegal. Food Policy 2017, 66, 97–107. [CrossRef]
86. Vilar-Compte, M.; Sandoval-Olascoaga, S.; Bernal-Stuart, A.; Shimoga, S.; Vargas-Bustamante, A. The impact of the 2008 financial
crisis on food security and food expenditures in mexico: A disproportionate effect on the vulnerable. Public Health Nutr. 2015,
18, 2934–2942. [CrossRef]
87. FAOSTAT Several Statistics. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (accessed on 19 August 2021).
88. Mengel, M.; Treu, S.; Lange, S.; Frieler, K. ATTRICI v1.1-counterfactual climate for impact attribution. Geosci. Model Dev. 2021,
14, 5269–5284. [CrossRef]
89. Matkovski, B.; Ðokić, D.; Zekić, S.; Jurjević, Ž. Determining food security in crisis conditions: A comparative analysis of the
western balkans and the EU. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9924. [CrossRef]
90. Galton, F. Co-relations and their measurement, chiefly from anthropometric data. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 1888, 45, 135–145.
91. Pearson, K. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution—III. Regression, heredity, and panmixia. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
Lond. Ser. A 1896, 187, 253–318. [CrossRef]
92. Pearson, K.; Filon, L.N.G. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution.— IV. On the probable errors of frequency
constants and on the influence of random selection on variation and correlation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. Ser. A 1898,
191, 229–311. [CrossRef]
93. StataCorp. Stata 15 Base Reference Manual; Stata Press: College Station, TX, USA, 2017.
94. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 15; StataCorp LLC: College Station, TX, USA, 2017.
95. Stata Stata: Software for Statistics and Data Science. Available online: https://www.stata.com/ (accessed on 19 August 2021).
96. Bhargava, A. Nutrition, health, and economic development: Some policy priorities. Food Nutr Bull 2001, 22, 173–177. [CrossRef]
97. Vincent, J.L. Factor Analysis in International Relations: Interpretation, Problem, Areas, and an Application; Univ Pr of Florida:
Gainesville, FL, USA, 1971; ISBN 978-0-8130-0315-3.
98. Kim, J.-O.; Mueller, C.W. Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues; SAGE Publications, Inc: Newbury Park, CA, USA,
1978; ISBN 978-0-8039-1166-6.
99. Kim, J.-O.; Mueller, C.W. Introduction to Factor Analysis: What It Is and How To Do It, 1st ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc: Beverly Hills,
CA, USA, 1978; ISBN 978-0-8039-1165-9.
100. Torres-Reyna, O. Getting Started in Factor Analysis (Using Stata) (Ver. 1.0 Beta/Draft). Available online: http://www.princeton.
edu/~{}otorres/Stata/Factor (accessed on 19 August 2021).
101. Koenker, R. Quantile Regression; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005.
102. Torres-Reyna, O. Panel Data Analysis Fixed and Random Effects Using Stata (v. 4.2). Available online: https://www.princeton.
edu/~{}otorres/Panel101.pdf (accessed on 19 August 2021).
103. Alejo, J.; Galvao, A.; Montes-Rojas, G.; Sosa-Escudero, W. Tests for normality in linear panel-data models. Stata J. 2015, 15, 822–832.
[CrossRef]
104. Verdoorn, P.J. Fattori che regolano lo sviluppo della produttivitá del lavoro. L’Industria 1949, 1, 3–10.
105. Kaldor, N. Causes of the Slow Rate of Economic Growth of the United Kingdom: An Inaugural Lecture; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 1966.
106. Kaldor, N. Strategic Factors in Economic Development; New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University:
Ithaca, NY, USA, 1967; ISBN 978-0-87546-024-6.
107. Wells, H.; Thirlwall, A.P. Testing kaldor’s growth laws across the countries of Africa. Afr. Dev. Rev. 2003, 15, 89–105. [CrossRef]
108. Martinho, V.J.P.D. Relationships between agricultural energy and farming indicators. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 132,
110096. [CrossRef]
109. Rodriguez, R.N.; Yao, Y. Five things you should know about quantile regression. In Proceedings of the SAS Global Forum 2017
Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, 2–5 April 2017; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA.
110. Aleksandrowicz, L.; Green, R.; Joy, E.J.M.; Harris, F.; Hillier, J.; Vetter, S.H.; Smith, P.; Kulkarni, B.; Dangour, A.D.; Haines, A.
Environmental impacts of dietary shifts in india: A modelling study using nationally-representative data. Environ. Int. 2019, 126,
207–215. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
111. Ebi, K.L.; Hasegawa, T.; Hayes, K.; Monaghan, A.; Paz, S.; Berry, P. Health risks of warming of 1.5 degrees C, 2 degrees C, and
higher, above pre-industrial temperatures. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 063007. [CrossRef]
112. Spearman, C. The Proof and Measurement of Association between Two Things. Am. J. Psychol. 1904, 15, 72–101. [CrossRef]