Research

INTRODUCTION

Small-scale fisheries and agricultural systems are essential for food security and the livelihoods of millions of people globally (Meyfroidt 2017, Short et al. 2021). The importance of formal and informal institutional arrangements connecting producers to consumers has been widely recognized across fisheries and agricultural systems (Johnson 2010, Hall et al. 2017, Liverpool-Tasie et al. 2020). In small-scale food systems (SSFS), these arrangements often go beyond trading food products in that they comprise multiple types of exchange such as the provision of services, production inputs, and loans (Basurto et al. 2020, Liverpool-Tasie et al. 2020). In addition, multiple studies suggest that trading in food systems can be embedded in multiple types of social relationships such as trust and reciprocity (e.g., Hinrichs 2000, Penker 2006, Dulsrud and Grønhaug 2007, Turgo 2016). Thus, previous findings suggest that socially embedded trade networks reach across spatial scales and connect smallholders to diverse commercial actors and markets. However, little is known about what characteristics of socially embedded trade networks are a common feature across SSFS (if they are), and how they affect the way actors in the value chain deal with environmental change.

Knowledge about embeddedness of trading in social relationships is particularly important because it could play an important role for actors’ capacity to deal with changes (see, e.g., Cinner et al. 2018). In an era of global change, food producers face the challenge of adapting and responding to environmental changes that arise across land and sea (Godfray et al. 2010, Milestad et al. 2012, Van Putten et al. 2018, Tigchelaar et al. 2021). There is a need to understand how the embeddedness of smallholders’ trade networks influence how they adapt their practices and relationships to changing conditions. In fact, social relationships and networks have been shown to play an important role in influencing actors’ responses to changes because they constrain or enable different adaptation strategies (Pelling and High 2005, Darnhofer et al. 2016, Barnes et al. 2017, Cinner et al. 2018). Research suggests that the embedding of trade networks in social relationships affects access to resources, social support, knowledge exchange, learning, and innovation (Uzzi 1997, 1999, Charterina et al. 2016, Garner 2017). Through these and other processes, it can increase actors’ capacities to deal with changes and problems. However, there is a gap in understanding how the embeddedness of trading in SSFS influences value chain actors’ responses to environmental changes and their capacities to deal with environmental change.

We view SSFS as social-ecological systems and use a social-ecological resilience perspective to understand the role of relationships and networks in the context of environmental changes (Bodin et al. 2019, West et al. 2020). Thus, we use the social-ecological resilience concepts of coping (i.e., persisting), adapting, and transforming to examine responses to environmental changes (Folke 2016, Reyers et al. 2022). We specifically apply these concepts to responses to changes in the context of SSFS trade as follows. “Coping” responses imply continuing with the same type of production practices and trade networks. “Adaptive” responses imply changing some production activities or trade relationships while generally maintaining the existing trade network structures and production systems. “Transformative” responses imply a significant change in trade network structures or production systems. In this way, some transformative responses imply changes in trading networks within the same type of production activities. These changes in trade would imply a change in the associated social relationships. Transformative responses can also imply changes in both trade networks and production activities (and the associated social-ecological relationships), thus contributing to system-level transformative responses that change the structures and functions of these SSFS. Here, we use “transforming” or “transformative response” to describe a change in social and/or social-ecological relationships and structures, which does not imply a desirable change toward system-level transformation to sustainability (compare Reyers et al. 2018).

Here, we aim to develop hypotheses to advance a future research agenda investigating the role of embedded trade networks for dealing with environmental changes in SSFS through the comparison of different case studies in agriculture and fisheries. In doing so, we answer two overarching research questions: (1) What characterizes the social embeddedness of SSFS’ trade networks across different food production systems and institutional contexts? (2) How do SSFS’ actors at different scales respond to environmental changes, and how do these responses affect (or are affected by) their embedded trade networks?

To address these questions, we propose a methodology based on the qualitative comparison (see, e.g., Caggiano and Weber 2023) of different case studies of small-scale agriculture and fisheries in Mexico and South Africa. This comparison follows an abductive approach (see Methods: Methodological approach) that allows both an analysis of whether characteristics of embeddedness hold across case studies and systems, and the development of hypotheses regarding how such characteristics may affect smallholders’ capacity to deal with change (Timmermans and Tavory 2012, Zittoun 2017). Following the abductive approach, we build on the concept of embeddedness from economic sociology (Granovetter and Swedberg 2011) and a previous case study of small-scale fisheries in Mexico (González-Mon et al. 2019, 2021) to characterize the embeddedness of trade networks in SSFS (following the types of relationships explained in Table 1). This previous case study led to the formulation of two working hypotheses: (1) Trade networks in SSFS are socially embedded, and (2) this embeddedness is important for the responses of SSFS’ actors to environmental change. We next summarize these working hypotheses based on previous theory and research. These working hypotheses are then used to design and investigate three case studies of SSFS: coffee systems in Veracruz, Mexico; deciduous fruit systems in Western Cape, South Africa (SA); and multispecies fisheries in Western Cape, SA (see Table 2). These cases represent different production systems and countries, allowing us to explore the working hypotheses through the abductive comparative process and to tease out which insights potentially hold across different contexts vs. those that are more specific to a given setting. Finally, we explore responses to changes in these case studies and how they relate to the embedded trade networks, and discuss the findings by proposing four refined hypotheses for future research.

THE SOCIAL EMBEDDEDNESS PERSPECTIVE: WORKING HYPOTHESES

Theoretical framework

The theory of social embeddedness has its origins in economic sociology (Granovetter and Swedberg 2011). The theory implies that understanding social networks is essential for understanding and analyzing economic exchange in situations outside the ideal market because the economy is embedded in social relationships (Granovetter 1985). This assumption allows an analysis that goes beyond actors as individuals that follow “generalized moralities” or as atomized rational economic actors (Granovetter 1985), to study a diversity of actors based on their diverse relationships with each other. In this context, the embeddedness concept can help to account for the interdependencies between economic exchange relationships (e.g., trade of food) and other social processes that can be interlinked with the exchange such as trust and reciprocity (compare Uzzi 1997, Hite 2005). However, a common criticism of embeddedness theory is that it can appear highly abstract and lack specificity on what exactly social embeddedness comprises (Penker 2006, Turgo 2016). Several studies have highlighted the importance of investigating different dimensions or types of embeddedness, as well as the dynamics of embedded relationships, to provide a more nuanced understanding of embeddedness to refine, build, and extend the theory of embeddedness (e.g., Hite 2003, 2005, Charterina et al. 2016).

We differentiate between two types of social embeddedness: relational and structural embeddedness (Hite 2003, van Burg et al. 2022). Relational embeddedness relates to the nature of the relations between two actors, firms, or organizations. Within relational embeddedness, previous studies have identified different types of embedded relationships (Table 1). For example, embeddedness can be characterized as a continuum between strongly embedded and weaker (i.e., market-based) relationships that do not necessarily persist over time (Uzzi 1996). Other studies characterize different dimensions of embedded relationships, which can be defined by different types of social relationships (Table 1).

Structural embeddedness moves beyond the relationships between two actors to account for the structural characteristics of networks. This extension assumes that the behavior of actors is shaped by their pattern of relationships with others defined by the network structure (Granovetter 1985, Uzzi 1996). Structural embeddedness focuses on the influence of the pattern of both direct and indirect relationships in a trade network (Podolny 2001, Choi and Kim 2008). Such structural embeddedness has two implications. First, the trading relationships between different actors are interdependent (as in Hite 2003). For example, a fisher can be affected by selling to two traders who in turn are trading with each other (Fig. 1), thereby forming a closed triangular structure (González-Mon et al. 2019). Second, actors are affected by indirect relationships (Choi and Kim 2008, van Burg et al. 2022) through which fishers or traders can be influenced by actors not directly trading with them. Here, we apply this concept by focusing on the structural embeddedness of smallholders and its potential implications beyond the conceptualizations of trade relationships as interactions between two actors (e.g., between the smallholder and the trader). To operationalize structural embeddedness, we define trade relationships between actors that buy from smallholders as horizontal trade relationships (Fig. 1), as opposed to vertical relationships along the value chain that describe flows from production to primary processing and trading, and then to consumption (Bolwig et al. 2010, González-Mon et al. 2021). In this context, structural embeddedness implies that smallholders are affected not only by their direct relationships with a given trader but also by that trader’s relationships with others.

Embeddedness of trading in small-scale food systems: two working hypotheses from a small-scale fishery in Mexico

Based on our previous empirical and modeling work on the multispecies, small-scale finfish fishery in Baja California Sur, Mexico (hereafter Fish-MX case), we developed two working hypotheses regarding social embeddedness in SSFS (González-Mon et al. 2019, 2021; see also Appendix 2 for an extensive description based on data collected by González-Mon et al. 2021). Hypothesis 1 suggests that trading in SSFS is socially embedded. That is, trading goes beyond purely market relationships and economic motivations by building on reciprocal commitments that are reinforced through norms. These relationships were described by interviewees as “moral commitments”, which ensures a certain stability in trade relationships. Such embedded trade relationships generally consist of business relationships that sometimes coexist with personal relationships such as being family or friends (see definitions in Table 1). However, indications of more personal relationships between traders are highly variable among traders (Appendix 2). Fishers in the Fish-MX case are also structurally embedded in networks of what we refer as “horizontal relationships” between traders (Fig. 1). Hypothesis 2 suggests that this embeddedness is important for the ability of fishery actors to deal with change. Our work in the Fish-MX case suggests that the existence of horizontal and stable relationships can influence the capacity of traders to deal with changes such as fish catch fluctuations (González-Mon et al. 2019, 2021).

These working hypotheses were developed through a fieldwork experience, which presented us with initial observations about trading that we made sense of and further investigated through the concept of social embeddedness and additional fieldwork and modeling. Here, we further explore these working hypotheses in different food production systems and institutional contexts to enhance the understanding of social embeddedness in SSFS and its relevance for responding to change, and ultimately, to assess its generality across different contexts.

METHODS

Methodological approach

This research is based on an abductive approach, which is a form of reasoning that iteratively uses theories, previous experiences, and empirical cases to generate hypotheses about an observed phenomenon (Timmermans and Tavory 2012, Zittoun 2017). We used a methodology based on a process of abduction from different case studies (Fig. 2). In particular, we first developed working hypotheses based on our analysis of the Fish-MX case that were then questioned and revisited in three additional cases of SSFS. We selected these three additional cases because they represent cases of SSFS connected to diverse markets across diverse production and institutional contexts. The data from these case studies were collected and analyzed simultaneously and against our initial working hypotheses (Zittoun 2017). Explorations in individual cases and comparison across all cases allowed us to refine and further specify the hypotheses and also to investigate which aspects are generic across cases and which not.

Case studies

We selected three case studies representing different types of small-scale food production (Table 2): coffee systems in Veracruz, Mexico (hereafter Coffee-MX); deciduous fruit in Western Cape, South Africa (hereafter Fruit-SA); and finfish fisheries in Western Cape, South Africa (hereafter Fish-SA). The selection of cases aimed to include cases of SSFS in which trade is linked to both national and international markets, representing both fisheries and agriculture in different countries. The main common characteristic across cases is their “small-scale” nature, as defined in the different contexts, as well as their connection to markets (i.e., they are commercially oriented and not only based on subsistence). We chose cases from two different countries and continents to represent diverse contexts. This approach aimed to bring together new elements that could challenge the ideas generated in the Fish-MX case (Zittoun 2017, Candea 2018).

All cases selected are well-researched SSFS with publications available regarding their value chains, which facilitated the selection of interviewees and validation of some of the information obtained. The Coffee-MX case was selected to represent a case of a small-scale agricultural system in Mexico. This case allowed us to explore a different type of production system in Mexico (vs. the Fish-MX case) while being aware of potential country-specific factors that could affect the embeddedness of trade networks. The Fruit-SA case represents an agricultural system from a different country and continent, which allowed us to investigate a significantly different context. The lead author was able to triangulate the findings emerging from this study through direct engagement and collaboration within an ongoing research project concerning the deciduous fruit supply chains, which motivated the selection of this case. Finally, the Fish-SA case was selected to ensure the representation of both production systems in each country. This inclusion enabled a better understanding of country-specific factors that could potentially emerge in the South African context (i.e., not necessarily associated with the type of production system). See Appendix 2 for detailed narratives and findings of each case study.

We define smallholders according to the specific context of each case study (Table 2), as opposed to defining a single metric of farm or boat extension. In all cases, smallholders refer to producers that are commercially oriented toward selling their produce (as opposed to subsistence oriented). In SA, the definition of smallholders is influenced by the post-Apartheid policy reforms. In the Fruit-SA case, smallholders are also called “emerging farmers”, related to the government aim of increasing the commercial orientation of black smallholders, although the term is contested (Cousins 2010, Bitzer and Bijman 2014). In the Fish-SA case, some small-scale fishers hold traditional fishing permits and some previously excluded fishers hold “interim relief” permits after the 2012 small-scale fisheries policy reform, which has not been fully implemented in the Western Cape to date (Government of South Africa 2012, Isaacs 2013, Sowman and Sunde 2021). For this study, and given the context-specific diversity of actor groups and arrangements, we refer to all of these actors as smallholders while acknowledging the differences where they become relevant. Similarly, we use the term “informal traders” generally to refer to small-scale buyers who may not be integrated into the formal economy. This type of actor is relevant in all cases, although they have different names in each case study: “acaparadores” or “hoarders” in the Coffee-MX case, “langanas” or “hawkers” in the Fish-SA case, and “hawkers” or “bakkie traders” in the Fruit-SA case. It should be noted that although the case studies were focused on relationships involving smallholders, larger producers are also included because they emerged during the interviews.

Data collection

Data collection consisted of five to six online expert interviews in each of the three case studies. We selected experts based on opportunistic sampling given their experience with the respective case studies and identification through personal contacts and published literature. Interviewees were researchers or practitioners that had been working in each of the case studies for at least five years and live in the regions under study (Table 2). The online interviews were conducted via Zoom V5.8.4 (Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, California, USA) and lasted approximately 1.5 h on average. Interviews consisted of a mapping exercise adapted from the Net-map method to identify actors and different types of relationships between them (Schiffer and Hauck 2010, Hauck et al. 2015), fitting it to an online context aiming to map trade networks. This approach allowed us to identify and characterize the social structures and relationships between important types of actors in the trade systems. We used Network Canvas interviewer (Birkett et al. 2021) as a visualization interface. This interface enabled interviewees to interact with the screen, allowing for “participatory mapping” of the types of actors involved in each case study and their relationships with each other (including relationships of trading and assistance). Visualizations of the resulting network brought about discussions about the types and nature of relationships (see Appendix 1 for details on the data collection instrument).

To answer the second research question, we used a vignette method (Hughes 2008) in the online interviews for each case study to explore narratives of the existing and potential responses to a situation of resource scarcity, including the role of trade networks in such responses. The vignette method is often used in social science and medical research to explore perceptions and behaviors (Hughes 2008, Evans et al. 2015). Here, it relates to the use of explorative scenarios in social-ecological systems research as a method to identify dynamics of change and system trajectories accounting for the complexity of SSFS (Börjeson et al. 2006, Spijkers et al. 2021, Caggiano and Weber 2023). Following this approach, interviewees were exposed to the same vignette that could hypothetically be generalized to each case study based on previous experiences and literature. The vignette consisted of a fictional story in English or Spanish describing potential responses of smallholders and traders to a situation of resource scarcity, informed by the previous empirical evidence and key concepts following the embeddedness theory (see Appendix 1). Interviewees were then asked to reflect on what would happen in a similar situation based on their experience with the case in focus. Most interviewees indicated that such a situation was familiar and had happened before in each of the case studies, providing narratives of changes that have happened in the production systems. Therefore, the responses mentioned were most often related to a specific situation in which they took place, as observed or hypothesized by the experts. This observation supports the external validity of the vignette used (Hughes 2008, Evans et al. 2015).

Data analysis

We used qualitative methods to analyze all interview data. We conducted thematic coding of data from the online expert interviews to understand the structural and relational embeddedness. We also used thematic coding to identify the responses to changes that were mentioned triggered by the vignette exercise. The themes were informed by existing literature, but the analysis also allowed for the emergence of new themes from the data collected (following an abductive approach). Although no quantitative network analyses were performed for this study, we aggregated the data from the network mapping into a single network per case study that was visualized using Gephi (Bastian et al. 2009) to facilitative the visualization and interpretation of horizontal relationships.

RESULTS

Comparing the embeddedness of trade networks across cases

Smallholders across all cases participate in trade network structures through which diverse end-markets are connected (Fig. 3). In all cases, smallholders have direct trade relationships with informal traders and other small-scale actors (Fig. 3). Smallholders are also connected with other types of traders who are closely related to higher value national markets or are larger actors operating at regional and national scales that are directly linked to higher value and international markets (although the characteristics of these traders differed among the cases). Experts also mentioned actors who were identified as important in the case studies but do not directly participate in food trade networks, such as government, banks, or input providers (isolated actors in Fig. 3). We next describe the results regarding the structural and relational embeddedness characterizing these networks.

Structural embeddedness: horizontal relationships are ubiquitous and strongly shaped by local contexts, often connecting actors with different capacities

Horizontal relationships are present in all cases (Fig. 4). We identify three different types of horizontal relationships depending on the type of actors involved: horizontal relationships based on traders with different or similar capacities (Types I and II, respectively; Fig. 4) or organized around producers (Type III; Fig. 4). Overall, horizontal relationships create a type of structural embeddedness in which the relationship between a smallholder and the “buyer” of their produce is affected by the horizontal connectivity of buyers in the larger networks. However, the specific horizontal structures that exist in these networks may depend on the localities and institutional context within a case study, as reflected by the reduced overlap among informants on some of the horizontal relations that they have observed (lighter blue links, Fig. 3). In addition, the existing horizontal relationships can vary between cases.

First, horizontal structures can connect different types of actors, with some actors having additional functions or capacities (Fig. 4, Different capacities). In the Coffee-MX case, processors, locally called “beneficios”, who process the fresh coffee berries to dried coffee beans, buy directly from small-scale farmers, providing transport or establishing collection points. They can also buy from informal traders whose main function is to collect from producers and transport without any further value-adding activity. In SA, similar types of relationships can be found in the local fish and fruit markets. For example, in the farming context, informal traders can buy fruit from packhouses or fresh produce markets, which are large places receiving fruits directly from several farmers. Informal fish traders can also sell to other informal traders who transport larger volumes and establish connections with processors or other larger scale actors.

The second type of horizontal structure occurs between the same type of traders, defined as those similar to one another in terms of their role and position in the trade networks (Fig. 4, Similar capacities). In the Coffee-MX case, experts pointed to possible relationships between processing facilities located in different regions that produce different qualities of coffee (interview 5). In SA, informal fish and fruit traders could sell to each other, often in times of need, or between traders that sell in different locations (interviews 11, 14, 15, 24). However, we must note that the interviewees in all case studies were not certain about these relationships or indicated that they were only occasional, and they did not know whether they could be reciprocal.

The third type of horizontal structure highlights that vertically integrated producers who source produce from other smallholders create the horizontal trade relations (Fig. 4, Producer-based). Vertical integration refers to one actor owning different capacities or value chain functions or processes that would otherwise occur in different actors (e.g., being both a producer and a primary processor or trader). In the agricultural cases, there are larger commercial farmers with some level of vertical integration who have trade relationships with small-scale farmers. In the Coffee-MX case, large farmers often have processing facilities and can also buy coffee from informal traders. In the Fruit-SA case, large commercial farmers (who can own a packhouse) or exporters can have arrangements with small-scale farmers influenced by formal institutions. Exporters can also have arrangements with large and small commercial farmers to market the produce. We do not find the same type of vertically integrated large-scale producers linked to smallholders in the Fish-SA case. However, some small-scale producers could fulfill a similar role, as some South African small-scale fishers have opened retail shops (interviews 10, 14). In addition, South African industrial fishing companies could own large export companies and processors (interview 13), suggesting the existence of such vertical integration in the industrial fisheries as well. However, we found no evidence that industrial fisheries actors would trade fish directly from smallholders, as occurs in the agricultural cases (Fig. 3a).

Relational embeddedness: stable business relationships dominate, influenced by reciprocity and only sometimes coexisting with personal relationships

Generally, we found stable trade relationships across case studies. Common motivations for such stability were people knowing each other and the ease of transactions in dealing with people they already know (interviews 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 23, 24). For instance, stability can be linked to a higher sense of security, such as traders’ need to secure the quality of coffee and fruit delivered (interviews 4, 24). The lack of alternative options for marketing was also mentioned as a reason for stable relationships. For instance, some communities have limited access to informal traders or processors in the Fish-SA and Coffee-MX cases (interviews 1, 2, 4, 13–15). Coffee certification systems and alternative market systems could increase the stability of relationships due to the required investments and logic of mutual benefit, respectively (interviews 2–4). Despite the prevalence of stability, some interviewees highlighted conflicts that would lead to changes in the relationships, such as disagreements about the prices paid (interviews 12, 15). For instance, in the Fish-SA and Coffee-MX cases, the importance of loyalty was mentioned, but interviewees believed that informal commitments could be broken when more profitable opportunities arose (interviews 4, 5, 12, 15). However, there is also the potential for socially derived enforcement, as highlighted in the Fish-SA case (interviews 12, 15). Breaking an agreement might still be associated with social costs in terms of tensions, dislike, and perhaps even social sanctioning. For instance, two interviewees described the relationships between fishers or coffee farmers and informal traders as “love-hate relationships”, indicating the existence of both dependence and reliance on each other as well as a belief that traders would drive down prices and favor their economic profitability (interviews 3, 11).

We can describe stable relationships as business relationships in which stability and certain types of commitment and reciprocity coexist with economic motivations. In general, interviewees highlighted the prevalence of economic motivations and rationale vs. the existence of deeper bonds or personal relationships. Several interviewees highlighted the existence of reciprocity linked to the mutual benefit and dependence between actors, indicating that trust between actors maybe exists in connection with such mutual interests and dependence on each other for trading (interviews 14, 15, 23, 25, 24). Actors in the Fruit-SA case build trust and commitment between each other because of the dependence between producers, packhouses, and exporters, because the trading system works on consignment (whereby the ownership of the fruit rests with the producer who trusts other actors for packing and marketing on a commission basis; interview 25). In essence, although the rationale for actors to engage in stable business relations is primarily economical, the stability of these relationships is partly, and to a varying extent, dependent on social factors such as reciprocity and joint commitment, which characterize business relationships.

The business relationships described are often informal, although formalized business relationships (based on written contracts) are described among some actors in the two agricultural case studies. In the Fruit-SA case, trade relationships between large commercial farmers, packhouses, exporters, and supermarkets (Fig. 3) can be based on written contracts as part of business relationships (interviews 20, 23). In this case, some small-scale farmers could have formalized arrangements with packhouses, commercial farmers, or exporters (mediated by county-specific institutions), which can involve arrangements for the commercialization of their produce (interviews 20, 25). In the Coffee-MX case, formalized business relationships are restricted to actors directly connected to international markets (interview 2). However, some transnational corporations can establish contracts mediated by the processors with small-scale farmers (interviews 2, 20). In both cases, written contracts with smallholders are not generally common, and informal traders would not engage in formal arrangements.

The coexistence of personal relationships with such informal business relationships (as part of an embedded trade relationship) seems to be specific to individual actors and contexts, whereby the different motivations and identities of actors (neighbors, belonging to the same community) can play a role in how prevalent personal relationships are. For example, when explaining the nature of the stable relationships that can exist between actors in the Coffee-MX case, interviewees mentioned the lack of friendship, kinship, or empathy, although there can be commitments or obligations between people who “know each other” regarding their business relationship (interviews 1, 2, 4). Overall, informants did not converge on the existence of such personal relationships between producers and traders or between specific actor types across scales. This result indicates the limited prevalence of personal relationships in these case studies, their potential diversity and specificity to different localities and people, or the lack of knowledge about such types of relationships among the interviewees selected for expert interviews.

Finally, it is worth highlighting that trade relationships were not always mentioned to be linked to other financial arrangements. Financial assistance interlinked in the trade relationships was seldom mentioned or known by interviewees regarding the agricultural cases. Only in some cases, interviewees mentioned credit exchanges or assistance within the agricultural trade networks, such as credits between exporters or packhouses and commercial farmers in SA, or between processors or coffee shops (“cafeterias”) and small-scale coffee farmers in MX (see Fig. A2 in Appendix 2). Instead, experts in the agricultural cases highlighted several avenues for financial assistance mediated by external actors not directly involved in the trade of produce (Fig. A2 in Appendix 2), such as government subsidies or credit provided by private or state-dependent banks. Small-scale farmers in SA and Mexico can receive subsidies or grants from government-dependent authorities, although there are concerns about the reach of that finance (interviews 1–3, 5, 21, 24, 25). Banks were also mentioned as a source of credit to larger actors (interviews 1, 21–23), although smallholders were reported to have difficulty getting such credits from banks (interviews 2, 21). On the contrary, in the Fish-SA case, informal trade relationships also involve the existence of financial arrangements. Credits to fishers are often provided by informal traders with interest or by market agents (for high-value fish), although they can also be provided by boat owners or skippers, creditors, or other community members (interviews 10–15).

Responses to environmental change: most responses take place within existing trade structures, but relationships can break

After our analysis of the embeddedness of trade networks, we addressed our second research question to identify potential responses to changes in the three case studies in relation to whether and how these responses would imply changes in the existing trade networks. The responses mentioned mostly included changes in production practices and marketing strategies, but also financial assistance and other types of responses (Fig. 5; see also Table A3 in Appendix 2 for a detailed description of the responses with examples and interviews that mentioned them). We identified four types of responses that can be organized along two gradients representing the relative change in trade relationships and production activities (Fig. 5), and they are named after the social-ecological resilience concepts of coping, adapting, and transforming. Here, transforming can refer to changes in trade networks or to broader changes in both the trade networks and the production system (i.e., “transforming the system”).

Most responses identified take place within existing trade networks (Fig. 5, left). In fact, most refer to coping responses within existing trade networks, as in the case of actors asking for credit or changing their production intensity (Fig. 5). Responses that contribute to adapting production practices include, for example, the development of new varieties or targeting and commercializing new species. These responses at the production level could be mediated by exporters, traders, or industry organizations through their existing trade networks, as exemplified by exporting companies contributing to the development of new varieties in the Coffee-MX case.

Comparatively fewer responses imply a change in existing trade networks (Fig. 5, right). Some of these responses can imply significant changes in trade structures (i.e., “transforming trade structure”), such as actively developing alternative food networks and short supply chains that are emerging in the Fish-SA and Coffee-MX cases (Fig. 5). However, other responses (e.g., importing food) imply changing a trade relationship without necessarily changing the overarching trade network structure (i.e., “adapting trade structure”). In some cases, responses in this category could keep existing trading relationships depending on the abilities or motivations of different actors. For example, fishers moving elsewhere to fish, or actors looking for new markets, can imply adding trade partners while maintaining existing trade relationships as a coping response. Finally, a few responses imply a more drastic change in the SSFS (in both the trade and production systems) and the potential disappearance of some trade networks, such as actors shifting production activities (e.g., coffee farmers transforming their coffee forest into sugar cane or chayote production) or migrating (Fig. 5, “transforming the system”).

DISCUSSION

In our comparative study of SSFS, our first question allowed us to understand the embeddedness of trade networks across diverse food production systems and institutional contexts. We found that trade relationships in SSFS can be stable and socially embedded in business relationships, although there were key differences across cases (see below). Our second question allowed us to provide initial insights on the role of embeddedness in dealing with changes, which we summarize and discuss as four refined emerging hypotheses for future research.

The qualitative approach we used relies on qualitative abductive reasoning, which enabled us to refine hypotheses derived from a single case study and deepen them to further the understanding of embeddedness across cases of SSFS. This method offers opportunities to move beyond both the separation of fisheries and agricultural systems (Blanchard et al. 2017) and the reliance on single case studies that often occurs in social-ecological research (Meyfroidt et al. 2018). However, although the expert interviews served the intended purpose of describing and comparing across cases broadly, the approach is limited in that it obscures much of the diversity found within case studies. The case study descriptions rely on second-hand expert-based knowledge, which differs from approaches based on primary data collection and engagement with local stakeholders. Thus, our results reflect broad patterns within the cases as interpreted by the experts, and do not account for stakeholders’ direct experiences.

Trading is socially embedded in all food systems, but the characteristics of this embeddedness vary with context

We found that trade can be described as socially embedded across case studies, whereby relational embeddedness often relies on stable business relationships that imply reciprocal commitments. This result highlights the importance of considering the social factors that influence food trade beyond economic motivations alone (Dulsrud and Grønhaug 2007, Stoll et al. 2020). However, we also found that different types of social relationships can coexist within such complex trade networks that span spatial scales, connecting small-scale producers to local and global markets. Thus, despite the similarities found across cases, context-specific factors shape how different trade networks are embedded. The comparison across different production systems and countries allowed us to reflect on the contextual characteristics that could influence the social embeddedness of trade networks.

For instance, the degree of formalization of trade relationships differs across fisheries and agricultural systems. Formalized business relationships (based on written contracts) are almost exclusively described in the two agricultural case studies, and are highlighted as absent from the Fish-SA case and in our earlier research in Mexican fisheries. In addition, informal financial arrangements involving producers and traders were often described in the fisheries case and are well known in small-scale fisheries across the world (e.g., Fabinyi et al. 2018), whereas external actors (e.g., banks, government authorities) seemed to have a more important role in the agricultural cases, providing credit and finance. Although the causes underlying these differences between production systems cannot be determined from this study, we can speculate that factors that differ across fisheries and agricultural systems play a role. For example, the uncertainty and shorter time frames of fisheries systems may increase the importance of informal financial arrangements while also challenging the establishment of formal contracts that require planning food supplies and deliveries.

We found that some horizontal relationships are driven by different types of traders with different capacities and roles in the trade network. In the agricultural cases, vertically integrated larger farmers can function as traders for smallholders and also create horizontal trade structures (Fig. 4). This relationship between large and small producers was not described in the fisheries cases under investigation, although relationships between large- and small-scale fisheries are suggested to be highly context specific, comprising both conflict and cooperation (Pollnac 2007). Thus, the potential role of vertical integration and trade relationships between large- and small-scale producers should be further investigated across different production systems.

Country-specific factors can also mediate differences in relational and structural embeddedness. For instance, in SA, horizontal relationships (Fig. 4) are strongly mediated by local institutions (i.e., formal or informal norms and rules, as in North 1990). These arrangements are often named strategic partnerships mediated by Black economic empowerment and land reform projects (Bitzer and Bijman 2014). For example, formal contracts that can involve the provision of credit or inputs to small-scale farmers can be facilitated between commercial farmers or exporters and small-scale farmers linked to strategic partnerships and land reform projects (Bitzer and Bijman 2014). In the Fish-SA case, an interviewee explained that export company agents buy from small-scale fishers often operating larger boats. However, other small-scale fishers operating smaller fishing boats (and generally with interim relief fishing permits) do not have access to company agents, and instead sell to community agents who transport and sell the fish to company agents. In this case, the horizontal relationship between company and community agents could be shaped by the unequal access and capacities of different types of fishers.

Embeddedness to deal with changes in small-scale production systems

Across all case studies, relationships were generally characterized as stable business relationships, whereby most responses to change occur within existing trade relationships, such as the development of new varieties or marketing of new species. This result is in line with literature highlighting the role of embeddedness for innovation, learning, or problem-solving (e.g., Uzzi 1996, Charterina et al. 2016). However, the maintenance of certain embedded relationships and dense social structures, often linked to the concept of over-embeddedness (Uzzi 1996), can also be associated with negative outcomes (Fafchamps and Minten 2002, Dulsrud and Grønhaug 2007, Turgo 2016). For instance, they could promote coping strategies that enable short-term responses but could threaten the long-term capacity to deal with changes, such as credits used as a response to changes in relationships between small-scale fishers and traders (Ferse et al. 2014, Drury O’Neill et al. 2019). For example, as mentioned for the Fish-SA case, some smallholders might not have the capacity to engage in alternative markets given their dependence on more powerful actors at larger scales. Thus, we hypothesize that the types of relationship that constitute embedded trade networks influence how relationships can be used to respond to environmental changes (through coping, adapting, and/or transforming).

We found that embedded trade relationships are subject to change and, in fact, some responses implied changes to existing trade structures (Fig. 5, right). Such changes in trade structures and their relational embeddedness could have different system-level implications, depending on how and which relationships change. First, certain changes imply the disappearance of the existing SSFS (e.g., as mentioned in Fig. 5, “transforming the system”), which link to processes of land-use change (Malek and Verburg 2020), migration (Adger et al. 2020), or exiting fisheries (Daw et al. 2012) described globally. Second, alternative food networks that change existing trade structures are emerging across food systems (Goodman et al. 2012). However, the way in which these networks are embedded can have different implications (Hinrichs 2000). For instance, they could have negative effects on local food security and small-scale post-harvesting actors in some contexts (Haysom 2016). Therefore, we hypothesize that trade networks and their embeddedness can change through time, influencing the capacity of smallholders to deal with changes and transform their trade structures and production systems.

We found different types of actors and types of horizontal relationships through which smallholders can be structurally embedded. As existing literature suggests, structural embeddedness allows accounting for the indirect interdependencies of multiple trade relationships (Choi and Kim 2008) and can complement value chain and supply chain approaches to investigating the influence of horizontal relationships and structural patterns on actors’ capacities to deal with changes (Borgatti and Li 2009, Bolwig et al. 2010, González-Mon et al. 2021). For example, a focus on horizontal relationships could allow the investigation of interdependencies between different producers and the network-level implications of actors’ vertical integration across the value chain. In addition, the development of alternative food networks or other changes in trade networks that arise as a response to change may have different implications for the diverse actors in existing trade networks, given smallholders’ structural embeddedness. Thus, we hypothesize that the importance of structural embeddedness for smallholders’ capacity to deal with changes depends on the capacities of the “buyer” they are connected to and on the buyer’s patterns of horizontal and vertical relationships with other actors.

We showed that the specific types of relational and structural embeddedness can be affected by personal and institutional factors. Factors such as personal motivations, tradition, and culture are also likely to affect responses to change (e.g., Daw et al. 2012, Talanow et al. 2021). As literature in economic sociology suggests, embeddedness in social relationships can influence responses to change, but the type of embeddedness and responses play out in combination with other structural, contextual, and personal motivations (Dobbin 2005). Such interactions could be understood by adopting broader conceptualizations of embeddedness that have been promoted in economic sociology, emphasizing cognitive, cultural, political, or institutional types of embeddedness (Zelizer 1988, Zukin and DiMaggio 1990, Dacin et al. 1999, Fligstein 2015) and literature discussing the interplay between networks and institutions (Owen-Smith and Powell 2008). Overall, we hypothesize that feedback interactions between contextual factors such as institutions and social embeddedness influence the types of embeddedness and their potential effects on responses to changes.

CONCLUSION

In a context in which SSFS are increasingly interconnected across scales and space while facing unprecedented global changes, understanding the role of trade networks for their capacity to deal with change is increasingly acute. Our study yields insights regarding the nature of trade networks within diverse SSFS, highlighting key features of their social embeddedness. The role of such different types of social relationships for enabling or constraining different responses to change remains a question for future research. The four refined hypotheses suggested above (bold font) provide avenues that should be investigated further to understand under which conditions embedded trade networks can lead to positive or negative outcomes in SSFS. For example, future research should investigate how diverse types of social relationships could enable or constrain the longer term adaptation of SSFS (adapting vs. coping), and investigate embeddedness from a dynamic perspective to understand transformation processes in SSFS’ trade networks and their implications. In this context, the concept of structural embeddedness and associated analytical tools based on network analysis could help in understanding the indirect interactions and dependencies between actors connected through complex trade networks (Bodin et al. 2019). Furthermore, comparative approaches across different case studies, as we showcase here, could offer opportunities to improve the understanding of how trade networks and contextual factors such as formal and informal institutions interact and influence responses to change, and the different motivations and mechanisms that coexist within embedded trade networks. Overall, we hope that the proposed emerging hypotheses inspire future research to advance our understanding of the role of socially embedded trade in the resilience of SSFS.

LITERATURE CITED

Adger, W. N., A.-S. Crépin, C. Folke, D. Ospina, F. S. Chapin III, K. Segerson, K. C. Seto, J. M. Anderies, S. Barrett, E. M. Bennett, G. Daily, T. Elmqvist, J. Fischer, N. Kautsky, S. A. Levin, J. F. Shogren, J. van den Bergh, B. Walker, and J. Wilen. 2020. Urbanization, migration, and adaptation to climate change. One Earth 3(4):396-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.09.016

Barnes, M. L., Ö. Bodin, A. M. Guerrero, R. R. J. McAllister, S. M. Alexander, and G. Robins. 2017. The social structural foundations of adaptation and transformation in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 22(4):16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09769-220416

Bastian, M., S. Heymann, and M. Jacomy. 2009. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. 3(1):361-362. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v3i1.13937

Basurto, X., A. Bennett, E. Lindkvist, and M. Schlüter. 2020. Governing the commons beyond harvesting: an empirical illustration from fishing. Plos One 15(4):e0231575. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231575

Birkett, M., J. Melville, P. Janulis, G. Phillips II, N. Contractor, and B. Hogan. 2021. Network Canvas: key decisions in the design of an interviewer-assisted network data collection software suite. Social Networks 66:114-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2021.02.003

Bitzer, V., and J. Bijman. 2014. Old oranges in new boxes? Strategic partnerships between emerging farmers and agribusinesses in South Africa. Journal of Southern African Studies 40(1):167-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057070.2014.877647

Blanchard, J. L., R. A. Watson, E. A. Fulton, R. S. Cottrell, K. L. Nash, A. Bryndum-Buchholz, M. Büchner, D. A. Carozza, W. W. L. Cheung, J. Elliott, L. N. K. Davidson, N. K. Dulvy, J. P. Dunne, T. D. Eddy, E. Galbraith, H. K. Lotze, O. Maury, C. Müller, D. P. Tittensor, and S. Jennings. 2017. Linked sustainability challenges and trade-offs among fisheries, aquaculture and agriculture. Nature Ecology and Evolution 1:1240-1249. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0258-8

Bodin, Ö., S. M. Alexander, J. Baggio, M. L. Barnes, R. Berardo, G. S. Cumming, L. E. Dee, A. P. Fischer, M. Fischer, M. Mancilla Garcia, A. M. Guerrero, J. Hileman, K. Ingold, P. Matous, T. H. Morrison, D. Nohrstedt, J. Pittman, G. Robins, and J. S. Sayles. 2019. Improving network approaches to the study of complex social-ecological interdependencies. Nature Sustainability 2:551-559. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0308-0

Bolwig, S., S. Ponte, A. Du Toit, L. Riisgaard, and N. Halberg. 2010. Integrating poverty and environmental concerns into value-chain analysis: a conceptual framework. Development Policy Review 28(2):173-194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2010.00480.x

Borgatti, S. P., and X. Li. 2009. On social network analysis in a supply chain context. Journal of Supply Chain Management 45(2):5-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2009.03166.x

Börjeson, L., M. Höjer, K.-H. Dreborg, T. Ekvall, and G. Finnveden. 2006. Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38(7):723-739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.002

Caggiano, H., and E. U. Weber. 2023. Advances in qualitative methods in environmental research. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 48, in press. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-080106

Candea, M. 2018. Comparison in anthropology: the impossible method. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108667609

Charterina, J., I. Basterretxea, and J. Landeta. 2016. Types of embedded ties in buyer-supplier relationships and their combined effects on innovation performance. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 31(2):152-163. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-04-2014-0071

Choi, T. Y., and Y. Kim. 2008. Structural embeddedness and supplier management: a network perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management 44(4):5-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2008.00069.x

Cinner, J. E., W. N. Adger, E. H. Allison, M. L. Barnes, K. Brown, P. J. Cohen, S. Gelcich, C. C. Hicks, T. P. Hughes, J. Lau, N. A. Marshall, and T. H. Morrison. 2018. Building adaptive capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities. Nature Climate Change 8:117-123. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0065-x

Cousins, B. 2010. What is a ‘smallholder’? Class-analytic perspectives on small-scale farming and agrarian reform in South Africa. In P. Hebinck and C. Shackleton, editors. Reforming land and resource use in South Africa: impact on livelihoods. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203839645

Dacin, M. T., M. J. Ventresca, and B. D. Beal. 1999. The embeddedness of organizations: dialogue and directions. Journal of Management 25(3):317-356. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500304

Darnhofer, I., C. Lamine, A. Strauss, and M. Navarrete. 2016. The resilience of family farms: towards a relational approach. Journal of Rural Studies 44:111-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.01.013

Daw, T. M., J. E. Cinner, T. R. McClanahan, K. Brown, S. M. Stead, N. A. J. Graham, and J. Maina. 2012. To fish or not to fish: factors at multiple scales affecting artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. Plos One 7(2):e31460. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031460

Dobbin, F. 2005. Comparative and historical approaches to economic sociology. Pages 26-48 in N. J. Smelser and R. Swedberg, editors. The handbook of economic sociology. Second edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400835584.26

Drury O’Neill, E., B. Crona, A. J. G. Ferrer, and R. Pomeroy. 2019. From typhoons to traders: the role of patron-client relations in mediating fishery responses to natural disasters. Environmental Research Letters 14(4):045015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab0b57

Dulsrud, A., and K. Grønhaug. 2007. Is friendship consistent with competitive market exchange? A microsociological analysis of the fish export-import business. Acta Sociologica 50(1):7-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699307074879

Evans, S. C., M. C. Roberts, J. W. Keeley, J. B. Blossom, C. M. Amaro, A. M. Garcia, C. O. Stough, K. S. Canter, R. Robles, and G. M. Reed. 2015. Vignette methodologies for studying clinicians’ decision-making: validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field studies. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 15(2):160-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.12.001

Fabinyi, M., W. H. Dressler, and M. D. Pido. 2018. Moving beyond financial value in seafood commodity chains. Marine Policy 94:89-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.033

Fafchamps, M., and B. Minten. 1999. Relationships and traders in Madagascar. Journal of Development Studies 35(6):1-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220389908422600

Fafchamps, M., and B. Minten. 2002. Returns to social network capital among traders. Oxford Economic Papers 54(2):173-206. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3488776

Ferse, S. C. A., M. Glaser, M. Neil, and K. Schwerdtner Máñez. 2014. To cope or to sustain? Eroding long-term sustainability in an Indonesian coral reef fishery. Regional Environmental Change 14:2053-2065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0342-1

Fligstein, N. 2015. What kind of re-imagining does economic sociology need? Pages 301-316 in P. Aspers and N. Dodd, editors. Re-imagining economic sociology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198748465.003.0013

Folke, C. 2016. Resilience (republished). Ecology and Society 21(4):44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09088-210444

Garner, B. 2017. Communicating social support during crises at the farmers’ market: a social exchange approach to understanding customer-farmer communal relationships. International Journal of Consumer Studies 41(4):422-430. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12365

Godfray, H. C. J., I. R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence, J. F. Muir, N. Nisbett, J. Pretty, S. Robinson, C. Toulmin, and R. Whiteley. 2010. The future of the global food system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365(1554):2769-2777. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0180

González-Mon, B., Ö. Bodin, B. Crona, M. Nenadovic, and X. Basurto. 2019. Small-scale fish buyers’ trade networks reveal diverse actor types and differential adaptive capacities. Ecological Economics 164:106338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.018

González-Mon, B., E. Lindkvist, Ö. Bodin, J. A. Zepeda-Domínguez, and M. Schlüter. 2021. Fish provision in a changing environment: the buffering effect of regional trade networks. Plos One 16(12):e0261514. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261514

Goodman, D., E. M. DuPuis, and M. K. Goodman. 2012. Alternative food networks: knowledge, practice, and politics. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.

Government of South Africa. 2012. Policy for the small scale fisheries sector in South Africa. Government Gazette Staatskoerant 35455. Government Printing Works, Pretoria, South Africa. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/35455gon474.pdf

Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of emeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91(3):481-510. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2780199

Granovetter, M. S., and R. Swedberg, editors. 2011. The sociology of economic life. Third edition. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494338

Hall, R., I. Scoones, and D. Tsikata. 2017. Plantations, outgrowers and commercial farming in Africa: agricultural commercialisation and implications for agrarian change. Journal of Peasant Studies 44(3):515-537. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1263187

Hauck, J., C. Stein, E. Schiffer, and M. Vandewalle. 2015. Seeing the forest and the trees: facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance. Global Environmental Change 35:400-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.022

Haysom, G. 2016. Alternative food networks and food insecurity in South Africa. PLAAS Working Paper 33. Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.

Hernández-Martínez, G., R. H. Manson, and A. C. Hernández. 2009. Quantitative classification of coffee agroecosystems spanning a range of production intensities in central Veracruz, Mexico. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 134(1-2):89-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.05.020

Hinrichs, C. C. 2000. Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural market. Journal of Rural Studies 16(3):295-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00063-7

Hite, J. M. 2003. Patterns of multidimensionality among embedded network ties: a typology of relational embeddedness in emerging entrepreneurial firms. Strategic Organization 1(1):9-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/147612700311002

Hite, J. M. 2005. Evolutionary processes and paths of relationally embedded network ties in emerging entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29(1):113-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00072.x

Hughes, R. 2008. Vignettes. Pages 596-597 in L. M. Given, editor. Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909

Isaacs, M. 2013. Small-scale fisheries governance and understanding the snoek (Thyrsites atun) supply chain in the Ocean View fishing community, Western Cape, South Africa. Ecology and Society 18(4):17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05863-180417

Johnson, D. S. 2010. Institutional adaptation as a governability problem in fisheries: patron–client relations in the Junagadh fishery, India. Fish and Fisheries 11(3):264-277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00376.x

Liverpool-Tasie, L. S. O., A. Wineman, S. Young, J. Tambo, C. Vargas, T. Reardon, G. S. Adjognon, J. Porciello, N. Gathoni, L. Bizikova, A. Galiè, and A. Celestin. 2020. A scoping review of market links between value chain actors and small-scale producers in developing regions. Nature Sustainability 3:799-808. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00621-2

Malek, Ž., and P. H. Verburg. 2020. Mapping global patterns of land use decision-making. Global Environmental Change 65:102170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102170

Meyfroidt, P. 2017. Mapping farm size globally: benchmarking the smallholders debate. Environmental Research Letters 12(3):031002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5ef6

Meyfroidt, P., R. Roy Chowdhury, A. de Bremond, E. C. Ellis, K.-H. Erb, T. Filatova, R. D. Garrett, J. M. Grove, A. Heinimann, T. Kuemmerle, C. A. Kull, E. F. Lambin, Y. Landon, Y. le Polain de Waroux, P. Messerli, D. Müller, J. Ø. Nielsen, G. D. Peterson, V. Rodriguez García, M. Schlüter, B. L. Turner II, and P. H. Verburg. 2018. Middle-range theories of land system change. Global Environmental Change 53:52-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.08.006

Milestad, R., B. Dedieu, I. Darnhofer, and S. Bellon. 2012. Farms and farmers facing change: the adaptive approach. Pages 365-385 in I. Darnhofer, D. Gibbon, and B. Dedieu, editors. Farming systems research into the 21st century: the new dynamic. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2_16

North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678

Owen-Smith, J., and W. W. Powell. 2008. Networks and institutions. Pages 596-624 in R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, and R. Suddaby, editors. Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Sage, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n26

Pelling, M., and C. High. 2005. Understanding adaptation: What can social capital offer assessments of adaptive capacity? Global Environmental Change 15(4):308-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.02.001

Penker, M. 2006. Mapping and measuring the ecological embeddedness of food supply chains. Geoforum 37(3):368-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.09.001

Podolny, J. M. 2001. Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology 107(1):33-60. https://doi.org/10.1086/323038

Pollnac, R. B. 2007. Cooperation and conflict between large- and small-scale fisheries: a Southeast Asian example. Pages 229-243 in W. W. Taylor, M. G. Schechter, and L. G. Wolfson, editors. Globalization: effects on fisheries resources. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542183.013

Reyers, B., C. Folke, M.-L. Moore, R. Biggs, and V. Galaz. 2018. Social-ecological systems insights for navigating the dynamics of the Anthropocene. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 43:267-289. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085349

Reyers, B., M.-L. Moore, L. J. Haider, and M. Schlüter. 2022. The contributions of resilience to reshaping sustainable development. Nature Sustainability 5:657-664. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00889-6

Ryu, S., H. Cho, and K. Kim. 2013. Effects of network embeddedness on the relationship between environmental volatility and interfirm contracts. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 20(3):139-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2012.757718

Schiffer, E., and J. Hauck. 2010. Net-map: collecting social network data and facilitating network learning through participatory influence network mapping. Field Methods 22(3):231-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10374798

Short, R. E., S. Gelcich, D. C. Little, F. Micheli, E. H. Allison, X. Basurto, B. Belton, C. Brugere, S. R. Bush, L. Cao, B. Crona, P. J. Cohen, O. Defeo, P. Edwards, C. E. Ferguson, N. Franz, C. D. Golden, B. S. Halpern, L. Hazen, C. Hicks, D. Johnson, A. M. Kaminski, S. Mangubhai, R. L. Naylor, M. Reantaso, U. R. Sumaila, S. H. Thilsted, M. Tigchelaar, C. C. C. Wabnitz, and W. Zhang. 2021. Harnessing the diversity of small-scale actors is key to the future of aquatic food systems. Nature Food 2:733-741. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00363-0

Sowman, M., and J. Sunde. 2021. A just transition? Navigating the process of policy implementation in small-scale fisheries in South Africa. Marine Policy 132:104683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104683

Spijkers, J., A. Merrie, C. C. C. Wabnitz, M. Osborne, M. Mobjörk, Ö. Bodin, E. R. Selig, P. Le Billon, C. S. Hendrix, G. G. Singh, P. W. Keys, and T. H. Morrison. 2021. Exploring the future of fishery conflict through narrative scenarios. One Earth 4(3):386-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.02.004

Stoll, J. S., M. Bailey, and M. Jonell. 2020. Alternative pathways to sustainable seafood. Conservation Letters 13(1):e12683. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12683

Talanow, K., E. N. Topp, J. Loos, and B. Martín-López. 2021. Farmers’ perceptions of climate change and adaptation strategies in South Africa’s Western Cape. Journal of Rural Studies 81:203-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.026

Tigchelaar, M., W. W. L. Cheung, E. Y. Mohammed, M. J. Phillips, H. J. Payne, E. R. Selig, C. C. C. Wabnitz, M. A. Oyinlola, T. L. Frölicher, J. A. Gephart, C. D. Golden, E. H. Allison, A. Bennett, L. Cao, J. Fanzo, B. S. Halpern, V. W. Y. Lam, F. Micheli, R. L. Naylor, U. R. Sumaila, A. Tagliabue, and M. Troell. 2021. Compound climate risks threaten aquatic food system benefits. Nature Food 2:673-682. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00368-9

Timmermans, S., and I. Tavory. 2012. Theory construction in qualitative research: from grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory 30(3):167-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914

Turgo, N. 2016. ‘Laway lang ang kapital’ (saliva as capital): social embeddedness of market practices in brokerage houses in the Philippines. Journal of Rural Studies 43:83-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.11.001

Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect. American Sociological Review 61(4):674-698. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096399

Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(1):35-67. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393808

Uzzi, B. 1999. Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: how social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review 64(4):481-505. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657252

van Burg, E., T. Elfring, and J. P. Cornelissen. 2022. Connecting content and structure: a review of mechanisms in entrepreneurs’ social networks. International Journal of Management Reviews 24(2):188-209. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12272

Van Putten, I., A. Breckwoldt, A. Bundy, P. Guillotreau, P. K. Nayak, H. Österblom, and R. I. Perry. 2018. Conclusion: lessons from global change responses to advance governance and sustainable use of marine systems. Pages 295-313 in P. Guillotreau, A. Bundy, and R. I. Perry, editors. Global change in marine systems: integrating natural, social and governing responses. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.

West, S., L. J. Haider, S. Stålhammar, and S. Woroniecki. 2020. A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. Ecosystems and People 16(1):304-325. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1814417

Zelizer, V. A. 1988. Beyond the polemics on the market: establishing a theoretical and empirical agenda. Sociological Forum 3(4):614-634. https://www.jstor.org/stable/684548

Zittoun, T. 2017. Modalities of generalization through single case studies. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 51:171-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-016-9367-1

Zukin, S., and P. DiMaggio, editors. 1990. Structures of capital: the social organization of the economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.