Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Complexity and uncertainty in future food system transformation modelling

Nature Food volume 6, pages 1008–1019 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Food systems face multi-dimensional pressures and require integrated assessments of environmental, social, health and economic dimensions to inform their transformation. Although economic equilibrium models and integrated assessment models have been instrumental in this context, future decision-making requires more diverse and inclusive participatory processes. Here we evaluate the ability of current models to represent food systems and identify challenges and opportunities regarding key aspects of their transformative change, including socio-political dynamics and human–nature feedbacks, links between global and local scales, robustness under uncertainty, as well as evolving stakeholder demands. Our analysis underscores the need to rethink how models are designed and used for a more effective integration into decision-making processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Model-specific ability to represent various dimensions at different levels of inclusion.
Fig. 2: Types of coupling between different modelling frameworks.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gaupp, F. et al. Food system development pathways for healthy, nature-positive and inclusive food systems. Nat. Food 2, 928–934 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Conti, C., Hall, A., Orr, A., Hambloch, C. & Mausch, K. Complexity-aware principles for agri-food system interventions: lessons from project encounters with complexity. Agric. Syst. 220, 104080 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mausch, K. et al. Embracing uncertainty: foundations of a learning system for food systems transformation. Food Secur. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-025-01565-1 (2025).

  4. Allen, T. & Prosperi, P. Modeling sustainable food systems. Environ. Manage. 57, 956–975 (2016).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Frank, S. et al. Agricultural non-CO2 emission reduction potential in the context of the 1.5 °C target. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 66–72 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Turner, S. W. D., Hejazi, M., Calvin, K., Kyle, P. & Kim, S. A pathway of global food supply adaptation in a world with increasingly constrained groundwater. Sci. Total Environ. 673, 165–176 (2019).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Yarlagadda, B. et al. Trade and climate mitigation interactions create agro-economic opportunities with social and environmental trade-offs in Latin America and the Caribbean. Earths Future 11, e2022EF003063 (2023).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Reed, P. M. et al. Multisector dynamics: advancing the science of complex adaptive human–Earth systems. Earths Future 10, e2021EF002621 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. van Dijk, M., Morley, T., Rau, M. L. & Saghai, Y. A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010–2050. Nat. Food 2, 494–501 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nelson, G. C. & Shively, G. E. Modeling climate change and agriculture: an introduction to the special issue. Agric. Econ. 45, 1–2 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rogers, E. Diffusion and Adoption of Innovation (Free Press, 1962).

  13. Britz, W. Estimating a global MAIDADS demand system considering demography, climate and norms. Bio-Based Appl. Econ. 3, 219–238 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nyborg, K. et al. Social norms as solutions. Science 354, 42–43 (2016).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Leblond, N. & Trottier, J. Performing an invisibility spell: global models, food regimes and smallholders. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 23, 21–40 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Saghai, Y. Subversive future seeks like-minded model: on the mismatch between visions of food sovereignty futures and quantified scenarios of global food futures. Ethics Int. Aff. 35, 51–67 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bodirsky, B. L. et al. The ongoing nutrition transition thwarts long-term targets for food security, public health and environmental protection. Sci. Rep. 10, 19778 (2020).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Springmann, M. et al. Global and regional health effects of future food production under climate change: a modelling study. Lancet 387, 1937–1946 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hasegawa, T. et al. Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 699–703 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Nelson, G. C. et al. Climate change effects on agriculture: economic responses to biophysical shocks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3274–3279 (2014).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Humpenöder, F. et al. Food matters: dietary shifts increase the feasibility of 1.5 °C pathways in line with the Paris Agreement. Sci. Adv. 10, eadj3832 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Fricko, O. et al. The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: a middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 251–267 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ran, Y. et al. Information as an enabler of sustainable food choices: a behavioural approach to understanding consumer decision-making. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 31, 642–656 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kukowski, C. A. et al. The perceived feasibility of behavior change is positively associated with support for domain-matched climate policies. One Earth 6, 1554–1563 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Creutzig, F. et al. Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of well-being. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 36–46 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kuhn, M., Eker, S., Reiter, C. & Liu, Q. in Systems Analysis for Sustainable Wellbeing. 50 Years of IIASA Research, 40 Years after the Brundtland Commission, Contributing to the post-2030 Global Agenda (eds Lutz, W. & Pachauri, S.) 61–76 (IIASA, 2023).

  27. Marrero, A. et al. Equity as a priority in EAT–Lancet-aligned food system transformations. Nat. Food 5, 811–817 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wood, A. et al. Reframing the local–global food systems debate through a resilience lens. Nat. Food 4, 22–29 (2023).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Clark, M. A. et al. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2 °C climate change targets. Science 370, 705–708 (2020).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Stehfest, E. et al. Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change 95, 83–102 (2009).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Obersteiner, M. et al. Assessing the land resource–food price nexus of the Sustainable Development Goals. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501499 (2016).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Carducci, B. et al. Exploring women’s dietary diversity amidst climate variability: a comparative analysis across eight low- and middle-income countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 20, 094005 (2025).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  34. Creutzig, F. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) 752–943 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

  35. Sarkar, D., Walker-Swaney, J. & Shetty, K. Food diversity and indigenous food systems to combat diet-linked chronic diseases. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 4, 3–11 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Brutschin, E. et al. A multidimensional feasibility evaluation of low-carbon scenarios. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 064069 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. EAT–Lancet 2.0 Commissioners and contributing authors. EAT–Lancet Commission 2.0: securing a just transition to healthy, environmentally sustainable diets for all. Lancet 402, 352–354 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Singh, V. et al. A comparison of the effects of local and EAT–Lancet dietary recommendations on selected economic and environmental outcomes in India. Food Policy 134, 102898 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Stiglitz, J. E. Where modern macroeconomics went wrong. Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy 34, 70–106 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. J. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124–1131 (1974).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Bodirsky, B. L. et al. Integrating degrowth and efficiency perspectives enables an emission-neutral food system by 2100. Nat. Food 3, 341–348 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lenton, T. M. et al. Operationalising positive tipping points towards global sustainability. Glob. Sustain. 5, e1 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Centola, D., Becker, J., Brackbill, D. & Baronchelli, A. Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention. Science 360, 1116–1119 (2018).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Peng, W. et al. Climate policy models need to get real about people—here’s how. Nature 594, 174–176 (2021).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Banerjee, S. Meat taxes are inevitable, yet we seem to shy away from them. But why? Food Policy 130, 102787 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sanga, U., Berrío-Martínez, J. & Schlüter, M. Modelling agricultural innovations as a social-ecological phenomenon. Socioenviron. Syst. Model. 5, 18562 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Arneth, A., Brown, C. & Rounsevell, M. D. A. Global models of human decision-making for land-based mitigation and adaptation assessment. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 550–557 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  48. Williams, T. G. et al. Power dynamics shape sustainability transitions in a modeled food system. One Earth 8, 101158 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Eker, S., Reese, G. & Obersteiner, M. Modelling the drivers of a widespread shift to sustainable diets. Nat. Sustain. 2, 725–735 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sun, Z. et al. Simple or complicated agent-based models? A complicated issue. Environ. Model. Softw. 86, 56–67 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mediavilla, M., Lifi, M., Ferreras-Alonso, N., Miguel, L. J. & de Blas, I. Analysis of the competition between land, energy and food using the TERRA module of WILIAM System Dynamics IAM. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 216, 115651 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wuepper, D. et al. Public policies and global forest conservation: empirical evidence from national borders. Glob. Environ. Change 84, 102770 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Matous, P. & Bodin, Ö. Hub-and-spoke social networks among Indonesian cocoa farmers homogenise farming practices. People Nat. 6, 598–609 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Davis, N., Dermody, B., Koetse, M. & van Voorn, G. Identifying personal and social drivers of dietary patterns: an agent-based model of Dutch consumer behavior. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 27, 4 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Langellier, B. A. et al. Potential impacts of policies to reduce purchasing of ultra-processed foods in Mexico at different stages of the social transition: an agent-based modelling approach. Public Health Nutr. 25, 1711–1719 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Turner, N. J., Cuerrier, A. & Joseph, L. Well grounded: indigenous peoples’ knowledge, ethnobiology and sustainability. People Nat. 4, 627–651 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Moallemi, E. A. et al. Entry points for driving systemic change toward a more sustainable future. One Earth 8, 101287 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. van Zanten, H. H. E. et al. Circularity in Europe strengthens the sustainability of the global food system. Nat. Food 4, 320–330 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Brown, K., Schirmer, J. & Upton, P. Can regenerative agriculture support successful adaptation to climate change and improved landscape health through building farmer self-efficacy and wellbeing? Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 4, 100170 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Dietrich, J. P. et al. MAgPIE 4—a modular open-source framework for modeling global land systems. Geosci Model Dev 12, 1299–1317 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Global Biosphere Management Model (GLOBIOM) Documentation 2023 Version 1.0 (IBF-IIASA, 2023); https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/18996

  62. Leip, A. et al. Linking an economic model for European agriculture with a mechanistic model to estimate nitrogen and carbon losses from arable soils in Europe. Biogeosciences 5, 73–94 (2008).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  63. Britz, W., Verburg, P. H. & Leip, A. Modelling of land cover and agricultural change in Europe: combining the CLUE and CAPRI-Spat approaches. Scaling Methods Integr. Assess. Agric. Syst. 142, 40–50 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Le Page, Y., West, T. O., Link, R. & Patel, P. Downscaling land use and land cover from the Global Change Assessment Model for coupling with Earth system models. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3055–3069 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  65. Ramos, R. G. et al. A mathematical programming approach for downscaling multi-layered multi-constraint land-use models. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 37, 2020–2042 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Gocht, A. & Britz, W. EU-wide farm type supply models in CAPRI—how to consistently disaggregate sector models into farm type models. J. Policy Model. 33, 146–167 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Scoones, I. The politics of global assessments: the case of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). J. Peasant Stud. 36, 547–571 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Laborde Debucquet, D. & Martin, W. Implications of the global growth slowdown for rural poverty. Agric. Econ. 49, 325–338 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Laborde, D., Martin, W. & Vos, R. Impacts of COVID-19 on global poverty, food security, and diets: insights from global model scenario analysis. Agric. Econ. 52, 375–390 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Britz, W., van Ittersum, M. K., Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M. & Heckelei, T. Tools for integrated assessment in agriculture. State of the art and challenges. Bio-Based Appl. Econ. J. 01, 125–150 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  71. McDonald, C. K., MacLeod, N. D., Lisson, S. & Corfield, J. P. The Integrated Analysis Tool (IAT)-a model for the evaluation of crop-livestock and socio-economic interventions in smallholder farming systems. Agric. Syst. 176, 102659 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Kuehne, G. et al. Predicting farmer uptake of new agricultural practices: a tool for research, extension and policy. Agric. Syst. 156, 115–125 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Shang, L. et al. Surrogate modelling of a detailed farm-level model using deep learning. J. Agric. Econ. 75, 235–260 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Shang, L., Heckelei, T., Gerullis, M. K., Börner, J. & Rasch, S. Adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies—integrating farm-level evidence and system interaction. Agric. Syst. 190, 103074 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Johnson, J. A. et al. Investing in nature can improve equity and economic returns. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2220401120 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Valin, H. et al. The future of food demand: understanding differences in global economic models. Agric. Econ. 45, 51–67 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Skea, J., Shukla, P., Al Khourdajie, A. & McCollum, D. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: transparency and integrated assessment modeling. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 12, e727 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Horridge, M., Meeraus, A., Pearson, K. & Rutherford, T. F. in Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling Vol. 1 (eds Dixon, P. B. & Jorgenson, D. W.) Ch. 20 (Elsevier, 2013).

  79. Mosnier, A. et al. A decentralized approach to model national and global food and land use systems. Environ. Res. Lett. 18, 045001 (2023).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  80. Palazzo, A. et al. Linking regional stakeholder scenarios and shared socioeconomic pathways: quantified West African food and climate futures in a global context. Glob. Environ. Change 45, 227–242 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Mason-D’Croz, D. et al. Multi-factor, multi-state, multi-model scenarios: exploring food and climate futures for Southeast Asia. Environ. Model. Softw. 83, 255–270 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Zhao, H. et al. China’s future food demand and its implications for trade and environment. Nat. Sustain. 4, 1042–1051 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Soterroni, A. C. et al. Future environmental and agricultural impacts of Brazil’s Forest Code. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 074021 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  84. Wang, X. et al. Reforming China’s fertilizer policies: implications for nitrogen pollution reduction and food security. Sustain. Sci. 18, 407–420 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Binsted, M. et al. GCAM-USA v5.3_water_dispatch: integrated modeling of subnational US energy, water, and land systems within a global framework. Geosci. Model Dev. 15, 2533–2559 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  86. Wentworth, C. et al. Navigating community engagement in participatory modeling of food systems. Environ. Sci. Policy 152, 103645 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Davis, J. T. M., Verburg, P. H. & May, J. D. Diverse actor perspectives on African urban food systems: lessons from participatory food system modeling in Worcester, South Africa. Ecol. Soc. 28, 26 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Inam, A. et al. Coupling of a distributed stakeholder-built system dynamics socio-economic model with SAHYSMOD for sustainable soil salinity management. Part 2: Model coupling and application. J. Hydrol. 551, 278–299 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  89. Bandari, R. et al. Participatory modeling for analyzing interactions between high-priority sustainable development goals to promote local sustainability. Earths Future 11, e2023EF003948 (2023).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  90. Mangnus, A. C. et al. New pathways for governing food system transformations: a pluralistic practice-based futures approach using visioning, back-casting, and serious gaming. Ecol. Soc. 24, 2 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Hebinck, A., Vervoort, J. M., Hebinck, P., Rutting, L. & Galli, F. Imagining transformative futures participatory foresight for food systems change. Ecol. Soc. 23, 16 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Iñiguez, N. Leveraging Indigenous Knowledge and Modern Science for Sustainable Food System Transformation (Rockefeller Foundation, 2024); https://coilink.org/20.500.12592/r2285rv

  93. Voinov, A. et al. Tools and methods in participatory modeling: selecting the right tool for the job. Environ. Model. Softw. 109, 232–255 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Browne, J. et al. Food policies for aboriginal and Torres Strait islander health (FoodPATH): a systems thinking approach. Food Policy 126, 102676 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Singh, D. R., Sah, R. K., Simkhada, B. & Darwin, Z. Potentials and challenges of using co-design in health services research in low- and middle-income countries. Glob. Health Res. Policy 8, 5 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Bankes, S. Exploratory modeling for policy analysis. Oper. Res. 41, 435–449 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Aston, L. M., Smith, J. N. & Powles, J. W. Impact of a reduced red and processed meat dietary pattern on disease risks and greenhouse gas emissions in the UK: a modelling study. BMJ Open 2, e001072 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Srikrishnan, V. et al. Uncertainty analysis in multi-sector systems: considerations for risk analysis, projection, and planning for complex systems. Earths Future 10, e2021EF002644 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  99. Hadjikakou, M. Ambitious food system interventions required to mitigate the risk of exceeding Earth’s environmental limits. One Earth 8, e101351 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Doelman, J. C. et al. Exploring SSP land-use dynamics using the IMAGE model: regional and gridded scenarios of land-use change and land-based climate change mitigation. Glob. Environ. Change 48, 119–135 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Mitter, H. et al. Shared socio-economic pathways for European agriculture and food systems: the Eur-Agri-SSPs. Glob. Environ. Change 65, 102159 (2020).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Valin, H., Hertel, T., Bodirsky, B. L., Hasegawa, T. & Stehfest, E. Achieving Zero Hunger by 2030 A Review of Quantitative Assessments of Synergies and Tradeoffs amongst the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Center for Development Research, 2021); https://doi.org/10.48565/scgr2021-2337

  103. Prestele, R. et al. Hotspots of uncertainty in land-use and land-cover change projections: a global-scale model comparison. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 3967–3983 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  104. Stirling, A. Keep it complex. Nature 468, 1029–1031 (2010).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Guivarch, C. et al. Using large ensembles of climate change mitigation scenarios for robust insights. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 428–435 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  106. Rosenzweig, C. et al. The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP): protocols and pilot studies. Agric. For. Meteorol. 170, 166–182 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  107. Pérez-Domínguez, I. et al. Short- and long-term warming effects of methane may affect the cost-effectiveness of mitigation policies and benefits of low-meat diets. Nat. Food 2, 970–980 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Fujimori, S. et al. Land-based climate change mitigation measures can affect agricultural markets and food security. Nat. Food 3, 110–121 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Escobar, N. et al. Understanding uncertainty in market-mediated responses to US oilseed biodiesel demand: sensitivity of ILUC emission estimates to GLOBIOM parametric uncertainty. Environ. Sci. Technol. 59, 302–314 (2025).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Plevin, R. J. et al. Choices in land representation materially affect modeled biofuel carbon intensity estimates. J. Clean. Prod. 349, 131477 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Tebaldi, C. & Knutti, R. The use of the multi-model ensemble in probabilistic climate projections. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365, 2053–2075 (2007).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Razavi, S., Tolson, B. A. & Burn, D. H. Review of surrogate modeling in water resources. Water Resour. Res. 48, W07401 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  113. Holmes, A. et al. Emulating the global change analysis model with deep learning. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.08850 (2024).

  114. von Lampe, M. et al. Why do global long-term scenarios for agriculture differ? An overview of the AgMIP Global Economic Model Intercomparison. Agric. Econ. 45, 3–20 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Spiegelhalter, D., Pearson, M. & Short, I. Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Science 333, 1393–1400 (2011).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Wiebe, K. et al. Climate change impacts on agriculture in 2050 under a range of plausible socioeconomic and emissions scenarios. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 085010 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Alexander, P. et al. Assessing uncertainties in land cover projections. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 767–781 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  118. Taleb, N. N. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (Random House, 2007).

  119. Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E. & ter Maat, J. Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: a method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 485–498 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Gibson, M. et al. Degrowth as a plausible pathway for food systems transformation. Nat. Food https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-01108-5 (2025).

  121. Zimm, C., Schinko, T. & Pachauri, S. Putting multidimensional inequalities in human wellbeing at the centre of transitions. Lancet Planet. Health 6, e641–e642 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Weber, E., Downward, G., Pinho, M. G. M. & Van Vuuren, D. P. Healthy lives and well-being for all at all ages: expanding representations of determinants of health within systems dynamics and integrated assessment models. Sustain. Earth Rev. 6, 15 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Whitten, S. et al. Exploring Climate Risk in Australia: The Economic Implications of a Delayed Transition to Net Zero Emissions (CSIRO, 2021); https://ecos.csiro.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Technical-Report__Exploring-Climate-Risk-in-Australia__20220204.pdf

  124. Land Use Futures—Natural Capital Roadmap (Climateworks Centre, 2019); https://www.climateworksaustralia.org/resource/land-use-futures-natural-capital-roadmap/

  125. Saltelli, A. et al. Five ways to ensure that models serve society: a manifesto. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01812-9 (2020).

  126. Saltelli, A. et al. Bring digital twins back to Earth. Climatic Change 15, e915 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  127. Conti, C. et al. Top-down vs bottom-up processes: a systematic review clarifying roles and patterns of interactions in food system transformation. Glob. Food Secur. 44, 100833 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Grimm, V. et al. A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol. Model. 198, 115–126 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Rahmandad, H. & Sterman, J. D. Reporting guidelines for simulation-based research in social sciences. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 28, 396–411 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. DeCarolis, J. et al. Formalizing best practice for energy system optimization modelling. Appl. Energy 194, 184–198 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  131. Stehfest, E., van Vuuren, D., Bouwman, L. & Kram, T. Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change with IMAGE 3.0: Model Description and Policy Applications (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2014).

  132. Ye, Q. et al. FeliX 2.0: An integrated model of climate, economy, environment, and society interactions. Environ. Model. Softw. 179, 106121 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. GCAM Documentation (Version 7.0) (JGCRI, 2023); https://github.com/JGCRI/gcam-doc

  134. Robinson, S. et al. The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT): Model Documentation for Version 3.6. Modeling Systems Technical Paper 1 (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2024).

  135. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Exploring pathways for world development within planetary boundaries. Nature 641, 910–916 (2025).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. Hackbarth, T. X., May, J. & Verburg, P. H. Food system interventions in urban environments: Integrating simulation models and stakeholder solutions. Food Policy 134, 102878 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Plagányi, É. et al. Multispecies fisheries management and conservation: tactical applications using models of intermediate complexity. Fish Fish. 15, 1–22 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Bailey, R. L. et al. Artificial intelligence in food and nutrition evidence: the challenges and opportunities. PNAS Nexus 3, 461 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Krupitzer, C. Generative artificial intelligence in the agri-food value chain-overview, potential, and research challenges. Front. Food Sci. Technol. 4, 1473357 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Fanzo, J. et al. The Food Systems Dashboard is a new tool to inform better food policy. Nat. Food 1, 243–246 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Puy, A. et al. Models with higher effective dimensions tend to produce more uncertain estimates. Sci. Adv. 8, eabn9450 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. Green, K. C. & Armstrong, J. S. Simple versus complex forecasting: the evidence. J. Bus. Res. 68, 1678–1685 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Collins, N. et al. Design and implementation of components in the Earth system modeling framework. Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl. 19, 341–350 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. Friedenthal, S., Moore, A. & Steiner, R. A Practical Guide to SysML: The Systems Modeling Language (Morgan Kaufmann, 2014).

  145. Castonguay, A. C. et al. Navigating sustainability trade-offs in global beef production. Nat. Sustain. 6, 284–294 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Castonguay, A. C. & Moallemi, E. A. Interactive figure for ‘Strategies for addressing transformation complexity and uncertainty in models of future food systems’. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17150240 (2025).

  147. Moallemi, E. A. et al. Structuring and evaluating decision support processes to enhance the robustness of complex human–natural systems. Environ. Model. Softw. 123, 1045–1051 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Morgan, J. S. et al. A toolkit of designs for mixing discrete event simulation and system dynamics. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 257, 907–918 (2017).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Boylan (CSIRO, Australia), D. Mayberry (CSIRO, Australia) and K. Chowdhury (University of Maryland, USA) for their valuable feedback and reading of the paper before submission.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Enayat A. Moallemi, Adam C. Castonguay.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

    Enayat A. Moallemi, Rohan Nelson & Raymundo Marcos-Martinez

  2. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

    Adam C. Castonguay, Duy Nong & Javier Navarro-Garcia

  3. Department of Global Development and Atkinson Center for Sustainability, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Daniel Mason-D’Croz

  4. Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy Group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands

    Daniel Mason-D’Croz

  5. Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Wolfgang Britz

  6. Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Cameron Allen

  7. School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Michalis Hadjikakou & Brett A. Bryan

  8. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

    Michael Battaglia

  9. M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, India

    Costanza Conti

  10. Integrated Biosphere Futures (IBF) Research Group, Biodiversity and Natural Resources (BNR) Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria

    Stefan Frank

  11. Institute of Sustainable Economic Development, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria

    Stefan Frank

  12. Centre for Applied Energy Economics and Policy Research, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Duy Nong

  13. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria

    Sibel Eker

  14. School of Environment and Sustainability and National Hydrology Research Centre, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

    Saman Razavi

  15. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Saman Razavi

  16. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Urrbrae, South Australia, Australia

    Lei Gao

Authors
  1. Enayat A. Moallemi
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam C. Castonguay
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Mason-D’Croz
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rohan Nelson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wolfgang Britz
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cameron Allen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michalis Hadjikakou
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Michael Battaglia
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Brett A. Bryan
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Costanza Conti
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Raymundo Marcos-Martinez
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Stefan Frank
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Duy Nong
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Sibel Eker
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Saman Razavi
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Javier Navarro-Garcia
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Lei Gao
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

E.A.M. and A.C.C. conceptualized the study and methodology. A.C.C., E.A.M., D.M.-D., M.H., W.B. and D.N. conducted the investigation. E.A.M., A.C.C., R.N., M.H., B.A.B., M.B., W.B., C.A., S.E. and J.N.-G. wrote the original draft of the paper. All authors contributed and approved the final version of the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enayat A. Moallemi or Adam C. Castonguay.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Food thanks Valeria Pineiro, Camille Venier-Cambron and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information (download PDF )

Supplementary Discussion, Figs. 1–4, Tables 1–3 and References.

Reporting Summary (download PDF )

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moallemi, E.A., Castonguay, A.C., Mason-D’Croz, D. et al. Complexity and uncertainty in future food system transformation modelling. Nat Food 6, 1008–1019 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-025-01257-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-025-01257-1

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing