System Dynamics Simulation of the Resilience of Sustainable Food Systems in Urban–Rural Transition Zones Empowered by Digitalization

1. Introduction

The world is entering a new era centered on the collaborative governance of development and the environment, with the pursuit of sustainable development becoming a shared vision of human societies [1,2]. As cities serve as key engines for driving the implementation of sustainable development goals, increasing attention is being given to the sustainability of their development pathways [1,3], and the pace of urbanization continues to accelerate. According to UN-Habitat statistics, more than half of the global population currently resides in urban areas, and this proportion is expected to increase to 68% by 2050 [4], making the trend of urbanization irreversible. However, while rapid urbanization promotes socioeconomic progress, it also triggers a series of severe challenges, such as ecosystem degradation [5,6]. The ecological evolution of urban–rural systems and their derived social consequences impose constraints on the overall achievement of sustainable development goals that cannot be ignored [7,8,9,10]. In urban–rural fringe areas, urban expansion presents a pattern of “cities surrounding villages, buildings cutting through nature,” leading to habitat fragmentation and the degradation of ecosystem services, which directly threaten the already fragile food systems in these regions. Peri-urban agricultural food systems are not only important sources of fresh agricultural products for cities but also the core carriers of farmland protection and biomass resource cycling. Their multifunctional transformation, ecological degradation, and conflict with the food supply have been identified as high-priority sustainability challenges [11]. Habitat fragmentation compresses space for food production and disrupts key ecosystem service flows, such as pollination, soil conservation, and water retention, thereby posing systemic risks to the stability and security of the urban food supply by undermining the cycling pathways of resource metabolism. Thus, correct valuation of ecosystem services of peri-urban agricultural spaces and understanding their deep interconnections with the resilience of food systems are prerequisites in order to reduce the disjointed logic among policies and stakeholder perceptions and coordinate regional ecological protection and agricultural development [12].

In the context of this challenge, nature-based solutions (NbS) offer a crucial approach to habitat restoration and food system resilience in urban–rural fringe zones. Previous research has indicated that NbS can leverage natural processes to address complex environmental and social challenges and restore degraded habitats and enhance landscape connectivity and ecosystem service supply capacity, thereby reversing the trend of habitat fragmentation [13,14]. Empirical studies in six European countries and urban and peri-urban areas in China have also confirmed that NbS is significantly effective at promoting ecological restoration, enhancing ecosystem services, and advancing sustainable urbanization [15]. Notably, the contribution of NbS to food system resilience extends beyond ecological restoration; by restoring pollination networks, improving soil fertility, and regulating microclimates, NbS directly strengthens the ecological foundation of food production. However, urban–rural fringe zones are complex social–ecological systems that are heavily disturbed by anthropogenic activities and are characterized by highly nonlinear and uncertain dynamics. Relying solely on traditional NbS often makes it difficult to achieve rapid responses and precise adaptation to critical changes. In recent years, the rapid development of digital technologies, artificial intelligence, and ecological information sensing has opened new possibilities for overcoming bottlenecks. The ability to capture both high-spatial and high-temporal resolution information on the status of habitats and the flow of ecosystem services can turn information into a useful resource. This, in turn, enables the precise siting, effect monitoring, and adaptive regulation of NbS, turning static ecological restoration into active resilience governance. Scholars noted that the use of digital technologies and artificial intelligence can help increase efficiency in agricultural production, minimize food waste, and make food systems more sustainable [16], and such technologies have a major data-supportive role in the promotion of sustainable agriculture and the bioeconomy [17]. Nevertheless, current research on the resilience of food systems in urban–rural fringe zones does not elaborate on how digitalization could be combined with NbS to systematically mitigate food security risks through enhanced ecological intelligence caused by the fragmentation of habitats.

Before further analysis of the aforementioned research gaps, it is necessary to review the foundational research progress on habitat restoration and spatial governance within urban–rural fringe zones. Habitat fragmentation leads to biodiversity loss, substantial damage to core ecosystem functions, and exacerbation of the degradation of ecosystem services, making restoration measures that increase landscape connectivity extremely urgent [18]. Fahrig systematically distinguished the independent effects of habitat area loss and spatial configuration fragmentation, further emphasizing the critical importance of addressing habitat fragmentation for biodiversity conservation [19]. Maintaining landscape connectivity positively contributes to ensuring ecosystem service supply and biodiversity maintenance, whereas habitat fragmentation disrupts ecological processes and weakens ecosystem regulation and service efficiency [20,21]. In terms of spatial governance, Rahmoun and Zhao developed a spatial structure model to support sustainable urban–rural development. The model uses strategic clusters and spatial networks [22]. Aflaki Samani et al. proposed a step-by-step planning approach for informal settlements. This approach aims to reduce spatial inequality and improve land management efficiency [23]. Overall, the existing research has four significant limitations in terms of addressing the resilience of peri-urban food systems. First, most studies fail to systematically link digital technologies, ecological wisdom, and the food-ecological coupling resilience of urban–rural fringe zones; in particular, dynamic simulation analyses of resource metabolism processes and security assurance capacities within food systems are lacking. Although the value of digital technologies in empowering agriculture and food systems has been recognized by the academic community, research based on system dynamics modelling in urban–rural fringe zones to reveal the synergistic effects of digital technologies and NbS is scarce. Second, research perspectives often adopt static empirical analyses, making it difficult to elucidate the multiloop, nonlinear dynamic interaction mechanisms between digital empowerment and ecological restoration in urban–rural fringe zones. Third, existing studies often examine the effects of digital technologies, the ecological impacts of urbanization, or individual NbS cases separately. Few studies combine digital technologies, ecological knowledge, and the resilience of peri-urban social–ecological systems into one framework for integrated analysis. Moreover, the link between resilience building and the coupling mechanisms of sustainable food systems remains unclear. Fourth, current research also shows a practical bias. Ecological protection practices mainly focus on the conservation and management of natural reserves. Less attention has been paid to urban–rural fringe areas, which have complex feedback processes and provide both urban food supply and ecological security functions.

On the basis of the aforementioned gaps, this study attempts to construct a system dynamics model with a three-dimensional linkage of “digital technology empowerment–ecological wisdom accumulation–system resilience building–food system sustainability,” focusing on whether and how digitalization can enhance the resilience of peri-urban food systems against habitat fragmentation by strengthening the implementation effectiveness of NbS. The model measures key variables, including the application level of digital technologies, ecological wisdom capital, ecological perception and accounting capabilities, system resilience, and resource metabolic efficiency. It examines how food systems in urban–rural fringe zones evolve from fragmented states toward synergistic and sustainable states, with a focus on evolutionary pathways and threshold effects.

This study follows the logic of “digital technology as the driving force → ecological wisdom capital as the regulatory factor → system resilience as the adaptive response → food system sustainability as the co-evolutionary outcome.” It aims to uncover the mechanisms behind resilience development and transition in urban–rural fringe food systems. Specifically, this study addresses three key questions: First, can digital technologies promote the accumulation of ecological wisdom capital and improve system synergy by enhancing ecological perception and accounting capabilities? Can they also strengthen the role of NbS in habitat restoration and food security? Second, what feedback loops and coupling mechanisms link resource metabolic efficiency with ecological resilience in urban–rural fringe food systems? Third, which key leverage variables help urban–rural fringe food systems cross critical thresholds and shift from fragmented states to synergistic and sustainable states?

To address these questions, this study starts from the two dimensions of technology and ecological wisdom and uses system dynamics methods to describe and quantify the roles of technological and ecological wisdom factors in the influencing process. It simulates the dynamic process through which digital technology drives urban–rural fringe food systems to resist habitat fragmentation and achieve synergistic and sustainable development and identifies the key mechanisms affecting system transition. This approach has academic value in several ways. First, system dynamics provide an effective tool for describing the multiple feedback loops and nonlinear relationships in the co-evolution between digital technologies and urban–rural fringe food systems. It helps fill the theoretical gap in understanding how resilience develops in peri-urban food systems from a dynamic perspective and provides a methodological reference for future studies. However, through simulation studies, different policy intervention scenarios can be modelled to obtain predictive data, providing more forward-looking scientific evidence for the governance of urban–rural fringe food systems. Additionally, this study introduces abstract concepts, such as “ecological wisdom capital” and “ecological perception and accounting capabilities,” into system dynamics analysis. It explores the key factors that help urban–rural fringe food systems cross synergistic thresholds. This approach addresses the limitation of traditional urban–rural governance studies, which often focus more on empirical description than on identifying underlying mechanisms. This study also provides a new application of advanced system dynamics models in urban–rural sustainable governance research. It strengthens the theoretical understanding of the co-evolution of urban–rural fringe food systems and expands the use of dynamic system theory in studies of urban–rural sustainable development.

2. Literature Review and Research Methods

2.1. The Connotation and Conceptual Definition of Key Variables

The core concepts addressed in this study follow a logical hierarchy of “Objective-State-Driving Force.” The sustainable food system is the main focus of this study. The resilience of the food–ecology coupled system and the synergy between food systems and landscape resource metabolism are the key variables used to describe the system’s operating state. Digital technologies and ecological wisdom capital are the main driving forces behind system evolution. These concepts are defined below.

(1)
Sustainable Food Systems: Components of the Objective

The sustainable food system is the ultimate dependent variable in this study. Drawing on the definition framework of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [24], this study defines it as a system capable of continuously providing food security and nutrition across the three dimensions of the economy, society, and environment, without compromising the ecological foundation for future generations to meet their food needs. Specifically, its components include three pillars: economic sustainability (the economic viability and efficiency of food production activities), social sustainability (the fairness and accessibility of food distribution), and environmental sustainability (the minimal dependence on and depletion of ecosystem services by food production). In the context of the urban–rural fringe, which is the focus of this study, the sustainable food system is further operationalized as a system that, under the pressure of habitat fragmentation, can maintain the ecological foundation for food production, ensure the stability of the food supply for both urban and rural areas, and achieve closed-loop resource metabolism. This operational definition prioritizes environmental sustainability, emphasizing that economic and social sustainability can be realized only by restoring and maintaining healthy ecosystems. In the subsequent system dynamics model, the degree of realization of a sustainable food system is represented by the coupled evolution of the system resilience index and the resource metabolism synergy index.

(2)
Resilience of the Food–Ecology-Coupled System: System Capacity to Cope with Shocks

The concept of resilience originates from the Latin word “resilio” or “reilire,” meaning “to bounce back or rebound” [25], and was later introduced into the fields of ecology and social-ecological systems research. References to urban resilience are increasing [26]. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [27] defines resilience as the capacity of a system to cope with hazardous events, trends, or disturbances while maintaining its core functions and structural integrity during change. It is considered a positive attribute when it encompasses the ability to adapt, learn, or transform. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction [28] views it as the ability of a system or community exposed to hazards to possess six capacities: to resist, absorb, adapt, adjust, transform, and recover, emphasizing the timeliness and effectiveness of the response.

At a more specific ecological level, resilience refers to the ability of an ecosystem to maintain its stable state when subjected to shocks [29]. The resilience of urban and rural systems can be enhanced through interdependent relationships and partnerships [15].

The resilience of the food–ecology coupled system proposed in this study is a contextualized definition based on the aforementioned resilience theories. It views urban and rural areas as one integrated system and focuses on the social–ecological system where food production, ecological security, and socio-economic factors interact across the urban–rural continuum. It examines three types of capacity. First, resistance capacity refers to the ability to withstand disturbances, such as habitat fragmentation, resource pressure, and climate variability, while maintaining basic food production functions. Second, recovery capacity refers to the ability to return to the original functional state after disturbances. Third, transformation capacity refers to the ability to shift toward a more sustainable state under long-term pressure by changing system structures, such as adopting NbS and applying digital technologies. In contrast to the general concept of ecological resilience, this concept emphasizes the coupling of food production and ecological functions; enhancing resilience must simultaneously serve the dual goals of food security and ecosystem health. This resilience inherently includes the capacity to restore habitats, improve landscape connectivity, and enhance ecosystem service supply through nature-based solutions, thereby consolidating the ecological foundation for food production. At the model quantification level, the system resilience index is represented on a standardized scale of 0–1, with an initial value set at 0.35, reflecting the system’s typical transitional state between vulnerability and resilience. Its dynamic evolution is driven by the evolution of resilience and decay rates.

(3)
Food system–landscape resource metabolism synergy: Degree of evolution from disorder to order

Synergistic phenomena exist in all domains of nature. Synergetics originated from general systems theory and was formally established by the German Professor Hermann Haken in the 1970s. In any complex open system, the interactions and mutual influences among its internal subsystems generate comprehensive and collective effects, namely, synergistic effects, that drive the system from disorder to order, resulting in the formation of stable structures [30].

In this study, the degree of synergy between food system and landscape resource metabolism specifically refers to the degree of synergy between the food system and surrounding landscapes in urban–rural fringe areas, particularly in terms of the flow and transformation of key elements such as water resources, energy, and biomass required for food production. This concept characterizes the evolutionary progression of the food system from disordered fragmentation to orderly synergy, and its essence can be understood as the reduction in the mismatch coefficient of food production factors between urban and rural areas. When habitat fragmentation obstructs resource metabolism pathways,