The politics of climate change and urban agriculture in South Africa

Introduction

Global policy frameworks, including the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Sustainable Development Goals, play a pivotal role in setting ambitious targets and monitoring progress towards achieving food security and climate resilience (Toromade et al., 2024). In South Africa, municipalities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), community-based organisations, faith-based organisations, and local communities typically establish urban agriculture projects. These projects usually take the form of community gardens, household gardens, school gardens, or cooperative farming initiatives on municipal, public, or privately donated land (Lategan and Erasmus, 2026). They support thousands of households, particularly in low-income urban and peri-urban areas, by improving food security, generating income, and creating employment opportunities (Mkhize et al., 2023).

However, their effectiveness in achieving these objectives remains uncertain. Several challenges constrain the establishment and sustainability of these projects, including limited access to secure land, water scarcity, inadequate funding, lack of technical and extension support, insecure land tenure, poor market access, weak governance, and the impacts of climate change (Ngcamu and Yekani, 2026). Many projects ultimately fail due to insufficient financial resources, poor management and leadership, inadequate beneficiary participation, lack of long-term institutional support, and unreliable water supplies, all of which make it difficult to sustain agricultural production and livelihoods (Mudzielwana, 2025).

In Africa, Nairobi is a notable example where urban and peri-urban agriculture has expanded rapidly despite land constraints. Innovative farming techniques and local policy reforms have supported this expansion, enabling the sector to grow and deliver tangible social, economic, and food security benefits (Mwaura et al., 2021). Scholars such as Chevallier (2023) have highlighted the fragmentation of the response measures, policies, and programmes responsible for proactively addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation. The same author argues that agricultural policies in Africa are also fragmented and poorly integrated, thereby limiting resilience and development outcomes.

South Africa faces a convergence of interlinked challenges, including climate change, food insecurity, rapid urbanisation, and persistent poverty, which require coherent, integrated policy responses (Ngcamu and Yekani, 2026). Urban agriculture has emerged as a potential strategy that can simultaneously address food security, climate change mitigation through reduced food miles, carbon sequestration, and waste recycling, and climate adaptation through localised food production, urban cooling, and livelihood diversification (Cilliers et al., 2020). However, the policy and institutional landscape governing climate-related functions of urban agriculture in South Africa remains deeply fragmented, undermining its transformative potential as a climate-responsive intervention. The study examined the politics of climate change mitigation and adaptation measures for urban agriculture in South Africa and identified the fragmentation of related policies and programmes, as well as the factors that contributed to this fragmentation.

In this context, climate change poses significant challenges to food security in South Africa, a country that already experiences the quadruple burden of malnutrition, high poverty levels, unemployment, and inequality (Hlahla et al., 2023). Extreme weather events, including droughts, floods, heat waves, and shifting rainfall patterns, threaten agricultural production and water security across the country (Richard Kwame et al., 2022). South Africa remains the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in Africa, making mitigation and adaptation urgent imperatives (Sibanda and Manik, 2022). Urban and peri-urban agriculture has been endorsed as a means of promoting food security and economic wellbeing in African cities (Olivier, 2018). In the South African context, urban agriculture is positioned as both a mitigation and an adaptation strategy because it offers a holistic response to food insecurity that is linked to social and environmental factors (Nkrumah, 2019). Local governments in sub-Saharan Africa face the daunting task of managing rapid urban growth while responding to potentially devastating climate change impacts. Urban food production can contribute to nature-based strategies that improve food security, reduce emissions, and support climate adaptation (Vidal Merino et al., 2021). Therefore, this article examines the nature, causes, and consequences of this fragmentation by drawing on the available literature.

Theoretical framework

Adaptive governance theory (AGT), developed by Folke et al. (2005), underpinned the study. The theory emphasises polycentric governance, cross-sectoral collaboration, institutional flexibility, stakeholder participation, social learning, experimentation, and adaptive capacity. It provides an appropriate framework for examining the fragmentation of climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, policies, and programmes related to urban agriculture in South Africa. Its emphasis on collaboration, multi-level governance, learning, flexibility, participation, and resilience enabled the study to analyse the institutional and policy factors that contribute to fragmented climate responses (Van Assche et al., 2022). This theory also helped identify governance mechanisms that can promote integrated and adaptive approaches to urban agriculture under changing climatic conditions.

Adaptive governance theory refers to a governance system that enables institutions, organisations, and stakeholders to collectively respond to uncertainty, environmental change, and complex socio-ecological challenges through collaboration, learning, flexibility, and continuous adaptation (Folke et al., 2005; Berkes, 2009). The theory recognises that environmental challenges such as climate change are dynamic and unpredictable and therefore cannot be managed effectively through rigid, centralised, and sector-specific governance arrangements (Chaffin et al., 2014). The theory is relevant to the study because scholars developed it in response to the limitations of traditional governance approaches, which often rely on hierarchical decision-making structures and static policies that cannot respond effectively to rapidly changing environmental conditions. Instead, adaptive governance promotes flexible, collaborative governance systems that facilitate learning, experimentation, and the integration of knowledge across multiple sectors and levels of government (Sharma-Wallace et al., 2018). As climate change is characterised by uncertainty, interconnectedness, and long-term impacts, adaptive governance provides an appropriate framework for understanding how governments and institutions can coordinate responses to climate risks while simultaneously promoting resilience and sustainability.

The key assumptions of AGT are that environmental systems are complex and constantly changing and that uncertainty and unpredictability are inherent characteristics of climate change (Berkes, 2017). The theory further assumes that no single institution can address climate change challenges i effectively on its own and that collaboration among multiple stakeholders is essential for effective governance. It also assumes that governance systems should remain flexible and capable of continuous learning and adaptation and that institutions should promote resilience and strengthen the capacity to respond to future environmental shifts (Temitope, 2023). These assumptions are particularly relevant in the South African context, where multiple institutions, fragmented policies, and various socio-economic and environmental challenges influence urban agriculture.

Applying AGT in the study acknowledges climate change as a complex and uncertain problem. The theory promotes resilience and sustainability in urban agricultural systems and offers practical solutions to improving governance arrangements and reducing fragmentation. The theory therefore provides a comprehensive lens through which the study examined the causes and consequences of fragmented climate change responses and proposed integrated governance mechanisms able to strengthen the resilience of urban agriculture.

Methodology

The study employed a systematic literature review (SLR) guided by the PRISMA statement to identify the fragmentation of climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, policies, and programmes related to urban agriculture. A systematic review was considered appropriate because it provides a transparent, rigorous, and replicable process for identifying, evaluating, and synthesising evidence from existing literature (Snyder, 2019). The study adopted the PRISMA guidelines to ensure methodological transparency and minimise bias during the review process. The review addressed the following research question: How have climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, policies, and programmes for urban agriculture in South Africa become fragmented, and what governance mechanisms have researchers proposed to address these challenges? The study searched multiple electronic databases, including Scopus and ScienceDirect (347 records), and Web of Science (156 records), to maximise the retrieval of relevant studies and minimise publication bias. In line with PRISMA recommendations, the researcher developed a review protocol before commencing the study to minimise methodological bias and improve transparency (Page et al., 2021).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The review adopted predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure the relevance, quality, and consistency of the studies included in the systematic review. Eligible sources comprised peer-reviewed journal articles, academic books, book chapters, theses and dissertations, and conference proceedings published in English between 2000 and 2026. The review excluded studies that focused exclusively on rural agriculture, failed to address climate change mitigation or adaptation, did not discuss governance, policies, programmes, or response measures, or were conducted outside South Africa. These criteria ensured that the review synthesised only studies directly relevant to the research objectives. The primary search string was formulated as follows:

("urban agriculture" OR "urban farming") AND ("climate change adaptation" OR "climate adaptation") AND ("climate change mitigation" OR "climate mitigation") AND (policy OR programme* OR strateg* OR governance) AND (fragmentation OR integration OR coordination) AND ("South Africa").

The review also developed additional search strings, including:

("urban agriculture" AND "climate governance" AND "South Africa"); ("urban agriculture" AND "adaptation policy" AND "South Africa"); and ("urban agriculture" AND "climate change response measures" AND "South Africa") AND ("urban agriculture" AND "food security", or "urban agriculture" AND "policy").

The search strategy was refined iteratively to improve retrieval accuracy while maintaining alignment with the research objectives. The review further refined the search by document type (article, book, or early access), publication year (2000–2026), and language (English).

ScienceDirect hyperlink:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/search?qs=%28%22urban+agriculture%22+OR+%22urban+farming%22%29+AND+%28%22climate+change+adaptation%22+OR+%22climate+adaptation%22%29+AND+%28%22climate+change+mitigation%22+OR+%22climate+mitigation%22%29

Web of Science hyperlink:

https://mjl.clarivate.com/search-results

Table 1 provides additional information on the exclusion and inclusion criteria applied.

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Screening criteria

During the identification stage, the review exported all records retrieved from electronic databases and grey literature sources into the freference management software Zotero to facilitate organisation and remove duplicate records. During the screening stage, the reviewer independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all retrieved studies against the predetermined eligibility criteria. The review excluded studies that clearly failed to satisfy the inclusion criteria from further consideration. During the eligibility stage, the reviewer retrieved and examined the full texts of potentially relevant studies. They independently assessed each article to determine whether it satisfied all the inclusion criteria. The reviewer systematically documented the reasons for excluding studies at this stage to ensure transparency and reproducibility, as recommended by the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2021). Finally, during the inclusion stage, the reviewer included studies that met all the eligibility requirements in the final systematic review and qualitative synthesis. These studies formed the evidence base to analyse the fragmentation of climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, policies, and programmes related to urban agriculture (Figure 1).

Data analysis

Given the anticipated heterogeneity of the included studies in terms of research design, methodology, and findings, the study employed a narrative thematic synthesis to integrate and interpret the evidence. This approach was appropriate because it facilitates the systematic identification, comparison, and synthesis of recurring patterns across diverse sources of evidence (Salmond and Bennett, 2024).

The thematic analysis followed the well-established six-step process proposed by Braun and Clarke (2022). The process began with familiarisation with the data through repeated reading of the included studies. The study generated initial codes to identify meaningful patterns within the data. Subsequently, they organised the codes into potential themes and reviewed them to ensure consistency, coherence, and relevance to the research objectives. The study further refined, defined, and appropriately named the themes before producing the final report.

Guided by the objectives of the review, the synthesis identified and analysed themes related to climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, policy and institutional fragmentation, governance challenges, coordination mechanisms, and adaptive governance strategies. These themes provided a structured framework for examining the fragmentation of climate change response measures, policies, and programmes regarding urban agriculture in South Africa and for identifying opportunities to strengthen integrated and adaptive governance approaches. Table 2 summarises the key characteristics and findings of the studies included in the review, highlighting their focus, methodological approaches, and relevance to understanding policy fragmentation in urban agriculture and climate-related governance.

Table 2. Summary of included studies and their relevance to policy fragmentation.

Results

A total of 42 studies were included in the final review. The study synthesised the findings using a thematic approach rather than reporting individual study summaries. After extracting the focus, methodology, and key findings of each study, the researcher coded findings that addressed similar dimensions of policy fragmentation and grouped them into conceptually related categories. The coding process generated three overarching analytical themes: (1) manifestations of policy fragmentation, (2) causes of policy fragmentation, and (3) consequences of policy fragmentation. The study retained these themes as the organising structure of the results because they provide a logical progression from how fragmentation manifests, to why it persists, and finally to its effects. The coding did not rely on mutually exclusive categories. Several studies addressed more than one aspect of fragmentation and were therefore coded under multiple themes or subthemes. Consequently, the frequency reported for each theme represents the number of included studies that provided evidence relevant to that theme rather than the number of distinct groups of studies. This approach is appropriate for thematic synthesis because it captures the recurrence and convergence of findings across the literature while recognising that policy fragmentation is multidimensional.

Manifestations of policy fragmentation

The first theme, manifestations of policy fragmentation, was supported by evidence from at least 13 of the 42 included studies. The synthesis generated four interrelated subthemes: sectoral silos; fragmented food-system governance; weak integration between urban planning, climate, and agricultural policy; and the separation of climate-change mitigation and adaptation. These subthemes emerged from studies that identified institutional separation, overlapping mandates, weak policy coherence, disconnected planning processes, or the treatment of interconnected policy objectives as separate governance responsibilities.

The most recurrent manifestation was sectoral silos, supported by at least six studies: Zembe et al. (2022a, 2022b), Sowman and Rebelo (2022), Leck and Simon (2018), Hickmann and Stehle (2018), and Chevallier (2023). These studies indicated that climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, food security, agriculture, urban planning, and environmental management operated through distinct institutional mandates. Zembe et al. (2022a) identified weak coordination among climate adaptation, disaster risk reduction and food security. Sowman and Rebelo (2022) found that South African policies were not consistently aligned or implemented in an integrated manner. Leck and Simon (2018) revealed that municipal boundaries constrained inter-municipal cooperation, and Hickmann and Stehle (2018) demonstrated differentiated climate responses across South African cities. Collectively, these studies suggested that fragmentation did not result simply from an excessive number of policies. Instead, it was manifested through the institutional compartmentalisation of responsibilities, whereby departments and municipalities pursued related objectives through separate planning, budgeting, and implementation processes. This distinction is important because it indicates that developing additional policies may not resolve fragmentation unless the government simultaneously strengthens mechanisms for horizontal and vertical coordination.

The second manifestation, fragmented food-system governance, was supported by at least three studies: Pereira and Drimie (2016), Hlahla et al. (2023), and Chevallier (2023). Pereira and Drimie (2016) identified fragmentation within South African food-system governance, and Hlahla et al. (2023) demonstrated insufficient integration among agriculture, environmental management, and health policy. Chevallier (2023) similarly identified fragmentation among climate, food, and agricultural policy agendas. The synthesis indicated that urban agriculture was embedded within a food system that was itself institutionally fragmented. Consequently, the governance challenges experienced by urban farmers could not be attributed solely to the absence of an urban agriculture policy. Instead, they reflected broader weaknesses in food security, agricultural production, environmental management, health, climate adaptation, and urban development. This finding extended the analysis beyond sector-specific fragmentation to encompass systemic food governance.

The third manifestation, weak integration among urban planning, climate, and agricultural policy, was supported by at least five studies, including Cilliers et al. (2020), Hickmann and Stehle (2018), Steenkamp et al. (2021), Bisaga et al. (2019), and Noxolo and Kanosvamhira (2026). The evidence showed that urban agriculture occupied an ambiguous institutional position between spatial planning, agricultural development, climate policy, water management, food security, and social development. Cilliers et al. (2020) identified limited national policy support and weak incorporation of urban agriculture into spatial planning. Steenkamp et al. (2021) emphasised the need for dedicated food security structures and appropriate land-use planning. Evidence from Durban indicated how land, water, and infrastructure constraints intersected with municipal support for urban agriculture. Bisaga et al. (2019) found that land tenure insecurity, water scarcity, and limited services constrained the sustainability of urban farming in low-income settlements and therefore require coordinated municipal support. Similarly, Noxolo and Kanosvamhira (2026) demonstrated that innovations such as hydroponics operated at the intersection of land, water, technology, and socio-economic inequality.

The fourth manifestation, the separation of climate-change mitigation and adaptation, was supported by at least three studies: Klausbruckner et al. (2016), Xu et al. (2019), and Dulal (2016). These studies consistently showed that policymakers frequently treated mitigation and adaptation as separate policy streams despite their potential synergies and trade-offs. This separation had particular implications for urban agriculture, as urban farming could simultaneously contribute to climate adaptation through food diversification and livelihood resilience and to mitigation through reduced food transport and other environmental benefits. Treating these functions through separate policy systems therefore risked overlooking opportunities for integrated climate responses.

Causes of policy fragmentation

The second overarching theme, causes of policy fragmentation, was supported by evidence from at least eight of the included studies. The synthesis generated four subthemes: institutional capacity constraints; weak political will and the absence of policy frameworks; limited information and knowledge; and land tenure insecurity. These subthemes emerged from coding evidence that explained why fragmented institutional arrangements persisted despite recognition that climate change, food security, and urban agriculture constitute interconnected policy challenges.

At least two studies, Akanbi et al. (2021) and Richard Kwame et al. (2022), identified limitations in institutional capacity. Akanbi et al. (2021) reported institutional weaknesses, resource constraints, and knowledge limitations that affected climate change responses. Richard Kwame et al. (2022) identified inadequate education, insufficient data, and weak use of information in local planning and decision-making. The synthesis suggested that policy fragmentation persisted because institutions often lacked the resources, technical expertise, information, and planning capacity required to coordinate across policy domains. Fragmentation therefore reflected, in part, a capacity problem rather than solely a problem of organisational design.

Weak political will and a lack of policy frameworks were supported by at least two studies: D’Alessandro et al. (2018) and Nemakonde (2026). D’Alessandro et al. (2018) associated weak or absent policy frameworks for peri-urban agriculture with institutional capacity deficits, while Nemakonde (2026) identified political commitment as an important catalyst for institutional integration. Collectively, these findings indicated that fragmentation had a significant political dimension. Institutional silos could persist not because integration was impossible, but because political actors lacked sufficient incentives, resources, or leadership to realign institutional mandates. Policy integration therefore required not only administrative coordination but also sustained political commitment.

Limited information and fragmented knowledge were supported by at least three studies: Chitakira and Ngcobo (2021), Kanosvamhira (2021), and Okoye et al. (2025). These studies identified knowledge gaps concerning climate-smart agriculture adoption, urban farmer organisation, and the relationship between climate-smart agricultural interventions and nutrition outcomes. The synthesis indicated a reciprocal relationship between knowledge and policy fragmentation. Fragmented information made coordinated policy design more challenging, while fragmented institutional structures themselves could prevent the production and sharing of integrated knowledge. Improving policy coherence therefore required not only institutional coordination but also shared information systems, common indicators, and mechanisms for knowledge exchange.

Finally, Kanosvamhira and Tevera (2022) directly identified land tenure insecurity as a cause of fragmentation. Their findings indicated that a lack of available land threatened the sustainability of urban community gardens and created uncertainty for the long-term viability of urban agricultural initiatives. Although land tenure is often treated as a resource access challenge, the synthesis demonstrated it also has broader governance implications. Spatial planning, municipal land management, agricultural policy, and community development arrangements simultaneously governed land for urban agriculture. Consequently, insecure tenure represented another point at which institutional responsibilities intersected without necessarily being effectively coordinated.

Consequences of policy fragmentation

The third theme, consequences of policy fragmentation, was supported by at least seven studies. The synthesis generated three subthemes: weak policy implementation and institutional coordination; constraints on climate-smart food systems; and localised and vulnerable urban agricultural initiatives. This theme focused on the practical implications of fragmented governance rather than merely restating the institutional causes identified above.

The first consequence, weak policy implementation and institutional coordination, was supported by at least three studies: Olivier (2018), Roberts and Shackleton (2018), and Mudzielwana (2025). These studies indicated that although urban agriculture can contribute to food security, livelihoods, and economic wellbeing, the policy and institutional environment constrain these benefits. Mudzielwana (2025) additionally identified financial constraints, inadequate technical support, and fragmented policies as barriers to implementing climate-smart food systems.

The second consequence, constraints on climate-smart food systems, was supported by at least two studies: Mudzielwana (2025) and Fünfgeld et al. (2023). The evidence indicated that institutional fragmentation interacted with financial and technical constraints to limit the implementation and scaling of climate adaptation and climate-smart agricultural initiatives. This finding is significant because fragmentation affected not only policy formulation but also implementation and scalability. Successful local initiatives could remain isolated when institutional arrangements did not facilitate the transfer of knowledge, resources, and practices across municipalities or policy sectors.

The third consequence was the localised and vulnerable character of urban agriculture initiatives. Evidence from Ahmed et al. (2022), together with the broader urban-agriculture literature, indicated that fragmented and overlapping policy arrangements could create confusion during implementation and lead to inefficient resource allocation. Evidence from African urban climate governance studies further indicated that climate resilience initiatives required coordination across neighbourhood, municipal, and city levels, while limited inter-municipal collaboration restricted their wider impact.

Discussion

When considered together, the three themes reveal a cumulative pattern of fragmentation rather than isolated policy deficiencies across the 42 studies reviewed. The first theme revealed where and how fragmentation occurred: across government departments, food system institutions, urban planning and agricultural policy, and mitigation and adaptation agendas. The second theme explained why fragmentation persisted: limited institutional capacity, weak political commitment, inadequate policy frameworks, fragmented information, and insecure land tenure. The third theme concerned the consequences of fragmentation: weak implementation, inadequate coordination, challenges in scaling climate-smart responses, and continued vulnerability of urban agriculture initiatives.

The relationships among the themes were therefore not merely descriptive but processual. Sectoral silos and disconnected policy mandates created coordination challenges. Institutional capacity and political constraints reinforced these problems, and the resulting lack of coordination weakened implementation and limited the scaling of urban agriculture initiatives. Limited implementation and weak institutional learning could, in turn, reproduce the original fragmentation.

A significant finding was that policy fragmentation was not unique to urban agriculture. Several included studies identified fragmentation across broader climate, food, agricultural, water and urban governance systems. This distinction was important for interpreting the study’s contribution. The evidence suggested that developing a new urban agriculture policy alone was unlikely to resolve the problem if broader governance arrangements remained fragmented. Instead, policymakers needed to position urban agriculture within an integrated governance framework that connected food security, land-use planning, water management, climate adaptation, climate mitigation, and agricultural development.

The systematic synthesis consequently identified institutional integration as the central cross-cutting issue that emerged from the 42 studies. The evidence did not indicate that South Africa lacks policies relevant to urban agriculture and climate resilience. Rather, it indicated that relevant policies were distributed across multiple domains and were not consistently coordinated. This finding was particularly evident in studies that demonstrated fragmented food system governance, weak integration between urban planning and institutional capacity, and the separation between climate mitigation and adaptation.

The synthesis indicated that policy fragmentation operated simultaneously as a structural condition, a governance process, and an implementation outcome. As a structural condition, it was embedded in separate institutional mandates and policy domains. As a governance process, institutions reproduced fragmentation through weak coordination, limited political commitment, fragmented information, and competing institutional priorities. As an implementation outcome, fragmentation resulted in inconsistent support, administrative complexity, limited scalability, and vulnerable urban agriculture initiatives. This integrated interpretation provided a robust empirical foundation for the subsequent discussion of AGT, particularly its emphasis on polycentric governance, cross-sectoral collaboration, institutional flexibility, stakeholder participation, social learning, and adaptive capacity.

Conclusion and recommendations

The review of 42 studies demonstrated that the central challenge facing urban agriculture and climate resilience in South Africa was not the absence of relevant policies, but their fragmentation across sectors, institutions, and levels of government. This fragmentation weakened coordination among urban planning, agriculture, food security, water, and climate policies. Limited institutional capacity, weak political commitment, inadequate information, and a lack of available land further hindered implementation. Consequently, urban agriculture initiatives remained largely localised and struggled to achieve their broader potential to achieve food security and climate change resilience. The findings therefore suggested that policymakers should move beyond developing additional stand-alone policies and instead focus on integrating existing policy instruments and institutional responsibilities.

In practice, national and municipal governments should establish formal cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms that link urban planning, agriculture, water, food security and climate governance, while incorporating urban agriculture into municipal planning and climate strategies. Municipalities should also provide more secure access to suitable land and water, supported by simplified, coordinated funding and technical assistance. Finally, policymakers should involve urban farmers and community organisations in policy design and monitoring and use common indicators to track food security, livelihood, and climate resilience outcomes. These measures would shift urban agriculture from fragmented, project-based interventions to a coordinated, participatory, adaptive governance approach that can deliver more sustainable and scalable outcomes.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Proofreading and grammar proficiently.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Victor L. Barradas, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico

Reviewed by: Lucy Khofi, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

Diego Carmona, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico