KSA Universities’ Role in Promoting the Sustainability of Food Security: Faculty Opinions

Abstract

Universities can make significant gains in two very important areas: food security and environmental sustainability. However, the results will not come by themselves, as policies and educational and learning activities can contribute to these gains. The current study aimed to explore the role of universities in enhancing the sustainability of food security, which is necessary to lay the scientific foundations for the universities’ approaches in the service of development. The current study was based on the opinions of 272 faculty members from Saudi public universities. The data were collected using a developed questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive statistics. The results of the study showed that the level of a university’s role was high in promoting the sustainability of food security in the fields of education and learning and policies and regulations. It also showed that there were no differences in the study sample’s estimations of this role according to gender. In addition, there were differences in the levels of the role of universities in achieving sustainable food security between faculties, with the humanities in favor of this role. The authors of this study recommend that universities adopt an educational policy that includes specific measures that support the sustainability of food security and are linked to the state’s general plans in this field, as well as being reflected in the courses and activities they provide to students.

1. Introduction

Sustainability is becoming an increasingly important topic in our world today, and universities play an essential role in stimulating sustainable development. Through education, scientific research, and community partnerships, the goals of sustainable development can be reached in various fields through a variety of methods, but this change must be harmonious among the university’s leadership, students, and faculty members [1]. Sustainable universities share a number of key features in that they help support sustainable development within their local communities and around the world [2]. It is worth noting that sustainable universities do not focus only on reducing the negative impacts on the environment from various vital aspects.

In general, sustainable universities play an essential role in sustainable development through entrepreneurial practices and organized operations that are supported by regulations and instructions that stimulate development as well as cooperation with the local community, which provides them with a special opportunity to create and influence change [3]. Universities differ in the ways that they address sustainability issues in their various fields, often focusing on the aspects of sustainability that suit the university and the local community, creating a greater role for sustainable universities [4]. Often, a sustainable university not only implements these sustainability practices but provides education for future generations, supports research issues, and collaborates with partners to ensure that their community is an environmentally, economically, and socially viable place that will continue into the future [5].

Sustainability and food security are local and global necessities, and educational institutions must respond to this according to their objectives and activities. The global food system faces persistent sustainability challenges according to the latest available reports, and approximately 27.6% of the world’s population live in situations of food insecurity of varying severity. In addition, some countries’ populations are characterized as obese, while others are characterized by individuals who suffer from hunger and are excessively thin and stunted [6].

Harnessing education for sustainable development, building sustainable food systems, and encouraging healthy eating patterns are key starting points for sustainable transformation [7]. Enabling a transition towards sustainable food systems depends, to a large extent, on the transition towards sustainable and equitable economies. Major shifts in food systems and our food behaviors are needed if we are to ensure food security; we need effective consumer participation to achieve this goal, as well as the full participation of the food industry. The future generations will live in a world completely different from the one to which we are accustomed. It is essential that we prepare ourselves and our children for this new world.

1.1. The Concept of Food Security

The term “food security” refers to the availability of food for individuals without any shortage, and food security is achieved when an individual is not afraid of or exposed to hunger. These are criteria for preventing future food shortages or interruptions due to the presence of various factors [6]. Food security has two main levels: the absolute level, which is achieved when a country produces food domestically in a manner equal to or greater than consumption; the relative level, which indicates the extent to which a country can produce and determine what people or individuals need in terms of commodities and food, in whole or in part [6]. Accordingly, food security refers to the necessity of providing the materials and food products that individuals need, and this may depend on cooperation with other countries or on self-reliance only.

The concept of food security is based on three pillars, namely the continuous availability of commodities at reasonable prices to the consumer; food safety, which ensures the health, safety, and suitability of food for human consumption; food accessibility, which is related to ensuring that the prices of goods and products are within the reach of individuals in a manner that achieves stability [6]. Food security policy statements often place increasingly less importance on transient food insecurity and the risks of acute food crises [8].

In the Arab world, food security is one of the main challenges. Despite the availability of natural resources from land, water, and humans, Arab agriculture has not achieved the targeted increase in production to meet the demand for food. The food gap has widened, and Arab countries import approximately half of their main food commodities. The interest by Arab countries in the provision of their food needs has increased in consideration of the severe global food crisis that reached its climax in 2008, represented by the doubling of the prices of the main food commodities and by the subsequent reduction in imports, which called upon Arab countries to take exceptional measures such as subsidizing food prices, legalizing the export of food commodities, abolishing taxes on imports, and increasing workers’ wages [9]. In addition, the repeated assertion that there is enough food in the world to feed everyone supports such measures, and the problem may be deeper in developing countries, which calls for interventions at various levels.

1.2. Education and Food Security

The importance of education and educational institutions in enhancing food security, whether at the level of public education or higher education, is highlighted in this section. Public education can spread a culture of food security among students, and higher education, represented by universities, can enshrine this value among students due to the widespread and general awareness of students at the university level. Several studies have shown the importance of raising awareness among university students to achieve food security, with universities being powerful drivers of innovation and change in science and technology, and because universities create individuals who possess the knowledge and skills necessary to manage and implement programs to improve food security and the value chain and who can facilitate learning at various levels (i.e., academic, professional, and specialized). In addition, universities contribute to research on food security studies [10].

The world is counting on the ability of transformative universities to provide our society with the knowledge and opportunities to make more sustainable choices and to strive for a commitment to environmental stewardship. This commitment includes facilitating access to sustainable education in schools, universities, and various educational institutions. Accordingly, the challenges of food security and nutrition can be considered as opportunities for a new educational curriculum, and most importantly in presenting a system that improves access to healthy diets and the ability to afford them more effectively, thereby contributing to improving the food security and nutritional situation of the population [11].

Education and awareness provide students with the skills, knowledge, and attitudes required to make healthy food choices. Previous studies have revealed that health education interventions lay the foundation for improving the nutritional knowledge and attitudes related to healthy living [12].

In addition, education helps to build the capacities needed to implement sustainable development strategies. Education is key to achieving the results of many of the Sustainable Development Goals, including those related to health, water, sanitation, and food security [13]. In Saudi Arabia, the “Statistical Report of the Current Situation on the Statistical Indicators for the Sustainable Development Goals in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” indicated that in regard to the second indicator related to the second goal of achieving food security and promoting sustainable agriculture, the prevalence of undernourishment was 5.9%; the prevalence of malnutrition among children under the age of five was 4.5% as a whole for males and females; the percentage of overweight for the same category was 8.6%; and the percentage of the agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture was 14.73% [14]. The report included other indicators related to health, welfare, and government spending ratios, most of which pointed to a stable and growing situation toward achieving sustainability in food security, which calls for concerted efforts by various sectors, including the educational sector, in particular universities, which are entrusted with educational and research roles.

The educational policy in Saudi Arabia has a focus on education in sustainable development. The educational policy stipulates the general foundations upon which education is based, and they are stated in items 13, 14, 15, and 16 in the educational policy document, which benefits from all kinds of human knowledge [15]. The harmonious coordination of science and the applied (technical) methodology are some of the most important means of social, economic, and health developments in order to raise the level of development in Saudi Arabia and to allow it to play a role in global cultural progress. These are in addition to linking education at all stages to the general development plan of the state [16]. In education and curricula, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has worked to develop the education system to its full capability in the field of education for sustainable development by focusing on climate change and biodiversity and reducing pollution risks through the process of successive iterations of the curricula, preparation, and training of teachers to ensure the inclusion of sustainable development within educational practices [16].

Many studies have investigated the effective teaching and understanding of agricultural sciences for food security and sustainability. The results indicate that subjective learning is more theoretical. Traditional classroom-based teaching and learning methods and facilities are insufficient to promote the sustainability of food security. Food insecurity among faculty and students can negatively affect student retention, academic success, mental and physical health, and social mobility [17]. The results of a study by Que indicated that faculties and universities, especially private universities, should address the areas that need improvement, which are supportive services for students [18]. In addition, a study by Nelles examined the higher education efforts to link the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs) with the sustainability of the agri-food system due to reports stating the stagnant movement toward SDG2 in Southeast Asia and the lack of data necessary for the effective monitoring and evaluation toward the achievement of the SDG goals by 2030. This study presents the university policies, faculty awareness, curricula, research, sustainability reports, and partnerships regarding the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular SDG2, from various disciplines and academic units. However, some faculty members still lacked an overall understanding of the SDGs, while SDG2 was not an institutional priority [19]. From the above, universities can promote the Sustainable Development Goals, but they still need to be more critically focused on the goals and on strengthening the social, economic, and environmental systems; the agri-food system; society; and the sustainability of the campus. The above highlight the importance of the contributions of universities concerning the sustainability of food security. Mostly, it is difficult for many universities to be agents of change through education on the Sustainable Development Goals, and their experiences in this field need to be reviewed. The current study sought to review the context of the work of Saudi universities on the inclusion of the Sustainable Development Goals in the field of food security in the context of university activities.

1.3. The Study Problem

Universities today are no longer just degree-granting institutions that prepare students to find a job or to be proud of others. Rather, universities are part of the system of stable societies and an effective force through the quality of knowledge they provide, which contributes to the stability of society and the security of its future, considering the development of knowledge and technical wealth. To achieve a sustainable future and food security, universities, as community institutions, cannot overlook their participation in achieving food security. They should also play a major and prominent role in this field. Considering what previous studies have indicated, sustainable development should be a target for teacher preparation programs, where graduates must play a key role in raising future generations and in achieving development requirements, including food security, as well as in facing future challenges [20,21,22]. Other studies have shown that there is still a lack of awareness regarding the impacts of daily human activities on increasing environmental problems and how to preserve capabilities in light of the challenges facing human societies [23,24]. A study by Mohammed also included recommendations to pay attention to the inclusion of the concepts of the green economy, sustainable development, and food security in the curricula of undergraduate students [25].

In light of what researchers have noticed regarding the weakness in the level of student empowerment at universities regarding concepts related to food security and sustainable development, as well as sustainable thinking towards these important issues, the current study sought to answer the following main question: What is the role of university education in achieving sustainable food security from the point of view of university faculty members? In addition, we sought to answer the following sub-questions:

• What are the most prominent roles that universities play in achieving sustainable food security in the areas of education and learning and policies and regulations from the point of view of faculty members?
• Are there statistically significant differences in the responses of the study sample members regarding the roles played by universities in achieving sustainable food security according to gender, academic rank, teaching experience, and faculty?
• What are the suggestions for developing the role of universities in promoting sustainable food security?

1.4. Objectives of the Study

This study aimed to accomplish the following:

• To highlight the roles played by Saudi universities in achieving sustainable food security in the areas of teaching and learning and policies and regulations from the point of view of faculty members;
• To verify the existence of statistically significant differences in the responses of a sample of faculty members regarding the roles played by universities in achieving sustainable food security according to gender, academic rank, teaching experience, and faculty;
• To review proposals by university faculty members regarding achieving sustainable food security.

1.5. Significance of the Study

The importance of this study is in its connection to a renewed global problem, the context of which often differs among countries around the world. In Saudi Arabia, the examples include efforts by the state to ensure food security for the Kingdom and relying on renewable energy instead of oil, for example. This calls for the participation of universities and highlights their role in these efforts.

1.6. Definition of Terms

○

Sustaining food security: This is based on three pillars, namely the continuous availability of commodities at reasonable prices to the consumer, resulting in food safety, which ensures the health, safety, and suitability of food for human consumption;

○

Roles: The roles in this study refer to the set of functions and tasks assigned to each faculty member, the university curricula and courses, and a university’s administration in relation to enhancing food security in its various dimensions.

1.7. Study Limitations

○

Human limits: The study included only faculty members at Saudi universities in the years 2021–2022;

○

Objective limits: The study was limited to the roles played by Saudi universities in achieving sustainable food security in the fields of education and learning and policies and regulations;

○

Spatial limits: This study was applied to Saudi universities in various geographical areas. This included five universities: King Saud University (Central Saudi Arabia); King Faisal University (Eastern Saudi Arabia); King Abdelaziz University (Western Saudi Arabia); Tabuk University (Northern Saudi Arabia); King Khalid University (Southern Saudi Arabia).

2. Methods

2.1. Approach

A descriptive–analytical method was used, which attempted to describe the phenomena in the study and to compare, explain, and evaluate the results to reach meaningful generalizations to increase knowledge regarding the study’s subject.

2.2. Participants

The study population was represented by faculty members and lecturers at five Saudi Universities distributed among five regions in the Kingdom during the academic year 2021/2022. The study tool was applied to a pilot study of 30 faculty members and lecturers, who were randomly selected to calculate the validity and reliability of the tool (i.e., outside of the study’s sample). After, the actual sample used in the study consisted of 272 randomly selected faculty members and lecturers. The sample was distributed according to gender, faculty, experience, and academic rank, as shown in

Table 1. The distribution of the study sample.

		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Gender	Male	195	71.7	71.7	71.7
	Female	77	28.3	28.3	100.0
	Total	272	100.0	100.0
Rank	Professor	47	17.3	17.3	17.3
	Associate Professor	113	41.5	41.5	58.8
	Assistant Professor	87	32.0	32.0	90.8
	Lecturer	25	9.2	9.2	100.0
	Total	272	100.0	100.0
Experience	Fewer than 5 Years	49	18.0	18.0	18.0
	From 5 to 10 Years	58	21.3	21.3	39.3
	More than 10 Years	165	60.7	60.7	100.0
	Total	272	100.0	100.0
Faculty	Humanities Faculties	170	62.5	62.5	62.5
	Scientific Faculties	102	37.5	37.5	100.0
	Total	272	100.0	100.0

below.

Table 1 shows the diversity of the study sample’s members in terms of the faculty and their equitable distribution in the categories and variables of the study: gender; faculty; academic rank, including professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and lecturer (i.e., not a PhD holder); teaching experience in universities. This diversity provided balance and acceptable results. In order to ensure the comprehensiveness of the sample and appropriate representation, the random cluster method was used, and the application was reapplied to ensure that the percentages reached levels that represented the achievement of the study’s objectives and the suitability of the sample.

2.3. Procedures

After developing the initial copy of the questionnaire, it was presented to expert arbitrators to ensure its validity. The questionnaire was approved by the Scientific Research Ethics Committee. It was applied to a pilot study to verify its validity and reliability. Then, the data were collected by applying the final copy of the questionnaire to the study’s sample from five universities, which were purposively selected from five different regions in the Kingdom.

2.4. The Questionnaire

A questionnaire was prepared and developed to understand the importance of education and its role in achieving the sustainability of food security. The questionnaire was developed after consulting previous studies, scientific sources, and experts in this field. Three experts in the field were involved. The questionnaire was divided into two parts: the first part consisted of the primary data collected from faculty members and lecturers, and the second consisted of two dimensions: education and learning and policies and regulations to achieve food security. Initially, the questionnaire items were formulated for each dimension accurately and clearly. The first dimension contained 19 items and the second dimension contained 17 items.

A questionnaire was presented to 7 specialized expert arbitrators, who made several observations. Some clauses were omitted and others were modified based on what was agreed upon by more than 75% of the arbitrators. The questionnaire was applied to a random pilot study of 30 faculty members and lecturers to ensure its validity and reliability. A Rasch model analysis using Winsteps software, version 3.68.2, and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using structural equation modeling (SEM) with AMOS, version 24, were used to confirm the validity and reliability of the questionnaire.

2.4.1. Rasch Model Analysis

The Rasch model analysis was used to verify the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, because it was possible to obtain an estimated value for the ability of an individual and estimated values for the difficulty and discrimination coefficients for items. The model was also used to obtain a statistical coefficient that indicated the accuracy of estimating the ability of each individual [26].

The Rasch model used an item polarity analysis, PTMEA, infit and misfit items, item and person separation, dimensionality, and scale calibration to determine the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. The Rasch model’s reliability acceptance criterion should be greater than 0.50. The appropriate separation value should be more than 2. To verify the construct validity, the anticipated mean square (MNSQ) infit analysis values for these build items should be between 0.4 and 1.5, the standardized fit statistic (Zstd) values should be between −2 and 2, and the point-measure correlation (PTMEA) values should be between 0.2 and 1 [26].

The Rasch model was used to analyze the data regarding the person and item reliability (Appendix A). The person reliability was 0.94, and the person separation was 4.25, both of which were acceptable. The item reliability was 0.92, and the item separation was 3.36, both of which were acceptable. As a result, the item reliability for the scale values was reasonably close, and both represented a strong acceptable level.

The item misfit statistics were investigated further, with the parameters ranging from 0.68 to 1.73 for the item’s statistics. The MNSQ ranged from 1.35 to 0.76, the z-std ranged from 1.9 to −1.9, and the PTMEA ranged from 0.50 to 0.74. All of the correlations were positive and larger than 0.20, as shown in Appendix B. As a result, the data were regarded as suitable for this research.

The dimensionality analysis result in Appendix C describes the scale direction and dimensions. In the first contrast, the raw variance explained by the measures was 56.4%, whereas the unexplained variance was 5.2%. As a result of the dimensionality data, the scale had a suitable dimensionality as assessed by the raw variance and explained by measures of more than 40% and unexplained variance in the first contrast.

The validity of the response probability being dispersed fairly across scales was determined by the Rasch analysis. A summary of the category structure on a scale gradation and the size structure of the intersection are shown in Appendix D and Figure A1 in Appendix E. The observed count displays the respondents’ responses to the ranking scale. Category 4 was the most common response (n = 116; 46%). Scale 5 of 88 was the next grading scale chosen by the respondents (35%). There were 36 (14%) respondents in category 3. The observed averages revealed the respondents’ pattern. With a systematic instrument, a reasonably typical progression from negative to positive was expected, indicating that the respondents’ responses were normal. As a result, the calibration scaling study with this instrument’s five scales indicated good validity.

2.4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a type of structural equation modeling (SEM) that looks for patterns in data (SEM). A CFA is a useful statistical approach for examining latent construct relationships. A CFA is an analytical tool used to create measurement instruments, assess construct validity, and categorize method impacts. A CFA is used to test the latent structure of a test tool throughout the instrument’s development process. It is also utilized to doublecheck the instrument’s primary dimensions and factor loadings. For other aspects of psychometric evaluation, a CFA is an important analytical tool [26].

The questionnaire’s construct validity was also verified using a CFA, where the adopted model for the relationship of the questionnaire items was drawn. The CFA was performed using SEM with AMOS, version 24.0. Maximum likelihood method estimates were used to estimate the parameters, as shown in Figure 1.

The index level for an acceptable goodness fit for the construct validity of the model is shown in

Table 2. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the model.

Category	Indicators of the Internal Construct Validity	Level of Acceptance	Indexes in the Proposed Model
Absolute fit	ChiSq	p > 0.05	Significant
	RMSE	RMSE < 0.08	0.073
Incremental fit	CFI	CFI > 0.90	0.965
	TLI	TLI > 0.90	0.957
	NFI	IFI > 0.90	0.965
Parsimonious fit	ChiSq/df	ChiSq/df < 5.0	ChiSq/df = 2.90 < 5.0

. The goodness fit indices were satisfactory, indicating a high level of goodness fit.

After completing the procedures for verifying the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, the final copy was obtained. It consisted of two dimensions: the first contained 19 items, and the second 17 items (Appendix G).

3. Results

The following answers the first question: what are the most prominent roles that universities play in achieving sustainable food security in the areas of education and learning and policies and regulations from the point of view of faculty members?

Table 3. The means, standard deviations, ranks, and role of universities in achieving sustainable food security from the point of view of faculty members.

Rank	Dimension	N	Mean	SD	RUPFS *
1	Education and Learning	272	4.1254	0.61274	Very high
2	Policies and Regulations	272	4.0824	0.63598	Very high
	Overall Average	272	4.1039	0.60733	Very high

* The role of universities in sustainable food security.

shows that the items’ scores in the education and learning dimension ranked first and had a mean of 4.1254 and a standard deviation of 0.61274. The policies and regulations to achieve food security dimension had a mean of 4.0824 and a standard deviation of 0.63598.

The mean and standard deviation were also found for each item in the questionnaire.

Table 4. Ranking of the faculty members’ responses.

Item	N	Mean	SD	Items	Mean	SD
E10	272	4.3088	0.82859	P17	4.3309	0.79718
E3	272	4.2647	0.80345	P5	4.2941	0.75498
E13	272	4.2610	0.71995	P9	4.2426	0.76834
E1	272	4.2169	0.78313	P2	4.2243	0.78105
E11	272	4.1985	0.81788	P3	4.2096	0.80829
E14	272	4.1838	0.84785	P4	4.1654	0.80944
E19	272	4.1618	0.78001	P8	4.1434	0.86209
E18	272	4.1471	0.81526	P6	4.1140	0.83172
E9	272	4.1471	0.84635	P7	4.0919	0.85196
E12	272	4.1140	0.88336	P13	4.0662	0.85651
E17	272	4.0956	0.83183	P11	4.0588	0.74164
E8	272	4.0772	0.77168	P14	4.0074	0.91318
E15	272	4.0588	0.85273	P1	3.9412	0.89496
E7	272	4.0551	0.90136	P15	3.9338	1.00333
E5	272	4.0515	1.03318	P12	3.9191	0.92569
E16	272	4.0404	0.90622	P16	3.8860	0.99346
E4	272	4.0184	0.96604	P10	3.7721	1.10662
E2	272	4.0147	0.78722
E6	272	3.9669	0.97326

below shows the ranking of the items according to their means.

Table 4 shows that the means in the first dimension, education and learning, ranged between 4.31 and 3.966, while the arithmetic averages of the policy dimension ranged between 4.33 and 3.77. These values included the views of faculty members regarding the role of universities according to each of the items.

To answer the second question, a t-test and one-way analysis of variance were used.

Table 5. Results of the t-test for differences between means according to gender and faculty.

Variables and Dimensions			No.	Mean	SD	T-Value	Significance
Gender	Education and Learning	Male	195	4.1773	0.61096	0.208	0.026
		Female	77	3.9938	0.60124
	Policies and Regulations	Male	195	4.1179	0.64262	0.001	0.143
		Female	77	3.9924	0.61372
	Overall Average	Male	195	4.1476	0.60770	0.030	0.057
		Female	77	3.9931	0.59600
Faculty	Education and Learning	Humanities	170	4.2567	0.60880	2.313	0.129
		Scientific	102	3.9066	0.55665
	Policies and Regulations	Humanities	170	4.1986	0.65827	4.223	0.000
		Scientific	102	3.8887	0.54732
	Overall Average	Humanities	170	4.2276	0.62076	6.087	0.014
		Scientific	102	3.8977	0.52553

below shows the results of the t-test for the level of the universities’ role in achieving sustainable food security from the point of view of faculty members.

Table 5 shows that there were no statistically significant differences in the responses of the respondents. There were no statistically significant differences regarding the role of universities in achieving food security due to the study members according to gender, where the value of t = 0.030 was achieved for whole dimensions and the significance level was greater than 0.05. However, there were statistically significant differences between the responses of the respondents regarding the role of universities in achieving food security and faculty in favor of the humanities, where the value of t = 6.087 was achieved for whole dimensions, and the significant level was greater than 0.05.

Table 6. Results of the analysis of variance of differences between the means of responses of the sample.

Variance Source			Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Significance
Academic RankTeaching Experience	Education and Learning	Between Groups	26.422	2	13.211	47.180	0.000
		Within Groups	75.324	269	0.280
		Total	101.746	271
	Policies and Regulations	Between Groups	18.287	2	9.144	26.933	0.000
		Within Groups	91.323	269	0.339
		Total	109.610	271
	Whole Dimensions	Between Groups	22.121	2	11.061	38.224	0.000
		Within Groups	77.838	269	0.289
		Total	99.959	271
	Education and Learning	Between Groups	2.380	3	0.793	2.139	0.096
		Within Groups	99.366	268	0.371
		Total	101.746	271
	Policies and Regulations	Between Groups	1.750	3	0.583	1.449	0.229
		Within Groups	107.860	268	0.402
		Total	109.610	271
	Whole Scale	Between Groups	1.770	3	0.590	1.611	0.187
		Within Groups	98.188	268	0.366
		Total	99.959	271

shows the results of the one-way analysis of variance for the level of the universities’ role in achieving sustainable food security from the point of view of faculty members in the dimensions of the questionnaire according to academic rank and teaching experience.

The results in Table 6 show that there were statistically significant differences at the 0.01 level of significance in the responses of the study sample members regarding the level of the universities’ role in achieving sustainable food security based on the academic rank of the overall scale. To determine the sources and trends in the differences, the Scheffe test was used for the post-comparisons, as shown in Appendix F, which shows that there were statistically significant differences in all dimensions regarding the level of the universities’ role in achieving sustainable food security based on academic rank. These differences were in favor of faculty members with the rank of lecturer among the various other academic ranks. There were no statistically significant differences in either the dimensions or on the whole scale regarding the level of the universities’ role in achieving sustainable food security based on teaching experience, where the significant level was greater than 0.05.

The following answers the third question: what were the suggestions for developing the role of universities in promoting sustainable food security? To answer this question, the suggestions were limited to an open question within the study tool, and the suggestions by faculty members regarding strengthening the role of universities in achieving sustainable food security are shown in

Table 7. Suggestions by faculty members to enhance the role of universities towards sustainable food security.

No.	Suggestion	Frequency	Percentage
1	The inclusion of general courses taught to all students as graduation requirements including direct awareness of the importance of sustainable food security.	78	38%
2	Adoption of a long-term media policy to raise awareness and highlight aspects related to food security.	43	21%
3	Activation of compulsory community activities for university employees that enhance food security, which are linked to the societal indicators of the students.	39	19%
4	Launch of specialized academic programs or interdisciplinary studies that directly focus on sustainability and economic development programs and issues.	24	12%
5	The spread of the culture of sustainability among students and university employees through social media, according to a strategic plan.	14	7%
6	Amending bylaws and regulations in line with the latest developments in sustainability and food security issues.	6	3%
Total		204	100%

.

Table 7 shows that the total frequency of the suggestions was 204, distributed among six main suggestions. The first and most important was “the inclusion of general courses taught to all students as graduation requirements, including direct awareness of the importance of sustainable food security”. The least important suggestion was “amending bylaws and regulations in line with the latest developments in sustainability and food security issues”.

4. Discussion

The current study aimed to understand the role of universities in achieving sustainability in food security to develop suggestions and procedures that help universities in achieving sustainable development and fostering hope. This study lays out a scientific vision to confront the obstacles and problems of universities’ participation in achieving sustainability in food security.

4.1. Results Related to the First Question

Table 3 shows that the arithmetic averages of the dimensions education and learning and policies and regulations were close at 4.1254 and 4.0824, respectively, with a preference for the teaching and learning dimension according to faculty members’ views on the role of universities in achieving sustainable food security. This result indicates the conviction of university faculty members towards the role of universities in influential societal issues that link the future of societies both regionally and globally. Therefore, the two dimensions obtained scores representing a high degree of response. The preference for the aspect of teaching and learning was because the focus of universities’ work is education, which was the basis for it being the most influential, and it is the aspect that plays a prominent role in achieving the sustainability of food security [27]. This certainly does not mean that the policy dimension was less important. Educational policies and regulations shape the educational process in universities; thus, the differences were not large according to the study sample’s members.

In the teaching and learning dimension, most of the items’ values ranged between 4.31 and 3.966, and this confirmed the importance of the content of these indicators in achieving sustainability in food security. The indicators for the role of achieving food security included the direction of employees by the university to participate in sustainability activities. Others included universities that had courses on healthy food practices and their contribution to improving food quality. The answers from the study sample also indicated the universities that support faculty members to conduct joint research with students on food security to enhance the value of sustainability for its employees, as well as considering the conduct of many extracurricular activities related to this task [28]. Among the positive indicators of universities’ contributions to the sustainability of food security was their partnership with the segments of the private sector that were interested in the sustainability of food security, as there are major companies that are interested in this and that can establish many joint projects with universities; many research projects have been implemented by joint teams from both parties, and this enhances the role of universities and members of the teaching staff, providing them with skills that enhance the awareness and practices that are transmitted to the students and society. This result agrees with those presented in [29]. These results are also consistent with a study by Al-Ahmadi regarding the preference of faculty members at Taibah University in Saudi Arabia in theoretical colleges on an axis of environmental protection and sustainable development. Although faculty members in the humanities and natural sciences can play prominent roles in educating students and university employees on the one hand, they can also actively contribute to research projects that enhance this aspect [30].

Concerning the policies and regulations dimension, the responses from the sample members regarding the items ranged between 4.33 and 3.77. The indicators related to this dimension showed that the existence of clear policies confirming the quality of education positively affects the quality of productivity and the achievement of sustainability in food security, and there was a clear mandate from the higher management of the universities to give food security a prominent place in their direction and related policies. This study showed that some universities included in their vision and mission contributions issues related to food security, which were often linked to national policies. In addition, the study sample members indicated that there are policies at the university level that include increasing the extension activities and awareness towards the sustainability of food security, as well as the participation of universities as entities in general national policies in this field, highlighting the regulations and frameworks related to them for their employees [31]. All of this is in addition to universities incorporating sustainability considerations into their food policies and consumer education programs [32].

4.2. Results Related to the Second Question

Table 4 shows that there were no statistically significant differences among the sample respondents between the level of the role of universities in achieving sustainable food security and gender, where the value t = 0.030 was for the whole dimensions at a statistical significance level greater than 0.05. This result indicates an agreement among the views of faculty members regarding the role of universities in achieving sustainability in food security. Both male and female faculty members were familiar with the procedures and processes of teaching and learning at the university, and they were aware of the policies that universities follow and implement in this regard. Therefore, the responses to this role converged. The announced policies of universities towards environmental and sustainability issues were consistent with the responses, which demonstrated the clarity of the role that universities play towards the sustainability of food security in the fields of study represented in education and learning and policies and regulations.

While there were statistically significant differences among the sample responses regarding the level of the role of universities in achieving sustainable food security, according to faculties in favor of the humanities, the value of t = 6.087 was for the whole dimensions and the significance level was greater than 0.05. The faculty members in the humanities, with their different specializations, were most closely related to the problems of sustainability and environmental changes because of the courses that they taught, which unlike the scientific disciplines that focus on the natural sciences, mostly shift away from a framework of human influence. The differences in the responses of the members according to faculty may be due to the areas of interest. The humanities faculties, in general, correspond to most of the topics they provide to students because of requirements for education in sustainable development and to societal issues related to development, meaning the focus on these issues is clearer and more related to the work of the members in these faculties. In contrast to the scientific faculties, which deal with purely scientific topics, the human aspect for many of them may not be prominent or may be unavailable. Humanities faculties often conduct activities that correspond to the requirements of the local community, unlike scientific faculties, which develop patents and make progress in the field of natural sciences, explaining the difference in the responses.

4.3. Results Related to the Third Question

To determine the most prominent suggestions for developing the role of universities, the study tool included a direct open question for faculty members to provide their views regarding the most prominent proposals for the development of this role. It was noted that 45% of the faculty members did not submit any development suggestions and only focused on the items of the tool, while 55% of the sample members presented various suggestions, which were then classified into two main dimensions, with one being related to urgent measures that the university can provide to enhance the sustainability of food security, represented by the inclusion of general courses taught to all students as graduation requirements, including direct awareness of the importance of sustainable food security. This suggestion was repeated by 45% of the respondents. In addition, there was the inclusion of compulsory community activities for university employees that enhanced food security, which was linked to the societal indicators of the student card and was repeated at a rate of 18%.

The second dimension of the suggestions was related to public policies and the strategic methodology of the universities in adopting a long-term media policy to raise awareness and highlight aspects related to food security (21%), the opening of specialized academic programs or interdisciplinary studies directly focusing on programs and issues of sustainability and economic development (12%), amending bylaws and regulations in line with the latest developments in the sustainability of food security issues (2%), and the spread of the culture of sustainability among students and university employees through social media according to a strategic plan (2%).

From the foregoing, this study showed that in their view, the faculty members focus on indicators and suggestions for universities so that they can play a better role in achieving the sustainability of food security locally. This role can have impacts both regionally and globally, especially with the attention towards the conscious and focused implementation by the university’s leadership, especially with the possibility of the impacts being transmitted by graduate students to regional and global communities. These practices corresponded, in some detail, to the practices of international universities [33].

5. Conclusions

It can be said that universities receive special attention and have many tasks in our world today. Universities should contribute to supporting sustainability and reducing environmental impacts resulting from the various direct and indirect activities that take place at their institution, by conducting research, by providing education in the field of sustainability, and by creating an environment that allows students and staff to develop new capabilities, which can lead to sustainable practices and a more sustainable society. The universities’ commitment to sustainable development is vital for students and professors to carry out their duties and has an impact on the university employees’ awareness of life models suitable for life and the environment. It will also have an impact on the current and future generations through the development of a knowledge-based society that is aware of sustainability, decent living, and conscious practices on all spectrums. The universities must respond to international resolutions calling for the implementation of sustainability in education, and in turn to various critical issues locally, regionally, and globally. This would help alleviate environmental problems and achieve sustainability around the world.

6. Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, we recommend the following:

○

Universities should adopt clear procedural policies that provide mechanisms for implementing activities and decisions that promote sustainability in food security;

○

Universities should provide workshops and training programs for faculty members to increase their awareness and enhance sustainable food security;

○

Universities should develop special courses aimed at promoting sustainability in food security and should offer them as mandatory general courses within all science and humanities faculties.