Connecting SDG 2: Zero Hunger with the Other SDGs—Teaching Food Security and the SDGs Interdependencies in Higher Education

Abstract

The slowdown in global progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) highlights the need to develop systems thinking, sustainability literacy, and ethical responsibility among higher-education students. The article presents an innovative educational approach, applicable in various university contexts, which involves the analysis of interdependencies between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and the other SDGs. The methodology included teamwork, brainstorming, a bidirectional analysis of the links between SDG 2 and the other SDGs, and the production of visual materials, and public presentations were followed by interactive debates and collective feedback. The case study presents an innovative educational approach and includes a component for assessing student perceptions through the application of an anonymous questionnaire. The results showed that this method significantly contributed to the development of critical thinking, the capacity for systemic analysis, and a deep awareness of global issues related to food security. The students’ perception was predominantly positive; they appreciated the practical usefulness and personal impact of the educational activity. The conclusions support the transferability of this educational method in various academic contexts, demonstrating that the analysis of interdependencies between SDGs represents a valuable tool for developing transversal skills and a sustainable ethic necessary for future professionals involved in addressing the complexity of global challenges.

1. Introduction

1.1. Global Context and Justification

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is today, more than ever, a strategic priority at a global level. The integration of the SDGs into the educational process is no longer just an option or a recommendation, but a crucial condition for training generations capable of understanding and managing the complexity of the contemporary world [1].

UNESCO official documents emphasize that “sustainability education is essential for individuals to acquire knowledge, skills, values and attitudes that enable them to contribute to a more sustainable world” [1].

In the context of the United Nations’ (UN) 2030 Agenda, education plays a key role in forming aware, critical, and involved citizens. Universities, in particular, have a responsibility to create educational frameworks that enable students to understand the complexity of the interdependencies between the social, economic, and ecological dimensions of sustainable development. Therefore, curriculum objectives must go beyond traditional approaches and stimulate systemic thinking, sustainability literacy, and the formation of social and ecological ethics [2,3]. SDG 4: Quality Education is not just a goal in itself, but a key to achieving all SDGs, facilitating understanding and commitment to the necessary global transformations.

Of all 17 SDGs, SDG 2 occupies a very special place, not only because of its social and humanitarian importance, but also because it represents a true “central node” in the complex network of sustainable development. Ensuring food security and promoting healthy and equitable diets for all are fundamental to human well-being, economic stability, social peace, and environmental protection [4]. Virtually no SDG can be achieved in the absence of adequate and sustainable nutrition.

Furthermore, recent reports in the Sustainable Development Report 2024 [4] place SDG 2 among the most affected and vulnerable goals. Global hunger is on the rise for the third consecutive year, and forecasts show that without radical measures, over 600 million people will suffer from hunger by 2030.

SDG 2 occupies a central position in the architecture of the UN Agenda 2030, directly or indirectly influencing the achievement of the other SDGs [4,5,6]. Food security is not only a fundamental need, but also an essential condition for health, education, poverty reduction, and environmental protection [7,8]. Numerous international analyses underline the transversal role of SDG 2, highlighting that progress in this area contributes to the cohesion and efficiency of global strategies for sustainability [9,10]. Understanding these interdependencies becomes essential in the educational process, to train future professionals capable of contributing to integrated and sustainable solutions.

Especially in Romania, where challenges related to food security are aggravated by phenomena such as food waste, social inequalities, climate change, or rural migration, systemic education in the field of SDG 2 becomes a priority and a necessity [11,12,13].

Thus, SDG 2 today represents not just a study topic, but an ideal teaching framework for developing complex thinking, empathy, food ethics, and responsibility towards the future of food and the planet [14,15]. Universities today are at a historical turning point, where their traditional role—that of transmitting knowledge—is no longer sufficient for the global challenges of the 21st century [16,17]. The complexity of the SDGs and the multiple connections between them force academia to profoundly rethink its educational processes.

Sustainability cannot be understood and promoted without systemic, integrative thinking that transcends the boundaries of classical disciplines [6,18,19]. This is precisely what is often missing from conventional university education: an approach to the SDGs not as separate lists of goals, but as a living, interdependent system, where every action or inaction generates multiple direct and indirect effects [20,21].

The Guide to Accelerating SDG Education in Universities [22] highlights that one of the greatest educational needs today is to develop students’ capacity to analyze the relationships of influence and dependency between the SDGs. This is what the authors call education for the SDGs (ESDGs)—an educational concept that combines critical thinking, systemic understanding, problem-solving, and the development of a solution-oriented mindset [18,23].

Furthermore, learning based on interdependencies [1]:

• encourages empathy and global responsibility;
• develops strategic analysis skills;
• prepares students for professional reality, where decisions rarely affect a single area;
• stimulates creativity, interdisciplinarity, and thinking “out of the box”;
• meets international requirements for transformative learning.

FAO [4] clearly shows that food systems are interconnected with all other social, economic, and ecological systems. Therefore, food security (SDG 2) cannot be adequately taught without an approach that explores its interactions with the other SDGs.

In addition, the Sustainable Development Report 2024 [5] highlights that many of the current bottlenecks in achieving the SDGs stem precisely from the lack of collaboration between sectors, policies, actors, and levels of governance.

Therefore, education based on SDG interdependencies is not just a pedagogical recommendation, but a strategic urgency [7].

Universities have a moral, social, and professional responsibility to prepare graduates who:

• think systemically;
• understand complex causal relationships;
• can build integrative and sustainable solutions;
• are able to anticipate risks, conflicts, or side effects.

Such an educational model perfectly responds to the current global challenge: building a generation of SDG implementers, capable of bringing positive change in any field or community [22].

1.2. Innovation in Education

This article proposes an innovative educational approach, applied within the Food Security discipline, that aims to develop systems thinking and sustainability literacy among students. The method encourages the analysis of the interdependencies between SDG 2 and the other SDGs, in a collaborative, active, and solution-oriented learning framework.

Unlike traditional approaches, which treat the SDGs as isolated topics, this teaching strategy emphasizes understanding the relationships between the goals and reflecting on the ethical, social, and ecological implications of food systems [4,24,25]. The educational philosophy underlying the method is aligned with the concepts of transformative education and SDGs, promoted in recent international documents [1,22,24].

1.3. Research Objectives and Questions

The transformation of ESD involves a reconfiguration of the role of the university and the teacher, who is no longer just a content provider, but a facilitator of systemic and participatory learning [1,4,22]. In this context, teaching food security must go beyond the classic presentation of the four pillars—availability, accessibility, quality, and stability—and become an exercise in integrating the complexity of the SDGs into the educational process [26].

The present study starts from the premise that SDG 2 has a transversal and catalytic role in achieving the other goals of the UN Agenda 2030, and understanding the interdependencies between the SDGs is an essential competence for future professionals in the field of sustainable development [13,19]. The educational activity implemented within the Food Security discipline proposes a practical, collaborative, and reflective approach, in which students identify and argue the connections between SDG 2 and the other SDGs, based on the analysis of specialized literature and group debates [27,28].

The main objective of the research is to evaluate the efficiency of an innovative educational method in higher education, focused on the analysis of the interdependencies between the SDGs, especially between SDG 2 and the other goals, from the perspective of the impact on the students’ understanding, systemic thinking, and food attitudes.

Based on this general objective, the research aims to answer the following questions:

• To what extent does the proposed educational activity contribute to developing understanding of the concept of SDGs and the interdependencies between them?
• What is the perceived impact of this method on the formation of students’ systemic thinking?
• What are the self-reported effects on personal food behaviors, especially regarding diet and reducing food waste?
• How do students’ perceptions vary?

By analyzing qualitative (student statements, posters created) and quantitative (perceived evaluation questionnaires) data, the study contributes to the validation of a replicable educational model in higher education for sustainable development.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Background—Literature and Global Context

2.1.1. Key Data and Conclusions from the Sustainable Development Report 2024 on SDG 2

According to the Sustainable Development Report 2024, SDG 2 is one of the global goals most severely affected by stagnation or regression, with none of the 193 UN Member States having fully achieved it or being on track to achieve it by 2030 [5].

Among the main findings regarding the status of SDG 2 achievement are the following: an estimated 600 million people will suffer from hunger in 2030 if current trends are not reversed; global undernutrition will return to 10% in 2021, after a period of decline; and the alarming increase in obesity from 9% in 2005 to 16% in 2022, creating the dual challenge of undernutrition and overnutrition in the same communities [5].

Food systems contribute one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, use approximately 70% of the planet’s freshwater resources and over 50% of its land area, and are the leading cause of biodiversity loss. Despite some local progress, such as increasing cereal production from 3.4 t/ha in 2000 to 4.4 t/ha in 2021, global hunger is on the rise, fueled by conflict, climate crises, economic inequalities, and price volatility [5].

2.1.2. SDG 2—A Central Node in the SDGs Architecture

The positioning of SDG 2 at the center of the sustainable development architecture is supported by a growing body of scientific literature that highlights the many bidirectional links between food security and the other SDGs. FAO emphasizes that achieving SDG 2 facilitates progress across the UN Agenda 2030, while its failure can exacerbate inequalities, social conflicts, or environmental degradation [4]. Guang-Wen et al. have shown that nutrition and food security are directly implicated in 12 of the 17 SDGs and indirectly in all the others [24]. The Transitioning to Sustainability series of volumes contributes substantially to the understanding of these interdependencies, presenting detailed analyses of how each SDG influences and is influenced by SDG 2, in diverse regional contexts [29]. Also, the analysis by Dörgő et al. confirms, through conceptual network methods, that SDG 2 has one of the highest centrality values, being an essential strategic node in sustainable development [30]. SDSN and UNESCO, in turn, draw attention to the fact that food systems represent a key area of the transition to sustainability, with an impact on most of the other SDGs [1,22]. In the Sustainable Development Report 2024, SDG 2 is integrated into one of the six major systemic transformations considered essential for achieving the UN Agenda 2030: the transformation of food systems, land, and water resources [5].

2.1.3. The Need for Systemic Education About Food Security

In this context, it becomes clear that university education on food security can no longer remain anchored in a fragmented approach. FAO emphasizes that future professionals need an integrated understanding of food systems and their interactions with health, the environment, the economy, and social equity [7]. The SDSN recommends introducing systems thinking and analysis of the interdependencies between the SDGs in all relevant university curricula, and UNESCO promotes transformative education as an essential response to global challenges [1,22].

Teaching the relationships between SDG 2 and the other goals is no longer just a didactic innovation, but an urgent necessity for developing the transversal skills of students, future agents of sustainable change [22].

2.2. Case-Study Context

The educational activity described in this case study was carried out in public universities in Romania, over a period of two years, with second-year undergraduate students enrolled in the Food Security discipline, with 4 ETCS, part of the undergraduate programs in the field of Agri-Food Engineering and Management.

Students participated voluntarily in this activity, expressing their opinions in writing, on paper, in a completely anonymous manner. No personal or sensitive data were collected, and participation was not conditioned by any selection criteria, reflecting the usual structure of student groups in these study programs.

Food Security discipline has a distinct status in the curriculum, being one of the few disciplines that explicitly addresses the SDGs and their relationship with food systems. Through its content, this discipline directly contributes to the formation of transversal skills, essential for future specialists in the food and agricultural field.

The general objectives of the discipline include:

• understanding the concept of food security in all its dimensions (availability, accessibility, quality, and stability);
• familiarizing students with the current challenges of food systems at global, European, and national levels;
• developing systemic thinking and the ability to analyze the interdependencies between food security and other areas of sustainable development;
• forming an ethical awareness regarding responsible consumption, reducing food waste, and respecting natural resources.

What differentiates the pedagogical approach proposed in this discipline is the integration of ESD and, above all, the challenge for students to explicitly analyze the relationships between SDG 2 and the other SDGs [31].

The practical activities carried out throughout the course are designed to stimulate critical thinking, teamwork, creativity, and logical reasoning. Students are organized into working groups, each responsible for analyzing and presenting how SDG 2 influences and is influenced by another SDG, selected from the list of SDGs.

This innovative methodology allows students to explore not only the obvious connections, but also the less visible ones, thus stimulating systemic thinking and a deeper understanding of the role of food security in the global context.

2.3. Conceptual Pedagogical Model and Learning Environment

Systems thinking, visual pedagogy, and ethical awareness converge in an educational environment that provides students with a deeply transformative learning experience. This integrative approach fosters the development of sustainability competencies through active engagement and understanding of the complexity of global issues.

The method was applied within the Food Security discipline. It aims to foster systemic thinking by engaging students in practical analyses of the relationships between SDG 2 and other SDGs. Figure 1 illustrates a seminar room structured with SDG-focused educational visuals, which enhance students’ comprehension of sustainability.

Unlike classical approaches, which treat the SDGs in isolation or as independent themes, this pedagogical strategy emphasizes the analysis of the complex and reciprocal relationships between SDG 2 and all other SDGs.

The design of the teaching activity was based on an evidence-based approach, using a balanced selection of institutional reports and recent peer-reviewed scientific literature to substantiate both the methodology and the analysis carried out by the students [1,4,15,18,24,30,32,33].

This educational approach is innovative not only in its content but also in its learning philosophy: students are not only invited to learn about SDG 2 but are challenged to understand how food security is directly and bidirectionally linked to global issues such as poverty, health, education, gender equality, natural resources, climate change, or global partnerships.

Moreover, this approach brings the idea of systemic thinking and food ethics to the center of education, focusing on the global impact of local choices. To ensure the validity of the qualitative approach presented in this case study, the four trustworthiness criteria formulated by Guba (1981) were taken into consideration: credibility, transferability, reliability, and confirmability [34]. Credibility was supported by triangulating the students’ written analyses with the observations made during the seminars and with the feedback provided by the teaching staff. Transferability was ensured by a detailed description of the educational context and the target group involved. Dependability was strengthened by clearly structuring and documenting the stages of the teaching activity, so that they could be replicated in similar contexts. Confirmability was pursued through an objective interpretation of the data and the constant use of verifiable scientific and institutional sources.

2.4. Methodology of Teaching Activity

The teaching activity analyzed in this case study was carried out within the Food Security discipline, which is part of the undergraduate study program, and research was internally funded as part of the institutional academic activities.

The applied methodology was designed to integrate the principles of ESD and stimulate the development of students’ systemic thinking, through the concrete analysis of the interdependencies between SDG 2 and the other SDGs.

The organization of the activity was as follows:

1. Forming working groups, dividing students into teams of three people.

2. The assignment of a pair of objectives, respectively, to each team: SDG 2 and another objective within the SDG (SDG 1–17, except SDG 2).

3. Defining the analytical task; each team had to carry out a two-way analysis:

• how SDG 2 influences the distributed objective;
• how that SDG influences, in turn, SDG 2.

4. Preparation and presentation of results; each team had to:

• create a visual presentation
• present the conclusions in a dedicated seminar;
• argue the interdependencies identified by examples, data, or case studies;
• actively participate in discussions and feedback exchange between teams.

The pedagogical objectives of the exercise aimed to:

• stimulate critical thinking;
• develop the capacity for systemic analysis;
• promote creativity and teamwork;
• develop an ethical awareness in relation to food security;
• raise awareness regarding the role of SDG 2 within the 2030 Agenda.

The tools used were:

• theoretical and practical analysis;
• documentation based on FAO, UN, SDSN, Sustainable Development Report resources;
• visual activities (posters, charts, diagrams) along with presentations and debates in seminars.

The final assessment of the students integrated both testing of theoretical knowledge and assessment in practical activities, with a focus on the ability to analyze the interdependencies between SDG 2 and the other SDGs.

The qualitative evaluation of the materials produced by the students (posters, presentations, visual boards) was carried out by the teachers involved, based on a set of explicit pedagogical criteria, communicated in advance to the students. In the absence of a formal quantitative rubric, the following aspects were monitored: accuracy of the information presented; originality of the approach and visual design; conceptual clarity in formulating the connections between SDG 2 and the other SDGs; ability to critically reflect and argue ideas. The evaluation was carried out through a binary system—“pass” or “fail”—and constituted an exam related to the applied component of the discipline. Only students who obtained a grade of “pass” were declared eligible to subsequently take the theoretical exam.

2.5. Methodology of the Survey Applied to Students

To assess the students’ perception of the usefulness and impact of the educational activity carried out within the Food Security discipline, a structured questionnaire was developed and applied, with exclusively didactic and scientific purposes.

The questionnaire was administered on paper, within the seminar activities, after completing the practical exercise involving the analysis, elaboration, and presentation of the results regarding the interdependencies between SDG 2 and the other SDGs.

The educational activity consisted of organizing students into teams of three, with each team being responsible for carrying out 2 or even 3 different analyses on how SDG 2 influences and is influenced by other SDGs. Subsequently, the results of these analyses were presented publicly, within the seminars, in different forms: PowerPoint presentations, posters, flipcharts, or interactive debates.

The questionnaire design included four sections:

• Section 1—General data (academic year, group, completion date)
• Section 2—Perception of the usefulness and efficiency of the activity (5 items, Likert scale 1–5) [35]:

Students were invited to rate their level of agreement with each statement using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

1. The practical activity helped me to better understand the SDGs.

2. The analysis of the links between SDG 2 and the other SDGs was interesting and useful.

3. The working method (groups, presentations, boards, debates) was effective for learning.

4. I better understood the role of food security in sustainable development.

5. I enjoyed working in a team on this topic.

• Section 3—Perceived personal impact (5 items, Likert scale 1–5):

6. As a result of this activity, I pay more attention to my own diet.

7. I became more attentive to food waste.

8. I believe that systemic thinking is important in solving global problems.

9. I feel more prepared to analyze complex problems, such as food security.

10. I would recommend this activity to other students.

• Section 4—Open feedback (2 questions).

The total number of respondents was 46 students, distributed as follows:

• A total of 25 students in the 2023/2024 academic year;
• A total of 21 students in the 2024/2025 academic year.

For the last section of the questionnaire, which aimed to obtain open feedback, students did not complete written responses. Instead, a free and interactive discussion was organized, facilitated by the teacher, with the aim of stimulating the free expression of ideas, mutual complementation, and exchange of opinions.

The collected data were subsequently centralized and processed in Microsoft Excel, used for a descriptive and graphical analysis of students’ perceptions.

2.6. Organization of Teaching Activity: Time Allocation, Work Stages, and Applied Method

The educational activity was delivered within the Food Safety discipline over 14 teaching hours (equivalent to 7 seminar meetings) during the first semester. The main objective was to foster students’ systemic thinking, critical analysis, and argumentation concerning SDGs interdependencies. The work stages and time allocation were as follows in

Table 1. Structure of teaching activity: stages, description, and time allocation.

Work Stage	Description	Time Allocation
1	Theoretical presentation of the SDGs and explanation of the working methodology	2 h
2	Organizing of working teams (preferably 3 students each), assignment of SDGs and initial brainstorming within each team	1 h
3	Team documentation based on recommended sources (FAO, UN, SDSN, Sustainable Development Report, scientific articles)	4 h
4	Analysis of the interdependencies between SDG 2 and the assigned SDG, selection of ideas, preparation of visual materials	3 h
5	Public presentation of results, collective brainstorming, debates, and interactive feedback	4 h
Total		14 h

Source: an original table produced by the authors.

.

The activity was carried out entirely in student teams and flexibly organized depending on the total number of participants. Teams were composed of 3 to 4 students.

In addition, teams that expressed interest and desire to get involved had the opportunity to analyze the second pair SDG 2 ↔ SDG X, to reward and indicate appreciation for their willingness towards additional participation.

The main working method was brainstorming, applied in two ways:

• internal brainstorming, within each team, to identify ideas;
• collective brainstorming, during seminars assigned to presentations, after each group’s presentation, when the entire group of students was actively involved in completing, commenting on, and discussing the ideas presented.

The selection of ideas and the formulation of conclusions were carried out in a free but guided manner, encouraging the use of concrete examples, data, case studies, or own observations.

Therefore, the brainstorming activity carried out within each team followed a guided and staged teaching process, so that students could understand and apply the principles of systemic thinking.

In the first phase, team members individually formulated ideas regarding possible links between SDG 2 and the assigned SDG. Subsequently, the ideas were freely discussed within the group, and through consensus or argumentation, the teams selected the most relevant 2–3 ideas, considered essential for the analysis of interdependencies.

After this internal stage, each team organized their ideas in a visual form (diagram, poster, board, presentation), and then, during the public presentation, they could benefit from feedback, additions, and additional ideas from their colleagues and teachers.

This approach was applied in the academic years 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 at University of Life Sciences, King Mihai I’’ from Timisoara, University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, and “Aurel Vlaicu’’ University of Arad, involving two academic generations and thus allowing for an evolutionary elaboration of ideas. The visual schemes presented in Section 4 reflect this iterative collaborative process.

3. Results

3.1. Visual Diagrams for the Main Connections Between SDG 2 and the Other SDGs

One of the most valuable results of the teaching activity carried out within the Food Security subject was the analysis carried out by the students on the interdependencies between SDG 2 and the other SDGs. This activity was designed to stimulate students’ systemic thinking and to develop their capacity for critical analysis and argumentation, starting from the relationships between SDG 2 and the other SDGs, to understanding the complex connections within the entire UN Agenda 2030. For each analysis, students were encouraged to identify and present at least two major directions of influence:

• how SDG 2 contributes to achieving the other SDGs analyzed;
• how that SDG in turn influences food security.

In addition to the synthetic schemes presented above, we consider it relevant to provide a concrete image of the visual results created by the students. Figure 2 presents a collage composed of six authentic posters created within the described practical activity, which reflects how the students understood and represented the interdependencies between SDG 2 and the other SDGs. The posters, developed in Romanian, capture both the creativity and the complexity of the thinking developed by the participants, illustrating the efficiency of the proposed method in stimulating systemic thinking and literacy for sustainability.

Based on the analyses carried out by the students, the authors of this article have developed 16 synthesis schemes, with the aim of clearly and accessibly highlighting the main connections identified between SDG 2 and the other SDGs. Each scheme is accompanied by a short presentation, which explains the essential ideas and the mechanisms of interdependence between the goals. These schemes provide an integrated view of the complexity of the concept of food security and constitute a useful tool both for teaching and for understanding the systemic relationships between SDGs.

3.2. Analysis of the Major Directions of Influence Between SDG 2 and Other SDGs

The analysis carried out within the educational activity revealed that students consistently identified SDG 2 as a central and catalytic goal, interconnected with all dimensions of sustainable development. Their reflections demonstrated a systemic understanding of how food security both influences and is influenced by the economic, social, and environmental pillars of the UN Agenda 2030. The approach stimulated critical thinking and highlighted the relevance of considering food systems in a broader context of sustainability [36,37,38,39].

Students emphasized that food security contributes directly to poverty reduction and improved health outcomes, while also supporting quality education and gender equality by ensuring better access to nutrition and resources [40,41,42]. At the same time, they recognized that improved education and gender equality reinforce food security by promoting informed decisions, sustainable practices, and enhanced economic opportunities. These bidirectional influences confirm the transversal role of SDG 2 as a driver for progress across multiple goals.

From an environmental perspective, students observed that sustainable agricultural practices and responsible resource management play a decisive role in protecting terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, mitigating climate change, and supporting the transition to clean energy [43,44,45,46]. Conversely, the health of ecosystems, climate stability, and access to clean water directly affect the availability and quality of food resources. These interdependencies underline the necessity of integrated strategies to simultaneously achieve SDG 2 and the environmental objectives of the 2030 Agenda.

Economic and social aspects were also strongly represented in students’ analyses. They identified that sustainable food systems support decent work, economic growth, innovation, and resilient infrastructure, while equitable policies and reduced inequalities facilitate access to food and strengthen social cohesion [47,48,49,50,51,52,53]. Furthermore, strong institutions, peace, and effective governance were seen as essential for guaranteeing food security, while food security itself contributes to social stability and institutional trust [13,41].

The connections identified by students are illustrated in

Table 2. Main interconnections between SDG 2: Zero Hunger and other SDGs identified by students and supported by the literature.

Influence of SDG2 on Other SDGs	SDG	Influence of SDGs on SDG2	Key References
- Improves access to affordable food and lowers household expenses. - Creates rural jobs through sustainable agriculture.		- Poverty reduction increases access to nutritious food. - Promotes dietary diversity.	[4,11,36,37,54]
- Adequate nutrition prevents malnutrition and lifestyle related diseases. - Supports population health.		- Healthy populations are more productive. - Sustains food production.	[4,5,8,13]
- Improved nutrition enhances cognitive development. - Supports educational performance.		- Education increases awareness of healthy diets. - Promotes sustainable practices.	[7,36,38,39,40]
- Food security reduces vulnerability of women and girls. - Empowers women economically.		- Gender equality improves nutrition decisions. - Ensures sustainable resource management.	[4,5,7,32,41,42]
- Sustainable agriculture protects water quality. - Promotes efficient water use.		- Access to clean water supports agricultural production. - Improves food safety.	[39,43,44]
- Clean energy supports agricultural productivity. - Reduces food loss.		- Agriculture provides bioenergy sources. - Supports clean energy transition.	[33,45,46]
- Sustainable agriculture creates jobs. - Supports rural development.		- Economic growth increases household income. - Improves access to food.	[7,40,46,47,48,49]
- Infrastructure reduces food loss. - Enhances market access.		- Innovation supports efficient food systems. - Ensures climate resilience.	[6,7,13,51]
- Food security narrows social gaps. - Ensures equal food access.		- Reduced inequalities improve access to food. - Strengthens public services.	[7,52]
- Urban agriculture enhances food resilience. - Local markets support community food systems.		- Sustainable urban planning improves food access. - Reduces food waste.	[55,56]
- Reduces food loss and waste. - Promotes resource efficiency.		- Sustainable production protects the environment. - Creates conditions for long term food security.	[5,6,7,30]
- Climate smart agriculture mitigates emissions. - Adapts food systems to climate change.		- Stable climate conditions secure crop yields. - Support food availability.	[4,7,43]
- Sustainable fisheries supply essential proteins. - Aquaculture supports food availability.		- Healthy marine ecosystems secure food resources. - Prevent pollution impacts on food chains.	[7,41,43]
- Agroecological practices protect biodiversity. - Maintain soil and habitat health.		- Healthy ecosystems support agriculture. - Enhance food security.	[1,7,41]
- Food security reduces conflict risks. - Builds institutional trust.		- Strong institutions ensure equitable food access. - Support sustainable food systems.	[1,7,40,41]
- Partnerships mobilize resources. - Facilitate expertise to combat hunger.		- Achieving food security fosters collaborations. - Supports global sustainable development.	[7,41,43]

, which presents the main interdependencies between SDG 2 and the other SDGs, as identified by students and supported by key references from the literature.

These findings illustrate not only the depth of students’ understanding but also the effectiveness of the innovative educational activity in fostering systemic thinking, sustainability literacy, and ethical reflection on food systems. By integrating these perspectives, the study validates the pedagogical approach as a replicable model for higher education in the context of sustainable development.

3.3. Evaluation of Students’ Perception of the Usefulness and Impact of Educational Activity

To evaluate students’ perception of the effectiveness of the teaching method used, a questionnaire consisting of 10 items was applied to a total of 46 students, representing 92% who passed the exam, out of a total of 50 students who participated in the practical activity within the seminar sessions of the Food Security discipline, in the academic years 2023/2024 and 2024/2025) (Figure 3).

The questionnaire aimed at self-assessment in terms of understanding the SDGs, developing systemic thinking, the impact on food behavior, and the usefulness of the working method.

The most important conclusions resulting from the combined analysis of the responses are:

• Understanding the SDGs and their interdependencies. Almost 76.96% of students gave high scores (4 or 5) for the items regarding understanding the SDGs and the connections between SDG 2 and the other SDGs.
• Efficiency of the working method—practical activities such as teamwork, debates, and the creation of thematic boards were considered attractive and effective by 80.43% of respondents.
• Impact on eating behavior—97.83% of students stated that they pay more attention to their own diet and food waste prevention.
• Development of systemic thinking—items related to the ability to analyze complex issues were evaluated with scores by 93.48% of respondents.

Degree of recommendation—82.61% of students stated that they would recommend this activity to other colleagues, confirming its perceived educational value. It should be noted that these results reflect the self-reported perceptions of students and do not constitute a standardized objective assessment of cognitive change. The consistency of the results demonstrates not only the success of the method but also its potential for transferability to other educational or institutional contexts.

4. Discussion

4.1. General Model of Educational Method

Based on the teaching experience gained in the Food Security disciplines, conducted over two consecutive academic years (2023/2024 and 2024/2025), an innovative educational model adapted to higher education can be proposed, which aims to develop systemic thinking by exploring the interdependencies between the SDGs. This model responds to a pressing need in contemporary education: to train students capable of understanding the complexity of food systems and identifying the connections between the social, economic, environmental, and health dimensions of sustainable development, in the spirit of the UN Agenda 2030.

The educational model is based on a series of fundamental principles that outline an active and participatory learning experience. Students are involved in systemic, multidimensional analyses of global challenges, which they explore collaboratively, in small teams. The learning process includes reasoned debates, the development of creativity and free expression, connecting theory with practical examples, but also stimulating social and food responsibility. The activity carried out does not only aim to accumulate knowledge, but especially aims to form a global awareness and essential skills for active and sustainable citizenship.

A defining element of the method consists of organizing students into working teams, usually consisting of three members. Each team is assigned the task of analyzing the bidirectional relationship between SDG 2 and another objective from the list of SDGs. Depending on the total number of students and the dynamics of the group, this organization can be adapted. Thus, smaller teams (of two people) or larger (of four people) can be formed, and more motivated teams can be proposed to analyze two or even three pairs of objectives. This type of flexibility allows the method to be adapted to the realities of each group, while stimulating active involvement and performance, by appreciating and recognizing the effort made.

The proposed educational path is structured in several successive stages presented in Table 1. An innovative feature of this model is that the central educational process—the analysis of the interdependencies between SDG 2 and other SDGs—generates two categories of results. On the one hand, there are immediate and visible results: the development of analytical, collaborative, and communication skills, the creation of relevant visual products, and the manifestation of changes in attitude even during the activity. On the other hand, deep impact effects are generated, such as the strengthening of systemic thinking, food and social responsibility, and the increase in the capacity to analyze and solve global problems.

This logic of the educational process was schematically represented in Figure 3, to highlight the relationships between input, process, output, and impact, within the proposed method (Figure 4).

A distinctive aspect of the model is the way in which the educational process simultaneously generates two levels of results. First, the activity produces immediate, visible, and tangible results: skills developed during the seminars, visual materials created by students, and positive attitudes towards learning and cooperation. Second, the educational model aims to have a deep impact: the formation of authentic systemic thinking, the awareness of social and food responsibility, and the development of the capacity to understand and address global issues in an integrated and balanced way.

This educational approach offers not only an innovative teaching method, but also a vision of how university education can contribute concretely to the formation of a generation capable of acting in the spirit of sustainability, understanding the complexity of the contemporary world, and their role in shaping the future. The study did not require ethical approval, according to the university regulations of the Bioethics Commission, as the applied questionnaire was completed anonymously, voluntarily, and did not collect personal or sensitive data. The activity had an exclusively didactic purpose, as part of the educational process.

4.2. Originality of the Teaching Method

The educational method analyzed and proposed in this study is distinguished by a high degree of originality, resulting from both its structure and the didactic philosophy that supports it. The central element of innovation consists of the integrated approach to food security (SDG 2) from the perspective of its multiple interdependencies with the other SDGs.

In the specialized literature, teaching SDGs in higher education often focuses on the theoretical presentation of each separate goal [55,56]. The method proposed here shifts the emphasis towards systemic, connectional thinking, and towards stimulating students’ ability to understand the complexity of the relationships between SDGs.

The originality of the method also derives from the concrete method of organization: each team of students analyzes and argues how SDG 2 influences and is influenced by another SDG. Organizational flexibility is also a valuable component, allowing for the adaptation of the number of students in teams (3–4 people), but also the allocation of multiple analyses to the same team, depending on the enthusiasm and desire for involvement shown by the students.

This pedagogical structure generates a double educational effect, namely, on the one hand, the formation of complex and relevant knowledge about the SDGs, and on the other hand, the development of essential transversal skills: critical thinking, teamwork, creativity, argumentation, and social and food responsibility.

The proposed model aligns with international trends in the modernization of university education, promoting active, participatory, and solution-oriented learning for global challenges [1,22].

4.3. Transferability of the Method

One of the main advantages of the proposed educational method lies in its high degree of transferability and adaptability in diverse educational contexts, beyond Food Security or closely related disciplines in Romanian universities.

The flexible structure of the method allows for its implementation:

-

in other universities,

-

within other study programs,

-

in non-formal educational or continuing education contexts.

Practically, any discipline that addresses topics related to sustainability, rural development, agriculture, resource management, public health, circular economy, civic education or the environment can successfully integrate this method of analyzing the interdependencies between SDG 2 and the other SDGs.

Moreover, the methodology is adaptable in the opposite direction: a teacher could propose any other SDG relevant to the taught field as a starting point (for example, SDG 3 or SDG 12) and could stimulate students to explore its interdependencies with the rest of the SDGs.

This capacity for replication and adaptation represents one of the most important qualities of the method, in line with the recommendations of UNESCO and SDSN, which support the integration of systemic thinking and the interconnected approach to the SDGs in all levels and forms of education [1,22].

At the same time, the experience of applying the method for two consecutive academic years has demonstrated that it works effectively even in relatively small groups of students, which gives it versatility and the possibility of being used in educational contexts with limited resources.

The transferability of the method is thus a strong argument for its inclusion in good educational practice guides dedicated to the training of skills for sustainability and the implementation of the UN Agenda 2030 in higher education.

4.4. How It Supports Education for Food Ethics and Sustainability Literacy

The proposed educational method contributes directly and essentially to the formation of fundamental dimensions of education for sustainability, namely food ethics and sustainability literacy.

The concept of food ethics goes far beyond concerns strictly related to nutrition or food production, including critical reflection on how we produce, distribute, consume, and waste food [7]. Analyzing the interdependencies between SDG 2 and the other SDGs allowed students not only to understand the complexity of food security, but also to ask questions related to equity, social justice, respect for resources, and individual responsibility.

On the other hand, sustainability literacy involves the ability to understand complex global issues, make connections between phenomena, analyze multiple impacts, and propose sustainable solutions [1,57]. These are precisely the skills that were stimulated and practiced in the practical activities carried out.

An extremely valuable element of the method is that it transforms SDG 2 from a simple theoretical objective into a starting point for a broader reflection on how food is at the intersection of economy, ecology, health, social justice, peace, education, or good institutional practices.

Furthermore, the results of the student perception assessment clearly show that this approach also had an impact on individual eating behaviors:

-

increased attention to diet;

-

reducing food waste;

-

understanding one’s own role in the global food chain.

Also, question Q10 in the questionnaire was analyzed as an element of evaluating the educational activity, and not as an indicator of the students’ personal attitudes or behaviors, as it aims at the general appreciation of the proposed method.

These results are in line with the literature, which argues that the formation of food ethics and sustainable awareness cannot be achieved through the transmission of information alone, but requires active involvement, analysis, reflection, and practical exercises [4,22].

The proposed method thus demonstrates an extremely valuable educational potential for training future professionals and citizens capable of thinking and acting in the spirit of sustainability and food responsibility.

4.5. The Connection of the Method with the Educational Needs of the Future

The educational method analyzed in this study directly responds to the challenges and needs of future education, as defined in international strategic documents [1,58].

The current world is facing a dual educational challenge, namely the need to develop skills specific to sustainable development (green competences), fostering the ability to respond to ecological, food and social transitions, as well as the development of essential transversal skills in the context of global complexity: critical thinking, systemic thinking, problem-solving capacity, collaboration and creativity [59,60].

In this context, the proposed teaching method aligns perfectly with the vision of future education, contributing to the development of the following: future skills identified as priorities:

• Systems thinking and the ability to understand global interdependencies;
• Literacy for sustainability (sustainability literacy);
• Food ethics and responsibility towards resources;
• Communication, argumentation, and collaboration skills;
• Creativity and visual expression;
• Understanding the complexity of food systems.

Moreover, the proposed method corresponds excellently to what UNESCO defines as transformative education—that is, education capable of not just transmitting information, but of transforming the way students understand the world, and their own roles and responsibilities [7].

The European Commission also highlights that green competences should not be limited to environmental disciplines or specialized programs but should be integrated in a cross-curricular manner into all forms of education, including food education, rural development, and resource management [59,60,61,62].

The teaching model proposed in this case study demonstrates that food security education can become an extremely effective tool for training these skills of the future, building solid bridges between knowledge, attitude, and responsible action.

4.6. Limitations, Shortcomings, and Opportunities for Future Development

Like any educational approach, the method proposed in this study presents both obvious strengths and certain limitations, which must be recognized, and which open up valuable perspectives for future developments [63,64,65,66,67,68].

One of the main limitations of the research is the relatively small size of the group of students involved. The activity was applied for two consecutive academic years, but the total number of participants was 46 students, which restricts, to a certain extent, the generalizability of the results.

At the same time, the application of the method was carried out within didactic disciplines dedicated to food security and in a specific educational context. Therefore, it is necessary to extend the testing of the method in other educational contexts, as well as in more universities or within other study programs, to be able to further validate its efficiency and general applicability, which was noted in the presented study.

Another important limitation concerns the nature of the data collected. The evaluation was mainly based on a structured questionnaire, completed anonymously and voluntarily by students, on paper, without including any personal, sensitive, or identifying data, without the use of complementary qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus groups. Although this approach provided useful information on students’ perceptions, the exclusive use of self-reported quantitative responses introduces a degree of subjectivity. However, the consistency of responses recorded over two consecutive academic years lends credibility to the findings and supports the educational relevance of the work carried out [69,70,71].

The future development prospects of the method are multiple and valuable:

• expanding its application in international contexts, with students from other cultures and educational backgrounds;
• using the method starting from other SDGs, depending on specifics of different disciplines;
• integrating digital methods, interactive platforms or multimedia resources to facilitate analyses;
• conducting longitudinal research to investigate the long-term effects on students’ dietary and environmental behaviors;
• developing a guide to good educational practices, including detailed methodology and examples of results from student work.

Therefore, the proposed method demonstrates an extremely valuable educational potential, but equally leaves generous space for future adaptations, improvements, and expansions, in the spirit of transformative education for sustainability.

5. Conclusions

The present study demonstrated the efficiency and relevance of an innovative educational method, based on the analysis of the interdependencies between SDG 2 and the other SDGs, within the teaching activities carried out with students.

The results obtained in two consecutive academic years confirmed not only an in-depth understanding of the SDGs issue and systemic thinking but also a concrete impact on student’s attitudes and behaviors.

The proposed method deserves to be expanded and adapted within other universities, study programs, or disciplines due to its flexibility, potential for customization, and its formative value in developing transversal skills essential for the future.

Recommendations for teachers and higher education institutions aim to integrate this method into existing curricula, diversify application methods, stimulate critical and systemic thinking, as well as encourage social and food responsibility among students.

In a world marked by increasingly complex global challenges, education for sustainable development, based on the analysis of the interdependencies between the SDGs, becomes not only a valuable didactic option, but a strategic necessity for training future generations of professionals and responsible citizens.

In the context of the multiple global crises that the contemporary world is facing—food, ecological, social, economic—university education takes on an essential responsibility: that of overcoming the limits of information transmission and actively contributing to the formation of an ethical and sustainable conscience among the younger generations.

In-depth and systemic knowledge of the SDGs, the interdependencies between them and the institutions that coordinate the implementation of the UN Agenda 2030 is becoming a fundamental competence for any future professional. Understanding how the world functions as an interconnected global system, in which individual decisions influence entire communities, living environments, and future generations, is an essential condition for building an equitable and sustainable future.

Moreover, education for sustainability cannot exist without an education for ethics—not just food ethics, but ethics in a broader sense:

-

environmental ethics;

-

ethics towards natural resources;

-

ethics towards other people, regardless of space, culture, or generation;

-

ethics towards the human condition itself, in its fragility and dignity;

-

ethics towards those who will come after us—future generations.

This is, in fact, the deepest mission of university education in the 21st century: to train not just competent specialists, but good, responsible people, aware of their place in the world and of the role they have in building a common, safer, fairer, and more harmonious future, both for people and for nature.

Such education, anchored in systemic knowledge, critical thinking, and solid ethical values, represents the safest investment for a sustainable future.