Exploring Nutrition and Agri-Food Educators’ Knowledge of Food Sustainability: Insights Addressing Sustainability Education

Abstract

Education is pivotal in shaping a future geared toward climate neutrality and cultivating agents of change capable of addressing sustainability challenges. Educators’ understanding of food sustainability influences how effectively it is integrated into educational programs. This study examined the knowledge and understanding of food sustainability among nutrition and agri-food educators in Europe as part of a joint European-funded project (2023-1-IE01-KA220-VET-00156916: Train to Sustain). After ethical approval, a survey was distributed to educators in Ireland, Slovenia, Poland, and Italy. Data were analysed using qualitative and quantitative methods. Of the 123 educators who participated, 81% agreed they fully understood “food sustainability,” and 97% believed it is important to include it in education, yet only 62% reported that it was currently taught in their programs. This reveals a gap between perceived importance and implementation. The data also offered insights into how educators understand food sustainability across environmental, economic, social, cultural, and food security dimensions and how these are incorporated into teaching and awareness raising. Three themes were identified: (1) understanding sustainable food systems, (2) sustainable resource management, and (3) educating for food security and resilience. Participants emphasised environmentally friendly food practices, often linked to zero waste goals. The qualitative findings underscored the importance of societal access to healthy food, focusing on food security. However, references to economic and cultural aspects of sustainability were limited, suggesting a potential gap in educators’ understanding. This study highlights the need for educators to possess comprehensive knowledge of food sustainability to advance education and address climate and sustainability challenges.

1. Introduction

The global food system faces two major challenges: reducing its significant environmental impact while also ensuring sufficient food to feed a growing population. Sustainable food practices concern not only environmental sustainability but also the rising rates of nutrition related disease and persistent food security. These complex and often conflicting challenges highlight the urgent need for systemic transformation across the food sector. Recent research conceptualises food sustainability as a multifaceted issue, requiring simultaneous shifts in production practices, consumption behaviours, and governance structures. For instance, Pryor et al. [1] emphasises the interconnectedness of health, equity, and environmental goals in agri-food systems. Similarly, transition-focused studies [2,3] frame food system transformation as a long-term, multi-level process requiring coordinated innovation and policy realignment.

Consequently, UNESCO’s Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) 2020, a central element of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and its integration across higher and further education has become a top priority. It recognises the significant impact both the learning content and environment has on producing a generation of professionals with the necessary knowledge, skills and competencies required to develop a sustainable food system [4,5]. In line with the goals of UNESCO’s ESD, building educator capacity is essential to cultivating “transformative change agents” equipped to embed sustainability principles into curricula and prepare graduates to address the complex challenges of the agri-food sector. Knowledge gaps particularly in the economic and cultural dimensions of food sustainability can limit educators’ ability to foster competencies aligned with SDGs such as SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). Equipping educators to teach critical thinking, systems analysis, and conscious consumption is therefore central to enabling graduates to make a transformative impact on sustainable food systems [4].

Current pedagogical methods and curriculum content within agri-food programs are widely regarded as inadequate in preparing students to effectively address the complex challenges facing the sector [6]. However, these inadequacies offer valuable opportunities for further education institutions and educators to review and revise both the curriculum, and the pedagogical approaches used to deliver food sustainability education. For example, integrating teaching methods such as systems thinking in food sustainability education can help students visualise the interconnected nature of the food chain and evaluate how different decisions impact each part [7]. Moreover, experiential learning and collective action-based projects facilitate collaborative knowledge exchange between educators and students while cultivating the necessary skills and competencies for preparing graduates who can advance the sustainability of food systems [8,9].

However, the extent to which food sustainability is embedded within agri-food curricula, along with the adoption of these effective pedagogical approaches is largely influenced by the individual educator, who has a pivotal role in equipping students with the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes required to understand complex concepts of food sustainability and apply these in real-world contexts [4]. A key determinant of these pedagogical practices is the educator’s own understanding and interpretation of food sustainability, which shapes not only curriculum content but also the development of student competencies in sustainable food systems. Food sustainability is widely recognised as a multidimensional concept encompassing environmental, social, economic, and cultural dimensions [5,6]. The environmental dimension refers to resource efficiency, ecological resilience, and environmental stewardship. The social dimension includes issues such as labour rights, equity, and access to nutritious food. The economic dimension concerns the viability and resilience of food-related livelihoods, market structures, and value chains. The cultural dimension encompasses food traditions, indigenous knowledge, and culturally appropriate dietary practices, often overlooked but central to food sovereignty and education [6,7]. These four dimensions formed the analytical framework for this study, guiding both the design of the research instruments and the interpretation of findings. Each dimension represents a critical area of educator knowledge required to deliver integrated and systems-based food sustainability education.

In the context of adapting education, particularly within agri-food and nutrition programs, educators face the dual challenge of teaching both technical content and fostering critical sustainability competencies. While institutional support, student attitudes, and broader educational goals all influence how food sustainability is taught, educator knowledge and confidence remain especially pivotal. According to the FAO’s food security framework, achieving sustainable food systems requires a balance of ecological sustainability, economic viability, and social equity [5]. Klassen and Wittman [6] further emphasise that local food systems must be understood through an integrated lens that includes cultural and place-based knowledge. Therefore, educator understanding that neglects the economic or cultural dimensions risks reinforcing fragmented approaches to food sustainability education. By embedding all four dimensions, educators can support systems thinking and critical engagement with the complexity of real-world food systems. As outlined in UNESCO’s ESD Roadmap, educators play a pivotal role in cultivating “transformative change agents” who are capable of addressing interconnected sustainability challenges [4].

Ralph and Stubbs [8] highlight how educator’ own understanding directly impacts the successful integration of sustainability into teaching. Similarly, a lack of educator expertise has been identified by Harmon et al. [9] and Higgins et al. [10] as a primary barrier to embedding sustainability within learning environments. As UNESCO [4] notes, developing such change agents requires not only content knowledge but also the ability to apply sustainability principles across interlinked systems.

Compounding this challenge is the lack of a universal definition of sustainability [11] particularly withing educational contexts. Sustainability remains a contested and ambiguously defined concept, which hampers its integration into education frameworks. Uggla [12] identifies the lack of a unified definition as a primary barrier to embedding sustainability across education institutes, contributing to inconsistent pedagogical practices and fragmented curricula. Dziubaniuk et al. [13] highlight how the lack of a shared understanding of sustainability leads to misalignment between institutional strategy and curriculum design. A recent systematic review of Sustainability Literacy and Environmental Literacy further documents overlapping and inconsistently used educational labels (e.g., ESD, sustainability education, environmental education), reinforcing the need for clearer conceptual scaffolding and shared outcome frameworks if graduates are to engage effectively with complex sustainability challenges [14]. This diversity of perspectives highlights the need for a standardised and cohesive approach for embedding sustainability into education.

Despite the significant impact educator knowledge and understanding of food sustainability has on curriculum content, pedagogical approaches and subsequent graduate knowledge and skill development, limited research exists among further education food sustainability educators on how they define food sustainability and in what way this impacts their teaching practice. Understanding these perspectives is essential for designing professional development, curriculum reform, and institutional strategies that promote sustainability across the agri-food education sector. This theoretical framing, grounded in the FAO’s food security framework [5], Klassen and Wittman’s [6] local food systems perspective, and UNESCO’s ESD Roadmap [4], highlights why integrating environmental, social, economic, and cultural dimensions into educator knowledge is critical for building graduates’ capacity to act as change agents.

Consequently, this study aimed to (1) explore agri-food and nutrition educators understanding of food sustainability and (2) examine how these perspectives, and attitudes influence their pedagogical practices. In the context of food sustainability education, gaps in educators’ knowledge particularly regarding economic and cultural dimensions may diminish the ability of developing pedagogy to cultivate agents capable of engaging with SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) [4]. Through a more comprehensive approach that integrates all four dimensions of sustainability, educators can more effectively enable learners to act across scales from individual behaviours to systemic transformation. Establishing a baseline understanding of agri-food and nutrition current awareness and perceptions will help identify opportunities for more comprehensive integration of sustainability principles into agri-food and nutrition curricula. This, in turn, can support the development of educators who are equipped to foster graduates capable of advancing environmentally responsible and resilient food systems [15].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This study was a joint Erasmus KA2 European funded project led by the Atlantic Technological University, Galway, Ireland and partnered with The Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori Toscana (CIA, Toscana), Italy, The Biotehniski Center Naklo, Slovenia and The Education Agency for Development and Innovation (IDEA), Łomza, Poland, (2023-1-IE01-KA220-VET-00156916: Train to Sustain). A survey was designed by the research team to assess the knowledge and understanding of food sustainability among nutrition and agri-food educators across Europe. This approach was selected for its mixed-method capacity, incorporating both closed and open-ended questions to generate quantitative data and rich qualitative insights. Survey designs that integrate both formats are commonly used in sustainability education research to capture both breadth and depth [16].

2.2. Participants

Given the specific focus and exploratory nature of the study, the maximum variation sampling technique was based on the idea of information power, and a moderate sample size and selection criteria was judged sufficient by the research team based on prior similar studies in sustainability education and the project’s qualitative orientation. The project research team aimed to recruit a minimum of 30 educators (lecturers, trainers, and academic staff) in agri-food and nutrition disciplines across the four project partner countries (Ireland, Italy, Poland, and Slovenia). Moreover, the diversity within and across the four national contexts enhances the analytical generalisability of the findings. Rather than aiming for statistical generalisation, the study sought to generate transferable insights through the inclusion of multiple educator perspectives. Initial participants were identified through project partner organisations, and further recruitment was conducted using relevant databases, professional networks, and communities of practice. To enhance sample diversity and outreach, promotional materials were also disseminated via project social media platforms, including X and LinkedIn. Participation was anonymous, and all data were collected in accordance with ethical research guidelines. Each partner institution was responsible for collecting a minimum of 30 completed responses, and the data were subsequently analysed by the lead research team at Atlantic Technological University using thematic analysis to identify key patterns and insights.

2.3. Survey Development and Structure

To ensure quality, validity, and contextual relevance, the survey was developed with reference to previously validated instruments in the fields of agri-food and nutrition sustainability. The survey included both open- and closed-ended questions and was designed to take approximately 15 min to complete. Prior to participation, respondents were provided with a participant information sheet, including details on the project and an informed consent statement. The final version of the survey consisted of three distinct sections designed to gather a comprehensive understanding of participants’ backgrounds and their knowledge of food sustainability. The first section focused on demographic and professional information, including variables such as gender, country of residence, job title, and the educational programmes taught by participants. The second section explored participants’ knowledge and conceptual understanding of sustainability, incorporating Likert-scale items (ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”) alongside open-ended questions aimed at assessing familiarity with sustainability principles and awareness of food sustainability practices across various domains. The third section sought to capture participants’ perceptions and priorities regarding key aspects of food sustainability. The questionnaire ensured participant anonymity and included both open- and closed-ended formats, with a particular emphasis on rating scales and some multiple-choice questions related to curriculum content and teaching areas [15].

2.4. Data Collection and Analysis

Each partner collated a minimum of 30 participants responses and the lead research team at Atlantic Technological University (ATU) conducted a thematic analysis of the data, as described by Braun and Clarke [17]. Following data collection and cleaning, the open-ended survey responses were compiled and analysed using a deductive thematic analysis approach, guided by Braun and Clarke’s six-phase framework [17]. In Phase 1, the research team familiarised themselves with the dataset by reading all responses multiple times and making preliminary ideas and recurring language patterns. During Phase 2, initial codes were generated by highlighting significant textual elements that aligned with the study’s aims. Segments of text relevant to educators’ definitions, perceptions and understanding of food sustainability were coded. The codes were then compared and refined collaboratively to form a coding framework. Any discrepancies in interpretation were resolved through collaborative discussion within the ATU’s research team to ensure consistency. In Phase 3, the coded data were sorted into potential sub-themes, facilitating the identification of patterns within the responses. The team had several analysis meetings to map how different educator responses converged or diverged across themes. Sub-themes were developed when distinct but related patterns were identified within a broader theme. For example, under “understanding sustainable food systems,” five sub-themes were identified because participants consistently raised five conceptually distinct aspects (e.g., environmental impact, local food systems, nutrition, cultural dimensions, and teaching challenges). The decision to retain these as five sub-themes was based on their recurrence and analytic distinctiveness, rather than on a predetermined structure. The research team then reviewed these themes in Phase 4, assessing their internal coherence and relevance to the dataset, and constructed a thematic map to visualise the relationships among themes. Phase 5 involved defining and refining the themes supported by illustrative quotations, clarifying their scope and focus, and preparing them for the final stage of analysis. In Phase 6, a comprehensive analysis was conducted by reviewing all data extracts within each theme to ensure alignment with the research objectives. To improve analytical clarity and transparency, a detailed directory of main themes linked to subthemes was developed (

Table 1. Developed themes, subthemes, sample codes and example quotes.

Theme	Sub-Theme No.	Sub-Theme	Sample Codes	Exemplar Quotes
Understanding sustainable food systems	1	Conscious and Ethical consumption	Ethical food production; conscious consumption	“considering the social and ethical implications of our food choices”; “ethical working conditions”; “high animal welfare”
	2	Sustainable agricultural practices	Organic farming; upcycling practices; crop rotation	“Composting, farmland irrigation”; “I am familiar with crop rotation to maintain soil health, organic farming to reduce chemical use, and agroforestry to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services.”
	3	Whole food system thinking	Sustainable food production; environmentally friendly; self-sufficiency	“Sustainable food production and processing”; “producing food in a way that protects our planet (people, animals, natural environment)”
	4	Food waste reduction	Food waste management	“Avoid throwing away food”; “Try not to waste food and natural resources”; “Respect for work, waste reduction and when possible reuse of waste”; “Reducing food waste”
	5	Local food sustainability practices	Local food sourcing; locally grown food; supporting local and seasonal food; community garden	“Foraging method, use of local and seasonal ingredients”; “buying from local food suppliers”; “Farm-to-table initiatives: Partnering with local farmers and producers to source fresh, seasonal ingredients directly”; “school eco garden”
Sustainable resource management	1	Sustainable material use	Raw materials; sustainable packaging; reusable packaging; reducing plastic	“Minimising packaging waste by using recyclable, compostable, or biodegradable materials, as well as implementing strategies to reduce packaging weight and volume”; “Sustainable use of raw materials, minimising the use of additives”; “development of products made from recycled materials, no excess packaging”; “Biodegradable packaging”
	2	Energy conservation and renewable energy use	Energy conservation; water management; renewable energy	“Careful management of water and soil resources. Reduction of energy consumption and reduction of chemical synthesis inputs”; “saving energy, switching to renewable energy, saving water”
Educating for food security and resilience	1	Experiential learning	Practical learning; hands-on learning; project-based learning; collaborative learning	“Use of practical examples: Teachers can use real examples such as visiting a farm, preparing local dishes or analysing food labels”; “hands on activities such as farm visits”; “Incorporate hands-on projects in sustainable agriculture such as implementing a composting system to manage organic waste—apply their knowledge to practical farming challenges.”
	2	Food security	Future food; access to food	“Creating a food system that can nourish current and future generations while respecting the finite resources of our planet”; “Availability of or access to safe and varied food (as locally produced as possible) in the future”; “ensuring the production and availability of healthy, nutritious food for all”; “produce and have available healthy food resources for all”; “managing food availability in a fair and just way”
	3	Food sustainability awareness	Education; awareness; communication	“Education and awareness programs: Integrating food sustainability topics into the curriculum to raise awareness among students about the environmental, social, and economic impacts of their food choices and practices”; “Teaching and awareness-raising on the subject”; “Raise awareness of SDGs and educate on current research literature”

, with representative participant quotations organised accordingly. The exemplar quotations included in Table 1 are illustrative of how participants expressed each sub-theme; they are not exhaustive and, in some cases, reflect multiple related issues where participants linked concepts together within a single response. This supported the iterative refinement of theme boundaries and contributed to the clarity and credibility of the final analysis and interpretation. This analytic approach aligns with that used in a previous study exploring food sustainability practices in the European food industry [18] allowing for methodological consistency across related research.

In addition to the qualitative data collected through the survey, a small amount of quantitative data was gathered through closed-ended survey items. These included basic demographic questions (e.g., gender, job title), see

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of survey participants.

	Group	Frequency	Percentage%
Gender	Male	39	32%
	Female	82	66%
	Non-Binary	0	0%
	Prefer not to say	2	2%
Country of Residence	Ireland (including Northern Ireland)	25	20%
	Italy	34	28%
	Slovenia	30	24%
	Poland	34	28%
Job Title	Educator (i.e., Teacher, Lecturer)	103	84%
	Research	2	2%
	Other (i.e., Experts)	18	14%

, as well as Likert-scale items exploring whether educators felt they understood the term food sustainability and how important they perceived it to be in teaching. The quantitative data were analysed descriptively using Microsoft Excel ((Version 2507 Build 16.0.19029.20136) to calculate simple percentages. These results were not used for statistics but served to contextualise and support the interpretation of the qualitative findings, facilitating a more nuanced interpretation of the open-ended responses.

3. Results

A total of 123 educators in agri-food and nutrition completed the survey across four countries Ireland (including responses from Northern Ireland) (n = 25), Poland (n = 34), Italy (n = 34) and Slovenia (n = 30). Quantative analysis indicated participation from both male and female participants (n = 39 and n = 82, respectively) with two participants preferring not to disclose their gender (Table 1). When asked whether they fully understood the meaning of the term “food sustainability,”33% of respondents strongly agreed, 48% agreed, 12% were neutral, and 7% disagreed. In response to the question “How important do you think it is to teach food sustainability?”, 52% of participants considered it extremely important, 45% somewhat important, and 4% selected neutral. Participants were also asked whether the programmes they currently teach include content on food sustainability. In response, 63% answered Yes, 25% said No, 5% were unsure, and 7% reported it was rarely included.

The analysis identified three main themes: (1) Understanding sustainable food systems, (2) Sustainable resource management and (3) Educating for food security and resilience. Understanding sustainable food systems was further broken down into five sub-themes: Conscious and Ethical consumption, Sustainable agricultural practices, Whole food system thinking, Food waste reduction, and Local food sustainability practices. The second theme composed of two subthemes including Sustainable material use and Energy Conservation and renewable energy use. The final theme contained three sub-themes: Experiential learning, Food security, and Food sustainability awareness.

3.1. Understanding Sustainable Food Systems

Participants in this study demonstrated an informed awareness of conscious and ethical consumption referencing the importance of selecting food that is “ethically produced, produced in an environmentally friendly way”. Educators highlighted the role of informed food choices in contributing to both individual well-being and the broader ecological impact of consumption. An awareness of the ethical and social aspects of food sustainability was considered when using terms such as “Produce in an ethical and environmentally friendly way without exploitation of labour”. Other participants referred to “respect for work”, which implied a valuing of human labour and an acknowledgment of the individuals involved in food production processes. References to “animal welfare” also featured within this sub-theme, though less frequently.

In relation to sustainable agricultural practices, educators conveyed a general broad understanding of sustainable agricultural practices linking them to familiar concepts such as “Organic and eco-friendly farming, local production, processing and sale”. Participants mentioned practices such as “crop rotation”, “organic farming”, and “vertical farming”, reflecting surface level knowledge of sustainable methods. There were limited references made to “soil conservation and regeneration” and “reducing chemical use”.

Educators demonstrated a somewhat limited connection with the concept of the food system as an interconnected whole. While some references were made to sustainability elements such as “food that is environmentally friendly,” “ecological food,” and the “environmental aspect of food processing, self-sufficiency,” these responses tended to reflect isolated components of the food system. More holistic responses that encapsulated broader connections within the food system such as “producing food in a way that protects our planet (people, animals, natural environment)” and “minimising food waste, sourcing ingredients responsibly, supporting local and sustainable agriculture, and considering the social and ethical implications of our food choices” were limited within the overall dataset.

Educators consistently identified food waste reduction as a key component of sustainable food practice. References such as “minimising food waste”, “no food waste”, “reduction of food waste”, and “activities to reduce food waste” appeared across multiple responses and across all four countries and were described as being implemented in practice within their educational settings. Participants discussed food waste management in relation to various stages of the food system, including production, consumption, and reuse. One participant described efforts such as “implementing measures to minimise food waste throughout food preparation and service, such as proper portion control, composting organic waste, and utilising food scraps creatively.”

Local food sustainability practices featured dominantly across participant responses. Educators referenced the importance of sourcing local ingredients and supporting local and seasonal produce as part of sustainable food systems. Phrases such as “sourcing ingredients responsibly, supporting local and sustainable agriculture”, “buying from local food suppliers”, “short food supply chains”, and “sustainable locally sourced and seasonal ingredients “were commonly used across the full dat set. Many educators also described initiatives in their organisations that promoted community engagement such as “production of local and seasonal crops, urban gardening”, “community gardens”, “growing a garden according to the seasons”, “teaching school herb garden”, “school eco garden”, and “ student food bank”.

3.2. Sustainable Resource Management

Educators demonstrated a moderate level of awareness regarding the use of sustainable materials in food production and processing. One participant highlighted the “sustainable use of raw materials…using sustainable packaging materials…working with sustainable suppliers…reducing carbon footprint” indicating their knowledge of integrating sustainable materials across the different stages of the food system. Other responses referred to the implementation of sustainable food practices in education and industry settings “implementing sustainable packaging solutions to reduce environment impact”, “…sustainable materials for school meals”, “reduce packaging”, and “biodegradable food containers”. Participants also showed familiarity with recyclable and compostable practices as seen in responses such as “development of products made from recycled materials, no excess packaging”, “implementing composting initiatives” and “composting organic waste”. Educators also made reference to the importance of using sustainable inputs “organic raw materials”, “seasonal raw materials”, “leftover raw materials”, and “minimising the use of additives”.

“The responsible use of energy and natural resources” was widely referenced across the dataset. Educators referred to the importance of integrating renewable energy sources into food production and processing, with terms such as “use of renewable energy,” “green energy for production,” and “cooperative management of low energy sources” appearing throughout responses. In relation to water management, participants referenced “water conservation” and “reuse of water” as key sustainability practices. One educator elaborated on this by describing the use of “water-saving irrigation techniques in agricultural projects and practices” and the promotion of “energy efficient practices”. Another educator offered a practical example, highlighting “storing rainwater and using it to irrigate the vegetable garden” as well as “composting” to conserve resources and reduce waste. A smaller number of participants also made reference to energy recovery and circular practices, with examples such as the “reuse of waste for energy production.”

3.3. Educating for Food Security and Resilience

Educators made reference to a variety of teaching methods used to engage students with food sustainability content. References were made to approaches such as “good practice examples”, “case studies”, “collaborative learning”, “project based learning” and “incorporating food sustainability in curricula”. However, the most commonly referenced method centered on experiential learning through practical, hands-on activities. Examples of experiential learning included “during cooking practical sessions, we aim to minimise food waste and enhance use of sustainable food products”, and we “incorporate hands-on projects in sustainable agriculture such as implementing a composting system to manage organic waste”. Other educators described “hands-on learning experiences through farm visits or community gardens”, “experiential teaching in the field” and opportunities where “students participate in conferences”. Additional strategies included “field trips to local farms or sustainable food businesses”, “interactive simulation” and “expert speeches”, suggesting a broad application of experiential learning techniques.

While not all participants used the term “food security” explicitly, several made reference to related issues such as “creating a food system that can nourish current and future generations”, and “access to safe and varied food (as locally produced as possible) in the future”. Participants referred to “future food protection” and “safeguarding future food” and referenced the “affordability” and access to “student food banks” and “community gardens”. Educators referenced the concept of access to nutritious food using phrases such as “equitable food access” and “availability of healthy nutritious foods for all.” References to the stability of the food system were also present, including statements such as “being able to meet current needs without compromising the resources that future generations will need” and “resource conservation for future generations.”

The need to raise awareness about food sustainability was mentioned across many educator responses. Several participants advocated for improvements to curricula and sustainable practices within their organisations. One educator stated the importance of “integrating food sustainability topics into the curriculum to raise awareness among students about the environmental, social, and economic impacts of their food choices and practices.” Others described existing initiatives to promote awareness, including the “celebration of Earth Day, Water Day, World Food Day” and “educational campaigns… to raise awareness and practices among staff and students.” Additional comments included “teaching and awareness-raising on the subject” and the need to “raise awareness of food waste and sustainability issues.” Some participants noted current limitations, with one stating there was “limited awareness on this,” and another describing ongoing efforts by “researching and advocating for the integration of food sustainability principles into our institution’s practices in the future.”

4. Discussion

This study examined the current knowledge, perspectives, and attitudes of agri-food and nutrition educators toward teaching food sustainability across four European project partner countries: Ireland, Slovenia, Poland, and Italy. The discussed findings not only describe the patterns observed but also consider potential mechanisms that may explain why certain knowledge gaps or emphases arise. Drawing on relevant literature, policy frameworks, and the context of sustainability education, the data suggest that disciplinary background, curriculum design, teacher training, and policy priorities may shape educators’ understandings of food sustainability. The findings provide a nuanced understanding of how educators conceptualise food sustainability and the extent to which these concepts are embedded in educational practices. While participants expressed confidence in their understanding of food sustainability and recognised its importance in education, their knowledge appeared to be stronger in relation to the environmental and social dimensions, with comparatively less emphasis on the economic aspects of sustainability. This perspective is consistent with the environmental emphasis often found in sustainability education [19].

Educators largely associated food sustainability with environmentally friendly practices, focusing on conscious and ethical consumption, sustainable agricultural practices and food waste management. Nikravech et al. [20], reporting on The Food Waste Lab intervention, demonstrated that participants embraced environmental thinking after an extended experiential education programme and were able to associate food waste with its environmental impact, such as CO₂ emissions linked to production, transportation, or consumption. Recent studies continue to reinforce the importance of education in shaping food waste behaviours. For example, a 2024 assessment of school-based interventions found that approaches such as plate-waste feedback, pedagogic meals, and kitchen workshops can significantly influence student waste reduction practices [21]. Similarly, an experimental study of information-based campaigns showed measurable impacts on consumer food waste behaviour [22]. In addition, awareness campaigns among university students in China have demonstrated how targeted communication strategies can shift food-related behaviours [23]. While these studies highlight learner outcomes, this emphasises the upstream role of educator knowledge and confidence in creating the curricular foundation necessary for embedding such practices sustainably.

Conscious consumers are understood to be those who seek to balance personal satisfaction with ecological and social responsibility, while considering the long-term effects of their actions on future generations and the planet [24]. Embedding the principles of conscious consumption within food sustainability education represents a constructive progression, especially when educators are equipped with the relevant knowledge and tools to effectively convey these concepts. In relation to sustainable agricultural practices, educators predominantly highlighted familiar methods such as crop rotation and regenerative farming, while making limited reference to more technologically advanced approaches. This suggests that such advanced practices may fall beyond the current scope of educators’ expertise or experience. This gap in technical knowledge and competence could have significant implications for the agri-food sector, particularly if graduates are not adequately prepared with the skills required to address emerging sustainability challenges.

Additionally, while a few educators in this study demonstrated whole system thinking recognising the interconnectedness of production, consumption, waste, and justice, this holistic understanding was not widespread. This gap reflects broader concerns in the literature that education often addresses sustainability in siloed ways, rather than through integrated food systems perspectives [25,26]. This lack of whole system thinking among educators is particularly notable and has significant implications for curriculum design and learning outcomes. Graduates of this teaching may lack the ability to critically assess or innovate within food systems and the skills needed to engage with complex sustainability challenges or collaborate across sectors. It also presents a challenge meeting the targets of SDG 4.7, which emphasises equipping learners with the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes necessary for sustainable development [27]. This highlights the need for access to relevant continuous professional development and institutional support that empowers educators to adapt current curricula and incorporate a system approach to food sustainability.

Educators showed varying degrees of understanding regarding sustainable resource management, with particular emphasis on water and energy conservation, composting, and the use of sustainable packaging. These findings align with practical sustainability approaches commonly adopted in food education. While not always explicitly embedded in curricula, such approaches align with broader sustainability goals outlined in frameworks like UNESCO’s ESD Roadmap [4] and the environmental priorities discussed by Tilman and Clark [28]. References to “reuse of waste for energy,” “green energy,” and “biodegradable containers” demonstrate a growing awareness of sustainable food production practices that extend beyond the classroom and into institutional behaviour. However, there was limited reference to technical agricultural practices such as low input farming, precision irrigation, or circular bioeconomy models. This reflects earlier findings by Galt et al. [29], who argue that educators may struggle to access or integrate more technical knowledge unless explicitly supported by professional development or policy frameworks. Moreover, educators’ emphasis on recycling and composting also suggests a practical, often individual level understanding of sustainability rather than one grounded in systemic policy or frameworks. While such actions are meaningful in fostering immediate behavioural change, it may limit students’ knowledge and exposure to the structural dimensions of food system innovation. It also underscores the need for professional development that deepens conceptual knowledge of resource sustainability as a complex challenge [30]. This research refines the multidimensional analysis of food sustainability education by showing not only which domains are emphasised but also how gaps manifest in practice. Specifically, environmental and social aspects were described frequently and in detail, while explicit references to economic and cultural aspects were sparse. This imbalance, derived directly from the frequency and content of participant responses, provides evidence of a structured cognitive gap. Documenting this gap across four European contexts strengthens the analytical basis for understanding where educators may require further support in professional development and curriculum design. Equipping educators with knowledge of advanced practices in circular agriculture, precision technologies, and resource management innovations can enhance their ability to embed these concepts into existing and future curricula, thereby preparing graduates to prioritise sustainable natural resource use within the food sector.

The educators in this study demonstrated general awareness of access, equity, and long-term food sustainability, with responses consistent with the four pillars of food security outlined by the FAO [26]: availability, access, utilisation, and stability. Notably, educators also referred to intergenerational responsibility and future oriented thinking, with references to “safeguarding future food” and “resource conservation for future generations.” This aligns with the concept of food system resilience and the capacity of systems to absorb shocks while maintaining essential function [31]. It also reflects values promoted in UNESCO’s competency framework for educational planning and management framework [32], which emphasises forward-looking, participatory learning that empowers learners to engage with long-term global challenges.

However, the economic and socio-cultural dimensions of food sustainability were significantly underrepresented in both educators’ knowledge and teaching practices. This finding mirrors concerns in broader sustainability education literature, where environmental and social dimensions often receive more attention than economic viability [33]. This underrepresentation was reflected in the distribution of responses. While references to food waste reduction, local sourcing, and environmental stewardship were frequent, direct mentions of fairness across the food system, pricing, or the economic viability of small-scale farming were almost absent. Several educators explicitly acknowledged “limited awareness on this” or pointed to the “lack of relevant teaching materials”, while others emphasised “researching and advocating for the integration of food sustainability principles into our institution’s practices in the future.” The economic references that did appear, such as the “economical use of food” in cooking practice, highlight how such issues are often framed at the level of classroom cost-saving rather than systemic equity in food chains. Yet, economic sustainability is critical to the resilience of food systems; it encompasses the financial viability of smallholder farms, equitable market access, and fair remuneration across the food supply chain. Without a solid economic foundation, efforts toward ecological or social sustainability may become unworkable in practice. Recent studies show that financial constraints and uneven economic structures continue to hinder the effective implementation of sustainable practices, especially among small-scale producers [34]. This limited attention given by participants to the economic viability of food producers and the agri-food sector may also stem from a tendency to frame food sustainability primarily through an environmental lens [35]. While responses varied, environmental themes clearly dominated, which may reflect the fact that many sustainability educators come from science or environmental disciplines with limited exposure to agricultural economics or food systems dynamics. Additionally, it may be worth considering that some educators may lack direct engagement and collaboration with agri-food producers which could hinder their understanding of how profitability, market access, and fair-trade practices shape food system resilience in real-world settings. Consequently, some educators may interpret “economic sustainability” as mere profit without recognising its broader components, such as long-term viability, equitable pricing, resilient supply chains, and investment in rural communities.

This gap in knowledge has broader implications. Vásquez et al. [34] highlight how Peruvian smallholder farmers though prioritising both social and economic dimensions face significant challenges including restricted market access and technological constraints, which inhibit long-term sustainability. This underscores the importance of smallholder economic viability, an issue largely absent from participants’ perspectives. The omission may reflect curriculum gaps, such as the absence of agricultural economics modules or limited integration of economic systems thinking in agri-food education. Incorporating such content could enrich educator capacity to prepare students to address structural economic challenges in food systems, ultimately enabling more holistic and justice-oriented approaches to food sustainability.

Similarly, the cultural dimension of food sustainability, including the preservation of traditional knowledge received limited attention. Explicit cultural references appeared infrequently, especially when compared to environmental or pedagogical codes. Where cultural aspects did emerge for example, “preparing local dishes” or “foraging method, use of local and seasonal ingredients” they tended to focus on immediate classroom activities rather than broader heritage or intergenerational knowledge transfer. Similarly, the use of “local ingredients in cooking practice” was sometimes described, but again framed within short-term teaching exercises rather than as preservation of food traditions. The absence of references to safeguarding traditional foodways or indigenous practices underscores the gap. Cultural values and practices shape food preferences, farming traditions, and intergenerational knowledge transfer, which are essential for sustainable transitions. As Klassen and Wittman [6] argue, cultural practices often offer low-impact, place-based food systems that align closely with sustainability principles. The Mediterranean diet, for example, is widely recognised as a sustainable diet that integrates environmental, economic and cultural dimensions. Beyond its nutritional profile, it encompasses cultural rituals and traditional food preparation methods that honour nature, heritage, and communal values, while promoting a healthy lifestyle [36]. Similarly, the process of traditional seaweed foraging along Irelands Atlantic coastline exemplifies how place-based food practices contribute to the cultural dimension of sustainability. As documented by Zocchi et al. [37], this food tradition preserves local ecological knowledge, supports community identity, and provides nutrient-rich, low-impact food sources. Such examples demonstrate how culturally embedded food traditions can serve as powerful vehicles for sustainable resource use and community resilience. However, the limited reference given to the cultural dimension by participants may be due to sustainability in education often being framed predominantly through environmental lenses, leaving cultural heritage and local knowledge underexplored. Many educators may have limited knowledge and training in cultural studies or food heritage. Additionally, policy frameworks tend to emphasise measurable environmental or economic outcomes, which can leave less value on cultural aspects [38]. While this study did not aim to compare teacher training systems or national policies, its contribution lies in establishing a broader baseline across multiple European contexts. Most existing research has been conducted within single-country settings. By contrast, these findings show that across diverse institutions and countries, the economic and cultural dimensions consistently received less attention. This cross-contextual consistency demonstrates that the cognitive gap is not confined to a single national setting but reflects a wider pattern across agri-food education.

Addressing these knowledge gaps would not only enrich students’ understanding of sustainability but also foster respect for the diversity of food traditions and economies within Europe. These findings suggest a strong consensus among participants regarding the importance of embedding food sustainability within educational contexts, although actual inclusion within curricula appears more variable. This points to a critical need for professional development that equips educators with knowledge, skills and resources required to prepare graduates to work effectively in a sector that is rapidly evolving and facing sustainability challenges. Interdisciplinary collaboration and curriculum co-design drawing from cultural studies, economics, and indigenous food systems can expand educational scope and help learners balance ecological sustainability with economic and cultural considerations [39].

This study explored the methods educators are currently using to incorporate food sustainability into their teaching. The most commonly cited approaches reflect active and experiential learning principles, which are widely recognised as effective for sustainability education [40]. Such pedagogical strategies encourage critical thinking, problem solving, and student engagement. However, the variability in approaches and absence of a standardised curriculum model suggest a need for support and reform. There is a need for sustainability to be embedded as a central, cohesive framework in agri-food and nutrition curricula and professional development opportunities and interdisciplinary collaboration to support educators in expanding their understanding and teaching practices [41]. Embedding sustainability as both content and pedagogy will enhance students’ ability to become informed, responsible agents of change in the food system [42]. This study offers concrete insight into how educator knowledge gaps may hinder the implementation of SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). For example, educators’ limited engagement with the economic dimension means students may receive little exposure to issues such as fair trade, equitable value chains, and the viability of small-scale farming, all of which are crucial for resilient and just food systems. Similarly, underrepresentation of the cultural dimension risks neglecting food traditions and intergenerational knowledge that support food sovereignty and dietary diversity. By identifying these specific risks, this study strengthens the practical relevance of UNESCO’s ESD framework and demonstrates how educator capacity directly shapes the translation of global sustainability goals into classroom practice.

This study is somewhat limited by its geographic scope, as data were collected solely from agri-food and nutrition educators based in Ireland, Poland, Slovenia, and Italy. As such, the findings may not fully reflect the breadth of educator knowledge, pedagogical practices, or institutional contexts related to food sustainability across the wider European landscape. To enhance the generalisability and applicability of the results, future research should consider replicating this study across a broader range of European countries. In addition, future investigations should explore the influence of cultural, institutional, and national conditions on educators’ perceptions and teaching of food sustainability, as these contextual factors may significantly shape how sustainability is conceptualised and explore how such characteristics may influence educators’ knowledge and pedagogical approaches in future studies. The study did not include factors such as teaching experience, educational background, or teaching stage. These characteristics may moderate educators’ knowledge and should also be examined in future studies to deepen the interpretation of sustainability education practices.”

A notable strength of this study lies in the diversity of its educator sample, drawn from the four partner countries. The project team deliberately aimed to recruit at least 30 agri-food and nutrition educators per country, ensuring representation across lecturers, trainers, and academic staff. While the overall sample size (n = 123) may be considered modest, it reflects the relatively small and specialised population of educators in this field across the partner countries and enabled the team to capture a wide range of perspectives shaped by different national contexts, institutional settings, and teaching experiences. While the study did not seek statistical generalisation, this diversity enhances the analytical generalisability of the findings, providing transferable insights that can inform food sustainability education across varied European settings.

Additionally, this study employed a mixed-methods design, combining descriptive quantitative survey data with qualitative thematic analysis. While this approach provided both breadth and depth, there are some limitations to note. The descriptive quantitative data were collected only to provide context for the qualitative analysis. The survey relied on self-reported data from educators, which introduces the possibility of self-reporting bias; participants may have unintentionally overestimated their knowledge or provided socially desirable responses. Secondly, qualitative analysis carries an inherent risk of subjective interpretation. To minimise this, we employed researcher triangulation, whereby multiple researchers independently coded the data before discussing and reconciling discrepancies to ensure consistency and reliability in theme development. In summary, while the study provides valuable baseline insights into educators’ understandings of food sustainability, these limitations mean we cannot determine which specific subgroups of educators most require training in economic or cultural dimensions; future research should address this gap more directly.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, while educators demonstrate a foundational understanding of food sustainability and actively implement related teaching practices, significant opportunities remain to enhance curriculum design, address knowledge gaps, and support the development of holistic sustainability education. Educators demonstrated awareness of key environmental and ethical issues such as food waste reduction, sustainable consumption, and local sourcing however there was limited evidence of economic sustainability and holistic, systems-based thinking. The findings contribute to the theoretical discourse on sustainability education by reinforcing the challenges educators face in delivering integrated, cross-cutting curricula. This study supports existing literature that critiques the fragmented nature of sustainability teaching and provides empirical data relevant to frameworks such as UNESCO’s ESD competencies and SDG 2, SDG 4.7, and SDG 12. In summary the study refines the multidimensional analysis of food sustainability education by evidencing how educators emphasise environmental and social aspects while giving limited attention to economic and cultural domains. It also extends the evidence base beyond single-country studies by documenting these patterns across four European contexts, showing that the cognitive gap is consistent across diverse settings. It further clarifies the practical implications for global agendas by illustrating how gaps in economic and cultural knowledge may constrain the integration of SDG 2 and SDG 12 into teaching practice.

In practical terms, these findings highlight the urgent need for policymakers, curriculum developers, and education providers to strengthen educator capacity in food sustainability. Priority actions include implementing targeted professional development such as cross-disciplinary workshops, online training courses and mentoring networks that bring together educators and practitioners. Providing accessible curriculum tools is also critical; these should include open access teaching toolkits and resources that illustrate economic and cultural aspects of sustainability and digital simulations of food system challenges that fully integrate environmental, social, economic, and cultural dimensions into agri-food education. National education ministries should also establish monitoring and evaluation frameworks to assess how educator training translates into student competencies aligned with relevant SDGs. Addressing these gaps is critical to preparing future agri-food and nutrition graduates to meet the complex challenges of contemporary food systems and contribute to a more resilient, equitable sector. As referenced earlier, this study forms part of the European funded KA2 project Train to Sustain, which specifically focuses on upskilling educators on food sustainability priorities. As part of this project, the consortium is developing a range of concrete tools and training resources, including modular CPD courses, open-access teaching toolkits, case-based scenarios, and digital learning resources such as MOOCs that educators can directly apply in their teaching to address these knowledge gaps. For the economic dimension, CPD modules will include case studies on smallholder market access, practical cost-accounting exercises, and analysis of fair-trade scenarios to strengthen educator confidence in teaching food system economics. For the cultural dimension, modules will incorporate lesson plans on traditional and place-based food practices such as the Mediterranean diet and Irish seaweed foraging, illustrating how cultural heritage can support sustainability.

These resources will be compiled into an open-access teaching toolkit, including digital simulations and case-based scenarios designed to integrate all four dimensions of sustainability. To ensure these interventions are effective, the CPD programme will adopt pre- and post-training self-assessments and pilot testing by educators as part of the project’s teaching and training event. A training guide will also be developed as an output of the project, advising that, during implementation, feedback from both educators and students should be collected to evaluate whether knowledge gaps are being reduced and whether the new content is effectively translated into pedagogical practice. These initiatives illustrate feasible and operational pathways for implementing the recommendations of this study in practice and ultimately equip graduates to act as informed agents of change in the agri-food sector. The resources will be freely accessible on the Erasmus+ Results Platform on completion of the project in April 2026.