Higher education of sustainable food systems: a literature review

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to fill data gaps concerning solutions and practices used in sustainable food systems (SFS) in higher education (HE). The development of SFS is a vital global challenge in which HE may play a significant role.

Design/methodology/approach

Literature search and content analysis of found papers were performed. Additionally, the quantitative time trend of the emergence of research connected to SFS HE and the connectivity of content within the research papers about research questions were determined by regression analysis and data visualization, respectively.

Findings

It is evident that SFS education in universities (higher education institutes) is emerging, and the number of research papers is rapidly increasing. In the reviewed papers, universities recognized their significant role in managing wicked problems. The motivation for developing SFS education was high, with strong ambitions. SFS in HE includes developing education in-house through trans- and multidisciplinary solutions, developing education with stakeholders and supporting student growth to become responsible professionals and citizens.

Practical implications

When developing SFS education in HE both practical and theoretical research is needed. Ethical dimensions should be included in both research orientations because of the moral complexity that exists in SFS issues.

Social implications

This study shows that competence in trans- and multidisciplinary working is needed. Concomitantly, the ability of cooperation between HE, business and society is vital when solving global food challenges. Also, the local tradition of food cultivation should be respected and maintained.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first review on the development of SFS education in HEIs. A qualitative content analysis and data visualization were used to enrich the review.

Citation

Salminen, J., Friman, M., Mikkonen, K. and Mutanen, A. (2024), "Higher education of sustainable food systems: a literature review", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 358-377. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2024-0079

1. Introduction

Uncontrollable population growth, inadequate food production and increasing environmental problems have been major concerns for researchers and international development organizations for decades (see Meadows et al., 2004). Hence, the development of sustainable food systems (SFS) is a vital global challenge. SFS addresses sustainable cropping systems (Tilman et al., 2011) and production technology (Wittwer, 1975), producer-consumer dynamics (Poore and Nemecek, 2018), improving the nutritional status of food (Wortman, 1980; Gortmaker et al., 2011; Willett et al., 2019) and reducing environmental impacts across the entire business and industry sector (Tilman and Clark, 2014; Springmann et al., 2018; Halpern et al., 2022).

Higher education (HE) actively seeks optimal solutions to global wicked problems such as an unsustainable food system (Rittel and Webber, 1973; Friman et al., 2021). Mission of higher education institutes (HEI) is to educate specialists in the food production sector from a field-to-fork continuum (Alberts and Stevenson, 2017; Culhane et al., 2018). The opportunities of HE are pedagogical interventions, such as curriculum content and hidden curriculum activities. In addition, substance knowledge across various disciplines, in particularly interdisciplinary contexts, is crucial for addressing sustainability challenges locally and globally (Clark and Dickson, 2003; Clark, 2007; Bush et al., 2019; Mahaffy et al., 2019). Furthermore, HE has a duty to support students’ emotional and ethical growth alongside theory and practice.

Megatrends in HE policy emphasize working-life relevance, learning outcomes and their evaluation (UNECE, 2012; UNESCO, 2017; EU, 2022). Policy targets are implemented to pedagogy such as competence-based curriculum, student-centered learning and collaboration inside the academy and with stakeholders (e.g. Hartikainen et al., 2019; Rodríguez Aboytes and Barth, 2020). The competence-based mindset has been widely adopted in sustainable development (SD) education (Wiek et al., 2011, 2016; Rieckmann, 2018). This has been criticized for its technical orientation (Lozano et al., 2012; Redman and Wiek, 2021) which has been solved by adding self-awareness as a competence (UNESCO, 2017; Schaffar, 2021; Jaakkola et al., 2022). Self-awareness involves understanding oneself and one’s relationship with society and nature. It is a process of internal growth rather than solely a performable skill, which means the unique characteristic among SD competencies (Schaffar, 2021; Jaakkola et al., 2022).

Based on experiments and studies, transformative pedagogy is an approach in which students’ are moral subjects. Transformative pedagogy requires critical examination of beliefs, values and assumptions. Becoming more conscious about one’s own profession also the ability of multiprofessional collaboration increases (Rodríguez Aboytes and Barth, 2020).

However, conservative mental attitudes and traditions such as strict discipline orientation and inflexible institutional constructions, may hinder the renewal of educational approaches (Stensaker, 2015; Friman et al., 2021; Aleixo et al., 2018). Furthermore, barriers exist between universities and the surrounding society. In the case of SFS (as a socioeconomic and industrial issue), farmers, the food industry and consumers are the target groups of universities, and graduate students play a significant role in solving the versatile problems of SFS. The participation of companies and local experts is a pedagogical method for building bridges at the organizational and human levels (Karvinen, 2024).

Earlier reviews have addressed food literacy (Renwick and Smith, 2020), sustainable diets (McCormack et al., 2019) and societal grand challenges (Nowell et al., 2020). This literature review was conducted to examine how HE processes have incorporated SFS issues into educational agenda and strategies. SFS is considered a cross-disciplinary theme applicable to fields ranging from agronomy and the food industry to public health issues

Six typical study objects about universities incorporating SD issues into HE was derived from the earlier research: a source of motivation, disciplinary orientation, learning outcomes, stakeholder cooperation, HEI’s strategy work and ethical aspects [see, e.g. (Aleixo et al., 2018; Friman et al., 2018; Lozano et al., 2017)]. The following research questions were modified for this review:

RQ1.

What are the drivers and motivators of academia in developing SFS education?

RQ2.

In which fields of HE are students and stakeholders involved in SFS education?

RQ3.

What pedagogical approaches are used to achieve SFS learning outcomes?

RQ4.

How are stakeholders involved in the learning process?

RQ5.

What are the implications of the integration of SFS issues into the strategic operations of HEIs?

RQ6.

What kind of ethical issues are considered in the SFS education?

RQs 1 and 2 address why SFS issues are incorporated in HEI, and what is the target groups of SFS education. RQs 3 and 4 highlight pedagogical solutions, including content, methods, outcomes and participants. RQ 5 investigates broader and deeper HEI-level commitment to SFS education. RQ 6 examines the ethical justifications for SFS education in HEIs. The articles were analyzed using content-based qualitative research methods.

Literature-based responses to these research questions may highlight status and future directions for SFS education in HEIs.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Literature search

Literature reviews are beneficial for systematically finding published evidence on a particular subject (Purssell and McCrae, 2020). Several database searches were performed with the search results presented in the most transparent, complete and accurate manner possible, as Page et al. (2021) advised.

Before conducting the literature searches, we experimented with two different search sentences (Search 1 and Search 2). Since Search 2 was sufficiently precise, we abandoned Search 1 altogether. Truncation was applied to both the term sustainab* and the phrase "food system*" to capture different variations of these search terms. Thus, sustainab* would find results such as sustainable and sustainability.

Search 1: "sustainable food system*” AND (“higher education” OR “tertiary education”).

Search 2: sustainab* AND “food system*” AND (“higher education” OR “tertiary education”).

Additionally, “academic education” and “university education” were tested as alternative search terms for “higher education,” but neither yielded additional results, and they were not used in our searches.

In the ERIC database, we selected a different approach: we exclusively searched using "food system*" and filtered the results by selecting "higher education" within the database’s education level limit. In ERIC, "sustainable food system" yielded few results; therefore, we decided to evaluate the aspect or amount of "sustainability" by examining the results obtained with the term "food system*”. The literature search protocols are listed in Table 1.

All references found were saved in a shared group library using Zotero’s free cloud service. Duplicate references were subsequently removed.

The PRISMA 2020 checklist (Page et al., 2021) was used to describe the search process. The inclusion criteria for our review were as follows:

• Original articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

• Written in English.

• Published on or after 2002.

• Focused on SFS(s).

• Contextualized within HE.

The exclusion criteria for our review were the following:

• Publications classified as theses, books, book chapters or articles other than original articles (review articles, editorials, letters to the editor, etc.).

• Written in languages other than English.

• Published before 2002.

• Not focused on SFS(s).

• Context not related to HE.

We searched Agricola, ERIC, Scopus and Web of Science databases. The searches were performed in May 2022, except for Agricola, which was searched in March 2023. These databases were chosen based on their subject content (Agricola and ERIC) or their extensive coverage (Scopus and Web of Science).

After removing duplicates, the remaining records (n = 166) were screened, and the selected reports’ (n = 41) eligibility was individually assessed by two authors. The authors read the full texts of the 41 selected reports to determine whether the subject and context met the above criteria. In total, 37 articles from the original search results were deemed eligible. Five additional eligible articles were found through a manual search and added to the list, bringing the total assessed articles to 42. Some prestigious journal archives, such as Nature and Science, were also searched separately but yielded no results.

An online interactive PRISMA flow diagram tool (Figure 1) was used to create and present a search diagram (Haddaway et al., 2022). In the flowchart diagram (Figure 1), a record refers to the title and/or abstract of a report indexed in a database, which corresponds to a scientific article.

2.2 Analyses of the articles

The articles were analyzed using content-based qualitative research methods (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005; Bauer, 2007). First, the selected articles were divided between two researchers to depict the incidence of content categories outlined in RQs 1 to 5. Evidence of matching categories was tabulated, with one per article and cross-checked by both researchers. For a more detailed analysis, the articles were reread and matching evidence was precisely reviewed and recorded in a document. Evidence for the six categories was color-coded to clarify and support further analyses and the writing process. Three researchers evaluated the articles to identify ethically related content (RQ 6). Additionally, articles were grouped by journal, publication year, target discipline(s) and geographic location (continental level).

The total number of articles per year was counted, and time trends were determined using regression analysis and curve fitting. Diverse target groups of disciplines in articles were identified during content analysis, and time-dependent trends were assessed using linear regression analysis. Quantitative analysis was performed using JMP 16.2 SAS.

Data was visualized using Cytoscape software (Cytoscape.org). During the visualization process, the software constructed connections between articles and content categories used in content analysis. The result is a description of the links between articles and content categories. Results of the content analysis (see Section 3.4.) were categorized as pedagogical (RQ 3) and further subdivided into pedagogical approaches, curricula and on-campus activities. Recategorizing aimed to highlight better processes from teaching and learning practices (pedagogical approaches) to the structures of studies (curricula) and to the HE community (on-campus activities). RQ 1 (drivers and motivators) and RQ 2 (target groups or participants) were excluded from visualization because they primarily represented background variables in the development of HE.

3. Results

3.1 Literature data

The quantitative data from the literature are initially presented in terms of journals, deviations per journal and time trends. The literature search identified 42 articles from 28 journals (Figure 2; Table 2). The number of published articles on SFS in HE has increased exponentially since 2006. In total, 25 articles considered courses or degree programs offered to students from multiple disciplines, with the incidence rate of this multidisciplinary orientation increasing linearly over the past decade (Figure 2). Percentage deviation of research across continents, estimated by the target university’s location, showed that North American HEIs dominated as a research subject (71% of articles), followed by Europe (12%), Asia (7%), Australia (5%) and more than one continent (5%).

The visualization shows that the six content categories rarely exist independently in an article (six out of 42) (Figure 3). Seven articles addressed four of our content categories (i.e. number of links), while 18 had three content categories, 11 had two content categories and six had one content category. Articles concerning pedagogical approaches were interconnected with those in the curriculum content category. Both curricula and pedagogical approaches are related to the organizational and strategic initiatives of HEIs in attempting to renew prevalent pedagogical structures and practices. Ethics seems to be an in-house activity with connections to all others except for the stakeholder content category.

3.2 Drivers and motivators for change of sustainable food systems education in higher education institutes (answers to RQ 1)

The main driver of SFS education studies was the urgent need to address global food sufficiency challenges, recognized as a significant wicked problem (Carino et al., 2020). Studies have addressed SFS from various perspectives, including health (Alberts and Stevenson, 2017; Carino et al., 2020; Murray et al., 2021), social cohesion (Curtis, 2012; Den Boer et al., 2021; Ebel et al., 2020; Lieblein et al., 2012; Luby et al., 2021; Pennisi et al., 2020) and the environmental effects of food production (Cleveland and Jay, 2021).

Studies have been conducted internationally (Cody, 2017; Migliorini et al., 2020; Zimdahl and Holtzer, 2016), nationally (Carino et al., 2020; Estandarte et al., 2022; Murray et al., 2021; Nelles et al., 2022; Porter, 2018), regionally (Culhane et al., 2018; Luby et al., 2021; Niewolny et al., 2017) and locally (Bloom et al., 2017; Sipos and Ismach, 2022). In addition, the university itself was the location of the study (Ahmed et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2021; Thongplew et al., 2021). Studies encompassed exchange programs or comparative studies among universities. National concerns revolved around health and nutrition issues, while regional and local studies focused on social cohesion and the transfer of agricultural knowledge. Campus-related studies predominantly addressed attitudes toward food waste and foodstuff.

The second motivator was renewing the pedagogy – content and methods – to respond to the demands of comprehending the complex functions of SFS. This redesigning of SFS studies transcended the boundaries between disciplines within academia and society (Culhane et al., 2018; Green, 2021). This meant developing interdisciplinary, and international collaboration involving local and regional citizens, such as farmers (Cody, 2017; Francis et al., 2009).

3.3 Target groups and participants (RQ 2)

The main target group was HE students majoring in agriculture (Table 3). As Bawden (2007) and Hartle et al. (2017) noted, agriculture is becoming increasingly multifunctional, multifaceted and multidimensional. SFS content was found in agriculture-related studies, such as environmental issues (Whittaker et al., 2017), food preparation and nutrition (Hartle et al., 2017), horticulture (Luby et al., 2021; Pennisi et al., 2020) and nonagriculture-related studies, such as health care (Carino et al., 2020), art and design (Cohen, 2010) and sociology (Green, 2021). The literature also includes studies on SFS education, focusing on researchers (Den Boer et al., 2021) and managers in the value chain (Fernandez et al., 2016; Fernandez et al., 2021) as key figures in SFS implementation.

Regional citizens participated in various roles in SFS studies. Their participation varied from sharing facilities for food cultivation to demonstrating traditional and sustainable farming methods. Extra-academics (farmers, innovators and policymakers) also played important roles as professional experts (Bawden, 2007; Borsari et al., 2002; Brekken et al., 2018; Curtis, 2012; De Welde, 2015; Ebel et al., 2020; Valley et al., 2018; Whittaker et al., 2017; Zimdahl and Holtzer, 2016).

3.4 Pedagogical approaches and learning outcomes (RQ 3)

During content analysis, variations in pedagogical issues between HEIs became apparent. Hence, the pedagogy category (RQ 3) was subdivided into three categories: pedagogical approaches, curricula and on-campus activities, detailed in Section 2.2.

This study revealed that SFS is a novel pedagogical development object. However, pioneering institutions have actively studied, tested and implemented pedagogical solutions aimed at refining curriculum structure, content and methods. Case and comparative studies are included in the review articles.

Curriculum-focused research is typically centered on agricultural and related studies, aiming to transition from strict disciplinary academic traditions to more interdisciplinary solutions (Hartle et al., 2017; Luby et al., 2021). Hartle et al. (2017) presented a snapshot of interdisciplinary food-related academic programs in the USA, revealing that such studies were spread across nine faculties with limited interdepartmental cooperation. The reason for this was the historical dominance of single-discipline structures, where certain disciplines established authority over food-related matters within HEI. Quality auditing was mentioned as a tool for renewing interdisciplinarity (Hartle et al., 2017).

Several pedagogical approaches have been used to integrate SFS with HE. Practical and hands-on approaches have been used to enhance students’ commitment to sustainability (Curtis, 2012; Valley et al., 2018). According to Valley et al. (2018), an effective SFS methodology should include systems thinking, multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinarity, experiential learning approaches and participation in collective action projects. These pedagogical models often adopt existing methods such as problem-based or experimental learning with new solutions (Bloom et al., 2017; Eugenio-Gozalbo et al., 2021; Francis et al., 2009; Pennisi et al., 2020).

Collaboration among teachers, stakeholders and students may increase student-driven activities and support learning processes (Francis et al., 2009). Students’ activities were tested in a food safety management system course, in which they made interactive videos. The results of the pre-post test showed that this method made the system’s complexity visible (Alberts and Stevenson, 2017). When SFS is integrated into nonagricultural studies, it serves as an example of systems thinking, problem-solving or human equity (Cohen, 2010; Livstrom et al., 2022).

SFS competencies are aspired to but seldom addressed in studies. In the reviewed literature, SFS competency focus was connected to general SD principles, such as systems thinking, critical reflection, diverse ways of knowing, practical skills, multicontext communication and team skills (Ebel et al., 2020; De Welde, 2015). Working life also highlights open-mindedness and cognitive flexibility in SFS education (Kaplan, 2020). Schoolman et al. (2016) stated “that HEs have not yet realized their full potential to prepare millennials to be environmentally responsible citizens of sustainable cities, particularly where participation in food systems is concerned.”

The literature offers examples of campus-wide interventions, which improve SFS knowledge and everyone’s responsibility in SFS. Universities can offer activities such as serving more vegetarian food or promoting to reduce food waste. These projects aim to support students’ growth as responsible citizens and consumers, and to create green universities (Ahmed et al., 2018; Livstrom et al., 2022; Matthews, 2013; Thongplew et al., 2021; Schoolman et al., 2016; Wight and Killham, 2014; Murray et al., 2021).

The ethical competence of SFS education will be reviewed in Section 3.7.

3.5 Stakeholder cooperation (RQ 4)

Connections to the surrounding community are crucial for HEIs, building a common and regional understanding about the benefits and burdens of local universities and reimagining universities’ responsibilities to their regions (Whittaker et al., 2017).

Interdisciplinary concepts and cooperation with stakeholders play a significant role beyond academia, inspiring ambitious experiments and enhancing dialogue between academics and industry (Borsari et al., 2002; Lieblein et al., 2012). Lieblein et al. (2012) focused on an action-oriented learning project that aimed students “to become citizens of both the theoretical world of the university and the practical world of municipality.” The results showed that real-life experiences ignite students’ enthusiasm and energy to delve into theoretical aspects. Collaboration with local farmers also builds social relevance and civic engagement, which are seldom found in conventional courses or curricula. As Matthews (2013) mentioned, collaborative learning presents challenges such as logistics, but promotes positive student engagement and benefits local needs.

3.6 Higher education institutes structural and strategic solutions (RQ 5)

SFS education is positioning itself within HEIs. The status of SFS depends on the institute’s profile and strategic priorities, particularly within the SD framework. Bloom et al. (2017) reported an example where local food was named as a flagship program. The disciplinary structure of faculties, the willingness to embed sustainability in all curricula and the ability to cross borders between faculties are key factors influencing the quality and quantity of SFS studies (Bawden, 2007; Culhane et al., 2018; Hartle et al., 2017). A one-degree program specifically focusing on SFS was found in the reviewed literature, along with special courses, integrated courses, informal on-campus experiments and further education for graduates. Additionally, examples were found of SFS issues integrated into HEI strategies and the nexus of RDI and education in SFS (Cleveland and Jay, 2021; De Welde, 2015; Whittaker et al., 2017).

Brekken et al. (2018) advocated for SFS courses that extend “beyond disciplinary boundaries and broaden critical and creative thinking skills.” By incorporating external partners into teaching teams, a coeducator was recommended to enhance and deepen service-learning skills in SFS courses (Culhane et al., 2018). Several studies have documented successful cases of course-based education in SFS, both university-wide and within degree programs (Fox, 2017; Luby et al., 2021). Leadership skills for SFS are also addressed in further education programs (Fernandez et al., 2016; Fernandez et al., 2021).

In Fox’s (2017) review of Ohio State University, he found that food systems are integrated into teaching and learning across multiple disciplines through various degree programs. Food system issues are present in courses, projects, internships, exchange studies, special events and other forms of engaged learning.

3.7 Ethical issues (RQ 6)

Sustainability has been discussed both philosophically and scientifically across the literature. Different fields of science engage in their discussions on sustainability. However, the exact meaning of sustainability or how it can be achieved occurs in all fields of science. Ethically sensitive themes, such as fair sustainability (Zimdahl and Holtzer, 2016) or broader notions of responsibility (Fernandez et al., 2016) also appear in these discussions. Food plays a central role in sustainability discourse, intertwining with personal identity building (De Welde, 2015) and community lifestyle, both locally and globally (De Welde, 2015; Valley et al., 2018; Sipos and Ismach, 2022). Beyond nourishment, food production raises ethical and pedagogical questions (De Welde, 2015; Valley et al., 2018; Curtis, 2012).

Remarkable differences are observed in how the articles considered ethical issues. Ethics extends beyond theoretical discussions or direct mention of the term “ethics”; it is a substantial topic that appears in topics like responsibility. Some of the reviewed articles, such as Pennisi et al. (2020) and Kaplan (2020), do not mention ethical issues. However, the reason for the lack of treatment of ethical issues is related to the general character of the article, as it considers the topic from a technical perspective. Surprisingly, when examining the development of a new learning environment (Pennisi et al., 2020) or in connection with the development of new types of research methods (Kaplan, 2020), ethical questions were not strongly raised.

In several reviewed articles, ethics surfaced indirectly in discussions on the responsibility or (in)equality, such as consumer responsibility (Green, 2021; Thongplew et al., 2021), ethical implications of food production systems (Valley et al., 2018), structural inequality (Valley et al., 2018) or ethical considerations within learning and research environments (Whittaker et al., 2017).

Interestingly, there were also discussions on the ethical responsibility of HEIs. Zimdahl and Holtzer (2016) extensively analyzed the role of ethics in HEIs, noting that, even if “colleges of agriculture do not offer ethics courses,” sustainability discussions are often steeped in ethical considerations. However, the reviewed articles included an important analysis of the general role of HEIs in ethical education (Porter, 2018). Schoolman et al. (2016) identified this question as the intention of HEIs to “contribute to sustainable societies by encouraging students to incorporate principles of environmental responsibility into personal consumption practices.” In Estandarte et al. (2022), the same problem was understood as the role of HEIs in educating undergraduate “students as future enablers of SFS while serving as a corporate social responsibility framework for the private sector.” Interestingly, this kind of practical ethics emerges in different ways in the reviewed articles: Livstrom et al. (2022) emphasized personal reflection, while Francis et al. (2009) argued students’ autonomy and responsibility, which enables commitment to responsible action (Bawden, 2007; Cody, 2017).

4. Discussion

The future of SFS will be managed by the younger generation. Hence, universities seem to recognize their remarkable educational role in solving wicked problems (Meadows et al., 2004; Nowell et al., 2020) and then, educating creative change makers (Hartikainen et al., 2019; Rodríguez Aboytes and Barth, 2020; Carino et al., 2020). The motivation and ambition for developing SFS studies are high and solution-oriented (Curtis, 2012; Valley et al., 2018).

Pedagogical mainstream approaches, such as student-centered, experimental learning and collaboration with stakeholders existed in the articles (Hartikainen et al., 2019; Rodríguez Aboytes and Barth, 2020). An overall orientation in SFS education was learning-by-doing (Dewey, 1998), and engagement with SFS competencies. Also, the role of versatile partners from individuals to companies and from local to global networks was emphasized (Bloom et al., 2017; Eugenio-Gozalbo et al., 2021; Francis et al., 2009; Pennisi et al., 2020). External partners as coeducators can be vital for the learning-by-doing process even if this demands teachers to reimpose themselves (Culhane et al., 2018). According to a recent study, collaborative learning methods clarify students’ future roles as agents when catalyzing sustainability transformation in companies. When getting acquainted with representatives from business and industry students learn both social and cultural practices which encourage their professional identity (Karvinen, 2024). Recently, it has been empirically shown that viable cooperation between local citizens and a multidisciplinary group of experts is crucial for the problem-solving of complex situations (Aminpour et al., 2021).

The first limitation of this study is that all articles are in English because of the search sentences. The second limitation links to the covering of the whole HE sector. That was solved by testing “academic education” and “university education” but neither yielded additional results.

The third limitation is the use of content analysis based on earlier studies. In this type of theory-based analysis, only the inquired issues came out and hence, substantial issues of SFS education can be ruled out. In this study, the identified remark was that the research question concerning pedagogy (RQ 3) appeared overly broad when interpreting pedagogy as an overall concept of the learning process. As a solution, the content was divided into three categories: pedagogical approaches, curriculum issues and on-campus activities. This detailed division provided an explicit view of the different aspects of SFS educational solutions. The inclusion of on-campus activities as a new category highlights the importance of the learning environment (e.g. Thongplew et al., 2021). Otherwise, the role of stakeholder involvement can be viewed as ambiguous (Whittaker et al., 2017). However, the analysis revealed that only four articles addressed this issue. Hence, the stakeholder category was left undivided.

Teachers’ roles in SFS studies are diverse compared to their traditional roles, encompassing facilitation, networking, mentoring, counseling and senior advising (Francis et al., 2009; Bawden, 2007; Green, 2021)). It is important to recognize the pedagogical aspects of a SFS and support teachers in redesigning their professions. Moreover, the ethical complexity of the topic is evident, as many articles have highlighted the ethical and pedagogical features of SFS (e.g. Zimdahl and Holtzer, 2016; Fernandez et al., 2016). However, ethics is not a distinct theme, but a central part of sustainability thinking. Responsibility is at the core of sustainable food production and equality is an essential aspect of consumption culture. Therefore, ethical considerations must be incorporated into all sustainability studies, underscoring the importance of recognizing the pedagogical value of ethicality.

The reviewed articles mainly focused on the practical level of SFS education, possibly indicating that the connections and implications of global SFS issues with HEIs’ strategic operations are in the early stages (Cleveland and Jay, 2021; De Welde, 2015). To achieve higher strategic goals of HEIs, landing from ivory towers to genuine collaboration with businesses and citizens is needed (Whittaker et al., 2017). While HEIs’ faculties of agriculture or bioeconomy give a “home” to SFS education (Bawden, 2007; Tilman et al., 2011), it can also be integrated into other major studies (Hartle et al., 2017). Redesigning of SFS studies transcended the boundaries between disciplines within academia and society (Cohen, 2010; Culhane et al., 2018; Green, 2021; Livstrom et al., 2022). As a human necessity, food offers university staff and students a method to learn and realize global responsibility (Culhane et al., 2018; Livstrom et al., 2022). SFS education as a strategic focus (such as flagship status) of a HEI was found in a few articles (De Welde, 2015; Whittaker et al., 2017; Cleveland and Jay, 2021). Mental barriers (e.g. general conservatism, doubt about resource competition between faculties, etc.) may exist in HEIs, and they may complicate a strategic choice for SFS education. No matter how important the area is in society (Stensaker, 2015; Friman et al., 2021). On the other hand, as previously stated a profound reimagining of the regional responsibilities of a university may support such a strategic development (see Whittaker et al., 2017).

This review underscores the need for SFS-focused education in the future, driven not only by environmental concerns (Valley et al., 2020; Zimdahl and Holtzer, 2016) but also by HEIs’ strong motivation to develop their SFS teaching and learning processes (Hartle et al., 2017; Eugenio-Gozalbo et al., 2021; Pennisi et al., 2020). Therefore, more rigorous examinations are recommended, particularly from a pedagogical perspective.

5. Conclusions

This review was motivated by the state of education on the global food system as a significant wicked problem. To evaluate the status of SFS education, a literature search and the content analysis of articles were conducted. Quantitative analyses presented the time trends observed and the evaluation of the connectivity of articles to the research questions. Finally, the results of the analyses were visualized. The review revealed that North American HEIs dominate the data, and research activity is increasing and becoming more multidisciplinary. SFS education in HEIs encompasses developing education in-house through trans- and multidisciplinary solutions, developing education in collaboration with stakeholders and supporting students’ growth into responsible professionals and citizens. The main limitation of this review was the selection of theory-based content analysis which may hamper some important features of SFS in HE. The result illustrates the heterogeneity of the disciplinary and pedagogical frames within SFS. It seems impossible to limit SFS in HEIs to only one discipline or one university. In the future, it is evident that both practical and theoretical research approaches are needed for developing SFS education.

Figures

Figure 1.

Flowchart of the review process

Figure 2.

Increasing trend of the number of publications concerned with SFS in general (a) and with multidisciplinary orientation (b)

; (a) Publication about SFS in higher education; (b) more than one discipline under research

Figure 3.

Links of articles to the categories of content analysis

Table 1.

Literature search protocols

Database	Search sentence	Time range	No. articles
Agricola	sustainab* and “food system*” AND (“higher education” OR “tertiary education”)	2002–2022	15
ERIC	"food system*” AND pubyearmin:2002	2002–2022; Education level: higher education	55
Scopus	sustainab* and “food system*” AND (“higher education” OR “tertiary education”)	2002–2022	41
Web of Science	sustainab* and “food system*” AND (“higher education” OR “tertiary education”)	2002–2022	122
Articles in total			233

Source: Authors’ own work

Table 2.

Number of eligible articles per journal

No. articles	Journal	References
5	International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education	Ahmed et al. (2018), Eugenio-Gozalbo et al. (2021), Migliorini et al. (2020), Murray et al. (2021) and Thongplew et al. (2021)
3	Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems	Ebel et al. (2020), Livstrom et al. (2022) and Sipos and Ismach (2022)
3	Journal of Agriculture Food Systems and Community Development	Hartle et al. (2017), Niewolny et al. (2017) and Porter (2018)
2	International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability	Bawden (2007) and Cody (2017)
2	Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension	Francis et al. (2009) and Lieblein et al. (2012)
2	Journal of Leadership Education	Fernandez et al. (2016) and Fernandez et al. (2021)
2	Metropolitan Universities	Fox (2017) and Whittaker et al. (2017)
	Sustainability	Brekken et al. (2018) and Estandarte et al. (2022)
1	Acta Horticulturae	Pennisi et al. (2020)
1	American Journal of Alternative Agriculture	Borsari et al. (2002)
1	Arts and Humanities in Higher Education: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice	Kaplan (2020)
1	Climate Policy	Cleveland and Jay (2021)
1	Current Opinion in Food Science	Den Boer et al. (2021)
1	Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene	Valley et al. (2020)
1	Environment, Development and Sustainability	Nelles et al. (2022)
1	Food, Culture and Society	Green (2021)
1	Humanity and Society	Curtis (2012)
1	Innovative Higher Education	Cohen (2010)
1	International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education	Culhane et al. (2018)
1	Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics	Zimdahl and Holtzer (2016)
1	Journal of College Teaching and Learning	Matthews (2013)
1	Journal of Education for Sustainable Development	De Welde (2015)
1	Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences	Schoolman et al. (2016)
1	Journal of Extension	Bloom et al. (2017)
1	Journal of Food Science Education	Alberts and Stevenson (2017)
1	Journal of Geography In Higher Education	Wight and Killham (2014)
1	Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition	Carino et al. (2020)
1	Natural Sciences Education	Luby et al. (2021)
1	Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems	Valley et al. (2018)

Source: Authors’ own work

Table 3.

Disciplines for suitable SFS education in HEIs

Discipline (no. of cases)	References
Diverse (19)	Ahmed et al. (2018), Brekken et al. (2018), Cleveland and Jay (2021), Den Boer et al. (2021), Estandarte et al. (2022), Eugenio-Gozalbo et al. (2021), Fernandez et al. (2016), Fernandez et al. (2021), Fox (2017), Hartle et al. (2017), Livstrom et al. (2022), Migliorini et al. (2020), Murray et al. (2021), Nelles et al. (2022), Niewolny et al. (2017), Porter (2018), Schoolman et al. (2016), Thongplew et al. (2021) and Valley et al. (2020)
Agriculture (2)	Cody (2017) and Zimdahl and Holtzer (2016)
Agriculture-related disciplines (2)	Bawden (2007) and Luby et al. (2021)
Agroecology (2)	Francis et al. (2009) and Lieblein et al. (2012
Environmental studies (2)	Green (2021) and Kaplan (2020)
Nutrition and dietetic (2)	Carino et al. (2020) and Borsari et al. (2002
Agriculture and life sciences (1)	Culhane et al. (2018)
Architecture and Planning (1)	Whittaker et al. (2017)
Arts (1)	Curtis (2012)
Dairy industry (1)	Alberts and Stevenson (2017)
Design and liberal arts (1)	Cohen (2010)
Diverse food programs (1)	Valley et al. (2018)
Extension agents for farmers, etc. (1)	Bloom et al. (2017)
Food technology and agriculture (1)	Ebel et al. (2020
Geographic (1)	Wight and Killham (2014)
Health-care programs (1)	Matthews (2013
Horticulture, environmental sciences and entomology (1)	Pennisi et al. (2020
Public health (1)	Sipos and Ismach (2022
Sociology (1)	De Welde (2015

Source: Authors’ own work