IntroductionTop

Material and methodsTop

Questionnaire design and data collection

Online surveys were carried out to compile data. Survey design was based on previous research studies and procedures used in Education for Sustainable Development, and the aim was to assess the degree of information, education, knowledge, engagement and awareness of sustainable development issues amongst the participating population (Miguel González et al., 2012; Carracedo et al., 2016; Gómez-Quintero et al., 2019).

The survey was self-administered and had a semi-structured format with 27 questions divided into three blocks. The first block of questions sought to gather sociodemographic information about the participants and was composed of closed questions. The second block sought to assess the participants’ knowledge of the SDGs and of some of the current strategies (general and specifically related to their field of study) for implementing SDGs 2 and 12. The third block evaluated the respondents’ level of personal engagement with SDGs and the degree to which they are implementing or expect to implement these strategies in their current and future professional careers. These blocks consisted of 10 and 6 closed questions respectively, most of which used a Likert scale. Other questions involved multiple choice or ranking answers. The main questions from the survey which answers are analyzed in the current article are compiled on the Appendix [suppl].

The techniques applied in the questionnaire to evaluate the level of knowledge and engagement of the university community came from a review of the specific targets proposed by the UN (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/) for implementing SDGs 2 and 12. We also conducted a wide review of websites, guides, and reports about agri-food strategies published by international agencies such as FAO (http://www.fao.org/sustainable-development-goals/en/) and UNESCO (2017). In addition, various experts and researchers in the field were consulted. Before launching the questionnaire, it was pre-tested to ensure the consistency and validity of the questions. Some questions had already been validated in other similar studies in Spain (Miguel González et al., 2012; Carracedo et al., 2016; Gómez-Quintero et al., 2019).

Before launching the questionnaire, it was pre-tested to ensure the consistency and validity of the questions. Some questions had already been validated in other similar studies in Spain (Miguel González et al., 2012; Carracedo et al., 2016; Gómez-Quintero et al., 2019).

In order to avoid language problems, each question was translated from Spanish (official language in Spain and Colombia) into Portuguese (official language in Brazil) and from Portuguese into Spanish so as to ensure identical meaning (Dufour et al., 2010). The questions were the same for all three countries except for the logical adaptation of some questions to the local economic situation (such as those relating to minimum household income levels). The online survey was distributed using Google Forms and was carried out exclusively during May 2018.

Participants were selected using convenience sampling. This is a non-probability method, in which participants are selected on the basis of being easy to reach or contact. This method was designed for exploratory research and was combined with snowball sampling (Grande & Abascal, 2014), in which additional participants are recommended or located by another person, who is allowed to select and contact other possible participants who meet the initial sampling requirements. In this case participants had to be members of the university community in one of the selected countries and regions and had to work or study in the field of agri-food sciences.

Main groups who collaborate in the current questionnaire were students, which were classified in three groups according to the academic level (degree students, Master’s or Ph.D. students). Also academic staff, group that include all members that give different kind of lessons in the university as lectures, assistant professors, associate professors, full professors, although they can also develop another activities as research. However, people who belong to university community involved in the research field but they do not teach practical or theoretical classes were separately and classified under a specific category named researcher.

The questionnaire was sent out via email by the “Campus Iberus” Excellence Consortium of Universities in Spain and some international partners in Brazil and Colombia. It was sent to rectors and office managers of universities from the three countries, who were asked to forward the link with the questionnaire to a range of members of their communities, specifically students, academic staff (teachers) and researchers working in the agri-food area. Links to the questionnaire were also circulated on social media, research networks and via a Brazilian technical journal (Pubvet).

A total of 670 surveys were received. 146 of them were from Spain, 122 were from Colombia and 402 from Brazil.

The geographical location of the sample centers in the three countries is displayed in Fig. 1. As seen in Table 1, most of the participating universities in Spain (80.6%) came from the Campus Iberus Excellence Consortium (which includes the universities of Zaragoza, Lleida, La Rioja and Navarra). Most of the Colombian participants came from universities in the western central and eastern parts of the country. Due to Brazil’s huge geographic extension, the participating universities were classified into the 5 regions into which the country is usually divided, rather than detailing each specific university. The greatest response was from universities in the southern regions of the country.

Figure 1.  Location of the universities that took part in the study: a) Spain, b) Brazil, c) Colombia. Source: Created by the authors from a) proyectomapamundi.com, b) wikipedia images, c) mapamundi.online.

 

 

Table 1. Territorial distribution of the universities that participated in this study. Values expressed as a percentage of the answers from each country.

1 Madrid, Las Palmas, Soria, Valladolid, León, Barcelona, Castilla la Mancha. 2 Cooperativa, Antioquia, Nacional de Colombia, Santander. 3 Includes universities from the States of Paraná, Río Grande del Sur and Santa Catarina. 4 Includes universities from the States of Espírito Santo, Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. 5 Includes universities from the States of Goiás, Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso del Sur, as well as the Federal District. 6 Includes universities from the States of Alagoas, Bahia, Ceará, Maranhão, Paraíba, Pernambuco, Piauí, Río Grande del Norte and Sergipe. 7 Includes universities from the States of Acre, Amapá, Amazonas, Pará, Rondônia, Roraima, Tocantins.

 

 

Statistical analyses

All questionnaires and answers were individually reviewed. The field data was entered on an Excel spreadsheet. After checking for missing data and outliers the sample was reduced to a final group of 631 surveys (139 from Spanish, 112 from Colombian and 380 from Brazilian universities).

The SPSS for Windows Statistical package v.22.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for the analyses. The variable “Country” was considered as a fixed factor in the statistical model.

The first stage was to run a descriptive analysis of the variables so as to obtain frequencies, means and deviations. This was followed by a statistical comparison using Crosstabs procedures (for qualitative variables) and an analysis of variance using a General Linear Model (GLM) procedure (for quantitative variables). The mean and standard error of the mean (SEM) of each variable were also calculated. Differences between means were evaluated using Duncan’s multiple range test (p≤0.05).

 

Description of the sample (socioeconomic profile of respondents)

As set out in Table 2, there were no statistical differences between countries regarding the responses in both genders (p>0.05). However, the roles played by the participants within their respective academic communities varied between countries (p<0.001), as did their ages (p<0.001). While in Spain most answers came from undergraduates and academic staff, in Colombia the proportion of academic staff was much smaller than in the other two countries. In Brazil the percentage of undergraduates was low compared to the other two countries, while it had the highest percentage of PhD students. There was also a high percentage of answers from academic staff. The different proportions of participants within the university community in each country also affected the results for the income variables. Table 2 shows that Colombia had the highest percentage of respondents with low incomes (household income equivalent to one official minimum wage), while Brazil had the highest proportion of people earning more than 10 times the official minimum wage (p<0.001). Spain showed the lowest percentages at both ends of the income scale. These statistics confirmed the findings of the Sustainable Development Report (Sachs et al., 2019), which in relation to SDG 10 (reducing inequality) cited mayor challenges in Colombia and Brazil (ranked 67th and 57th out of 162 countries). Although Spain had a better position in the ranking (21st), significant changes were still required.

Agri-food is a broad field within academia covering a wide range of different faculties. This also varies from one country to the next depending on their national curricula and college system. Most participants belonged to veterinary or zootechnical faculties, or to others that combined the two (animal science). The agri-food sector also covers agricultural engineering, the second most important source of participants, except in Colombia. Schools and faculties specializing in food sciences (from a technological or an engineering perspective) were also considered in this research.

It was important to recruit participants from the widest possible range of faculties so as to provide complementary visions as to how to achieve the SDGs in the agri-food field.

 

 

Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics of participants involved in the study. Definition of participant´s profile according to age, gender, university information and economic variables. (n= 631).

[1] min. wage= minimum wage; Values 1 min. wage (2018) = 736 €/month (Spain); 781,242 COP, Colombian Peso/month (Colombia); 954 BR, Brazilian Real/month (Brazil). 1€= 3,418 Colombian peso; 1 €= 4.56 Brazilian real (exchange rates as 02.Jul.2018). A,B: indicate statistical differences (p≤0.05) between countries in the same variable of each row considered.

 

 

Level of general and specific knowledge of SDGs

As shown in Fig. 2, there were statistical differences (p<0.001 and p<0.050) between countries in terms of the level of knowledge of the millennium development goals (MDGs) and the sustainable development goals (SDGs), respectively.

In general, the MDGs appeared to be better known than the SDGs (except in Colombia), probably due to the duration of each one. While the MDGs had remained in force for 15 years (2000-2015), the SDGs were still relatively new (three years old at the time the survey was conducted).

The high level of knowledge about the MDGs in Brazil would require a specific, detailed study. It may be related with the period of government of Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva, of the Workers Party, between Jan. 1, 2003 and Jan. 1, 2011. Social policy was a priority for this government and this may have helped raise public awareness of the MDGs. In general, the MDGs were better known than the SDGs in Spain and Brazil while in Colombia, the opposite was true. If we compare the general level of knowledge of the SDGs in the three countries, they were much better known in Spain and Brazil than in Colombia.

Important differences can be observed when comparing the percentage of positive replies regarding knowledge of the MDGs in our survey of members of university communities and a survey by the Spanish Center for Sociological Research (CIS, 2015), which interviewed members of the general Spanish population. Knowledge of the MDGs was much more generalized in our survey than in that conducted by the CIS (70.5% vs. 24.6%). Gómez- Quintero et al. (2017) reported that 52.85% of their sample group (young people and adults from rural areas) knew nothing about the MDGs while 30.03% knew “just a little”.

The same occurs with SDGs, where the percentage of the Spanish population who knew about the SDGs rose from 10.8% in 2016 to 36% in 2019 (CIS, 2016, 2019), values that were considerably lower than the 64.7% found in our university sample group. Miguel González et al. (2012) found that people with a high educational level were more likely to know about MDGs and other development terminology. This was particularly noticeable when comparing graduates with people with other levels of education, a finding that matches the results obtained in this survey.

As shown in Fig. 3, the top priority SDGs also varied depending on the country or continent consulted (more detailed results in Table S1 [suppl]). In a survey about the 17 SDGs, Salvia et al. (2019) found that the challenges to be overcome on the path towards achieving the SDGs varied from continent to continent, and even from region to region. For their part, Leal Filho et al. (2019) showed that the introduction of SDG-related content in school curriculums also varied by continent.

It is quite logical and predictable that the university community would consider a quality education (SDG 4) a priority goal. Indeed, the first four objectives (SDGs 1-4) identify the most basic human needs, which is perhaps why Brazil and Colombia, countries with a human development index lower than Spain (UNDP, 2019) give greater priority to these objectives.

Spain considered gender equality (SDG 5) an important goal, while for Brazil it was the third least important objective. Spanish participants also emphasized clean energy, reduction of inequalities, responsible production and consumption and action for the climate, peace and justice. In Colombia, education (SDG 4), life on land (SDG 15) and partnerships for achieving the goals (SDG 17) were all considered important.

According to reports from the European Union (2017) and the World Bank (2017 a,b), while in Europe significant efforts have been made to improve environmental impacts, reduce consumption, waste production and CO2 emission, and promote renewable energy sources, in other regions such as Latin America the main emphasis is on improving education, nutrition, health systems and security. Inequality in income distribution is another important priority on the path towards a promising future in both regions (Nicolai et al., 2016; Salvia et al., 2019).

In this paper we will be focusing above all on two SDGs, zero hunger (SDG2) a priority issue in Brazil and Colombia (SDG 2) and responsible consumption and production another (SDG 12), an important goal in Spain and Colombia. Historically, when a country is developing, the priority in terms of agriculture, livestock and food is to increase production. The general aim is for the country to increase food production sufficiently to supply the increasing demand and respond to the changes in consumption habits. Once access to food for the whole population is guaranteed (food security), the demand for high quality products and concerns about more sustainable forms of production start to increase, as consumers become more aware of the consequences of certain models of consumption. Consequently, consumers start to demand products that are more respectful of the natural environment and animal welfare, and offer higher standards and quality (Sañudo et al., 2017).

In these variables our results are consistent with the research by Leal Filho et al. (2019), who found that most of their respondents had some knowledge of SDGs. Most of them also agreed about the need to integrate SDGs into higher education institutions inside and outside class, but were unsure about how to put this into practical effect within the teaching syllabus.

 

 

Figure 2.  Percentage of participants in each country that know or have heard about the millennium development goals (MDGs) and sustainable development goals (SDGs), n= 139, 112 and 380 for Spain, Colombia and Brazil, respectively. A, B: indicate statistical differences (p ≤0.05) between countries in the same variable (MDGs or SDGs respectively).

 

 

Figure 3.  Sustainable development goals (SDGs) that should be given priority (n=631 answers; values expressed as percentage of answers for each goal)

 

 

Specific knowledge about the strategies for implementing SDGs 2 and 12

Table 3 sets out the answers to questions about the degree of knowledge about the different possible strategies

for implementing SDGs 2 and 12. Statistical differences can be observed between the countries for most of the strategies. However, the responses were much more similar for general strategies such as those related to the concept of degrowth as a possible efficient strategy (the least-known of all the strategies presented in the questionnaire) and food sovereignty, which is quite well-known.

In all three countries there was a high level of knowledge about issues such as organic production (livestock and agriculture), deforestation and animal welfare. Awareness of these issues was higher in Brazil than in Spain and Colombia, probably because of the impact on the Amazon rainforest. Brazil also stood out for its high level of knowledge of genetic biodiversity and sustainable farming systems. In South American countries, distribution and consumption strategies such as the promotion of locally made products, labeling systems, differentiated quality brands and resilience were less well-known. Colombia was the country with the lowest levels of knowledge about most development strategies.

The most favored type of action to develop in each country will depend on the different level of priority that each country gives to them (Salvia et al., 2019). As well as the basic conditions, strengths, capacities and peculiarities of the country, which can differ between those belonging to the same subregion (Nhemachena et al., 2018). For instance, in Latin-America the strategies used to reduce ambiental impact and favor a sustainable developed differed depending on the country studied. Strategies used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production, which at the same time let be efficient in productive terms varied as shows FAO-AGROSAVIA (2018). Kanter et al. (2016, 2018) compiled practical examples that detailed how applicate SDGs into action in beef field and other diverse agricultural trade-offs in Uruguay. The application in other countries of the proposed models developed is a great challenge, and each strategy must be adapted to the particular conditions. Guerrero et al. (2020) summarized some successful initiatives applied in different Ibero-American countries as Spain, and the complex relationship that the most of strategies proposed on Table 3, which are actions not only necessary to achieve SDG 2 and 12, but also collaborate with others SDGs.

 

 

Table 3. Average scores[1] about the degree of knowledge of the possible strategies for implementing SDGs in the agriculture and food sectors.

[1] Scale (1-5): 1, totally unknown; 2, partially unknown; 3, indifferent; 4, partially known; 5, totally known. [2] SEM: standard error of mean. A,B: indicate statistical differences (p≤0.05) between countries in the same variable of each row considered.

 

 

Civic engagement in the implementation of SDGs

As Table 4 shows, various statistical differences were observed between countries in the degree of applicability of all the strategies except degrowth, which was the least known and therefore the least applicable. In accordance with the approach of ecological economics (Martínez-Alier et al., 2010; Beling et al., 2018) degrowth is not necessarily generalized negative growth throughout the economy. It exposes the physical and social limits of conventional growth and maximizes efficiency in the use of resources. This ecological rationale is in line with targets 12.2, 12.4 and 12.5 of the SDGs.

There was some consensus between the three countries regarding specific strategies such as those relating to labeling, various ways of certifying responsible production or consumption and quality brands that guarantee product quality, which were all considered very applicable. It is worth noting that over the last decade in Latin American countries there has been growing interest in strategies of this kind for food products (Teixeira & Sañudo, 2019), which could explain the answers. The general public perception regarding traceability is also changing although improvements need to be made in the way it is implemented in food companies (Lopes et al., 2020; Pelegrino et al., 2020).

When asked about their level of engagement and the applicability of the different strategies in their future professional careers, most participants seemed relatively optimistic, except for permaculture in Spain which had average scores of less than 5 out of 10. Generally, the scores for level of engagement and applicability of the strategies were higher in Colombia and Brazil than in Spain, especially those relating to deforestation, the use of resilient species, the combination of sustainable farming systems, or the use of surplus food and by-products from the food industry.

Fig. 4 presents the distribution of the answers provided by participants from the three countries to questions about their knowledge of the different strategies and their applicability. Participants were also asked the following direct question: Do you believe that your actions can contribute to achieving the SDGs? Although many of the participants in all three countries responded positively (42-49% of sample), there were statistical differences (p<0.050), between Spain (34.5%) and Latin America (44.5-51.8%, Colombia-Brazil), where a higher percentage felt that they could make a positive contribution, although it was interesting to note that many stated that they were unsure how to do so. It worth describes the cluster profile involving people who are willing to make changes but still don't know how to do it. Because they could be considered as one of the first target groups to involve in the process of implementation SDGs strategies and start significative changes.

Most of persons from this cluster were women (75% on the Spanish subsample and 68% in the Brazilian). Related to their role in the university, in Spain most of people were degree students (56.3%), being academic staff the second group more represented in this target (25%). In Colombia also degree students were the higher group (77.6%), but academic staff represented the lowest percentage (5%). In Brazil profile of participants were varied, cluster was composed again by students, mainly from degree (32%), but also Ms.C and Ph.D (16.6% and 18.9% respectively). Academic staff, as it was found in the Spanish group, involve the 26% of this Brazilian cluster. Also, it is remarkable than the cluster involve an important percentage of persons who had not heard about SDGs (39.6%, 62.1% and 50.9% in Spain, Colombia and Brazil respectively). Fact that partially would explain the difficulty to implementation of strategies.

The Spanish participants were the most skeptical about making a positive contribution to achieving SDGs (p<0.050), arguing that their actions could not bring about change or that changes of this kind were the responsibility of politicians. This attitude, which was much less widespread in Latin America, is consistent with the results of CIS surveys carried out amongst the general Spanish population in 2019, in which it was reported that the main obstacle to achieving SDGs was a lack of political will (40.5%), followed by political and institutional corruption (23.2%) and a lack of social awareness amongst people, companies and institutions (11.4%).

Pohlmann et al. (2020) reported that many changes are still required in agri-food models, as is greater collaboration between all the stakeholders in the production chain. This requires not only enhanced public engagement, but also the frameworks for implementing SDGs, education about these goals and more widespread public participation.

 

 

Figure 4.  Comparison between knowledge and application of strategies between countries: a) degree of knowledge of general concepts relating to sustainable development [Scale (1-5): 1, totally unknown – 5, totally known]; b) strategies for implementing SDGs in the agri-food area (engagement) [Scale (1-10): 1, not applicable; 10, totally applicable].

 

 

Table 4. Average scores regarding the degree of engagement and applicability of the following strategies in respondents’ future careers[1].

[1] Scale (1-10): 1- not applicable; 10- totally applicable. [2] SEM: standard error of mean. A,B: indicate statistical differences (p ≤0.05) between countries in the same variable of each row considered.

 

Universities can make fundamental contributions to achieving the SDGs in their role as social actors that specialize in providing education, training and research. SDG 2 and 12 need professionals in food, animal sciences, agriculture and livestock farming to produce healthy, sustainable food, while keeping their animals in conditions that guarantee their welfare. These specialists are trained in universities. These institutions need to adapt their content to the sustainable paradigm, replacing their traditional approach. The bibliography consulted suggests that many universities are already on this path and are adapting their syllabuses towards SDGs.

The results of our research show that Latin America there is less information and knowledge but a greater willingness to collaborate in SDGs. This apparent contradiction is explained from the meso and macro levels. Within countries (meso level), more informed people participated more. But, the comparison between countries (the macro level) reveals the differences in the role of the state (welfare or liberal) the expectations of citizens and the geographical context. The needs and priorities regarding implementation of the SDGs must also be adjusted to level and context.

There are a number of basic steps that universities can take to help achieve the SDGs. These include providing knowledge, innovative approaches and possible solutions to the associated problems as well as educating their students to become current and future implementers of SDGs. Surveys such as this one enable us to identify whether the academic community in a agriculture and food, field are aware of the different strategies being applied to achieve the SDGs and if they are collaborating in this process.

While this study aspires to make a useful contribution to the emerging literature on SDGs and their relationship with universities and the degree of knowledge and willingness amongst the members of university communities to engage and participate in the implementation of these goals, it also has various limitations that must be taken into account when generalizing its findings. Firstly, the fact that knowledge and attitudes towards SDGs are continuously changing within these communities, due to the various awareness-raising campaigns that universities have been carrying out since the surveys in this study were conducted. This means that the methodology used in this study could be useful for measuring the effectiveness of the different strategies for raising awareness of SDGs that are currently being applied in various universities around the world.

Despite its limitations, this study makes an important contribution in terms of the relevance of the data gathered. The methodology developed in this research could also be applied in similar future studies focusing on other academic fields, so complementing this study about agri-food.