Strengthening Gulayan sa Paaralan or School Garden Program through Learners' Awareness of Food Sustainability

© The Author(s) 2025. Published by AMO Publisher. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Strengthening Gulayan sa Paaralan or School Garden Program through Learners' Awareness of Food Sustainability Marlon F. Adlit  Department of Education-Central Office, Bureau of Learning Delivery-Teaching and Learning Division, SEPS, Pasig City, Philippines Marlene F. Adlit Laguna Resettlement Community School, SDO City of San Pedro, Teacher III, San Pedro, Laguna, Philippines Mylin S. Zaide Laguna Resettlement Community School, SDO City of San Pedro, Master Teacher II, San Pedro, Laguna, Philippines Abstract School garden programs are becoming widespread across schools. This study explores senior high school learners’ perception and awareness of food sustainability to strengthen the school garden program. A descriptive-survey method was used, collecting data from 124 learners via Google Forms. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Data were collected from 124 learners using Google Forms as a survey instrument and a stratified sample to yield both quantitative and qualitative data. To conduct the analysis, researchers used Microsoft Excel, which included both the use of descriptive and inferential statistics. The study demonstrates a moderate understanding of food sustainability across economic, social, environmental, and governmental dimensions, though food prices are high. Perceptions and awareness of food sustainability are influenced by demographics such as age, gender, grade level, and specialization. The findings suggest including food sustainability integration into TVL competencies in home economics and health in MAPEH across grade levels. Public-private partnerships must be strengthened, formation and implementation of a waste management system, transcending school gardens (Gulayan sa Paaralan) toward city or municipal gardens (Gulayan sa Bayan) is highly important. Keywords: Awareness, Community Practices, Food sustainability, School Garden, Senior high school. Suggested citation: Adlit, M.F., Adlit, M.F., & Zaide, M.S. (2025). Strengthening Gulayan sa Paaralan or School Garden Program through Learners' Awareness of Food Sustainability. European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability, 1(6), 70-88. https://doi.org/10.59324/ejiss.2025.1(6).07 Introduction Effective interventions in schools are critical for addressing global challenges in child nutrition and wellbeing, with education playing a central role in shaping food choices and ensuring sustainability, security, and safety in food systems (WHO, 2021; Chakraborty et al., 2021). Achieving food sustainability requires careful planning and coordination, especially in agricultural systems, as emphasized by Gregorioa and Ancog (2020), who call for reforms in Southeast Asia. School garden programs (SGP) have emerged as www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 71 vital tools for integrating sustainability into education, promoting both intellectual development and environmental awareness (Papadopoulou et al., 2020; Nury et al., 2017). These programs are enhanced by teacher competency and the alignment of policy and governance, with collective efforts required for effective food guidelines and community-based initiatives (Loboguerrero et al., 2020; Arcuri et al., 2022). School garden programs significantly impact food consumption, cognition, and psychosocial development, fostering positive behaviors and enhancing learners ' engagement with their communities (Davis et al., 2015; Pollin & Retzlaff-Fürst, 2021; Wang & Yanai, 2023). SGPs combine practical activities like farming, cooking, and sports to promote healthier eating habits, especially the intake of fruits and vegetables, while advancing learners ' knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values related to environmental sustainability (Amiri et al., 2021; Qi et al., 2022). These programs have also proven effective in enhancing food security when coupled with community-based nutrition education and support systems (Slagel et al., 2021), illustrating the importance of holistic educational approaches that encompass both theoretical knowledge and practical skills (Figueroa-Piña et al., 2021; Andaluz Romanillos & Rees, 2022). Efficient execution of school garden programs (SGPs) requires key elements such as organizational support, funding, training, stakeholder involvement, and curriculum integration (Amiri et al., 2021; Hoover et al., 2021). SGPs have shown potential for promoting social and emotional learning, though more research is needed in this area (Lohr et al., 2021). Programs that integrate farming, cooking, and dietary education have led to improvements in food intake and nutrition education (Landry et al., 2021). However, challenges remain, particularly in low-income areas, where additional interventions like sports and strategies to increase fruit and vegetable consumption are needed (Greer et al., 2019; Qi et al., 2022). In the Philippines, the Gulayan sa Paaralan Program (GPP) has successfully expanded food production and reduced malnutrition, but continued support and enhancement are essential (Ibañez et al., 2023). Despite the benefits, integrating SGPs into the educational system faces several obstacles (Alexander & Grannum, 2021; Diaz et al., 2019). Researchers emphasize that these programs should be aligned with sustainable development goals (SDGs) and long-term sustainability (Hak et al., 2016; Sachs et al., 2019). This study explores various facets of food sustainability, including social perceptions of school gardens (Cairns, 2017) and the impact of SGPs on learner well-being (Lohr et al., 2021; Larsen, 2023). It also investigates political, economic, and environmental dimensions, examining collective governance in food sustainability (Arcuri et al., 2022), economic performance (Chiffoleau & Dourian, 2020), and adaptation strategies in resource production for schools and communities (Kato & Boules, 2022; Toboso-Chavero et al., 2023). Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study on Strengthening School Garden Program Strengthening School Garden Program Perception and Awareness of Food Sustainability Perception and Awareness of Local Community Practices Perception and Awareness of School Food Sustainability www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 72 School Gardens have become popular in the field of public elementary and secondary education. However, further research is necessary to determine the perception and awareness of learners on food sustainability as shown in Figure 1. The study provides input into strengthening the school garden program of one of the public integrated high schools in the City of San Pedro, Laguna. The study addresses questions on the demographic profile of respondents, such as age, gender, and specialization. It explores the perception and awareness of learners on food sustainability in terms of economic, social, environmental aspects, government support and facilities, and public participatory willingness. It explains the perception and awareness of learners on local community practices related to food sustainability, the correlation between demographics and food sustainability perceptions, and the awareness of learners. It determines inputs for strengthening the school garden program. The study hypothesizes that there is no discernible relationship between the demographic characteristics of learners and their perceptions and awareness of food sustainability. Methods Study Design, Population, Setting The researchers employed a mixed-methods descriptive-survey method to collect and analyze both quantitative and qualitative data on learners’ perceptions and awareness of food sustainability. The descriptive survey, as noted by Adlit et al (2023), is effective in gathering numerical data, making it suitable for assessing broad concerns related to sustainability. This design allows triangulation of results, establishing credibility and depth of the analysis. Stratified sampling was used, where the population of 124 learners enrolled in a public integrated high school was divided into subgroups for more accurate estimations, reflecting the population's diversity (Etikan & Bala, 2017; Singh et al., 2023). Stratified sampling was utilized to minimize sampling bias and ensure accurate representation of subgroups. This further increases the precision of the generalizability of findings across learner demographics. Study Tools, Variables, and Data Collection For efficient dissemination and accessibility for participants, Google Forms was utilized to administer a survey adapted from Chakraborty et al. (2021), focusing on the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of food sustainability, as well as government policies and public participation. The survey tool was adapted from the study of Chakraborty et al (2021). The original instrument has high consistency and accuracy and demonstrated strong psychometric properties as verified by Cronbach’s Alpha exceeding 0.80. The adaptation process included content validation by field experts such as seasoned Teachers, Master Teachers, and Head Teachers, and pilot testing to ensure cultural and contextual appropriateness. To guarantee comprehension of the questions, the instrument was translated into Filipino and subjected to translation for accuracy, a process aligned with standard cross-cultural instrument validation protocols. The study emphasized learners’ awareness of local sustainability practices, including food security, production, and consumption behaviors, with survey responses measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Don’t know) to 5 (Very High). Data Analysis In addition to descriptive statistics like frequency, percentage, and mean (Adlit et al., 2023), inferential statistics were applied using the Chi-square test to analyze relationships between non-numeric variables to ensure rigorous data interpretations. The Chi-square test is ideal for nominal or categorical data, assessing correlations between different groups and checking the alignment of observed and expected data distributions, particularly the demographics and dimensions of food sustainability awareness (Turhan, 2020; Connely, 2019). www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 73 In ensuring accuracy and reproducibility, data processing and statistical computation were the Microsoft Excel with statistical add-ins. This supports precision in evaluating the relationships between various factors and allows transparent data management and visualization. Cross-tabulations were generated for comparisons across subgroups. Ethical Considerations Ethical approval was secured from the SGP coordinator and the Division research review board. Informed consent was obtained from all the learners participating in the study. Where minor learners participated, parental or guardian consent was required. The study upheld the ethical principles such as voluntary participation, confidentiality, and anonymity. Likewise, it also followed the ethical guidelines set by the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173) and the Philippines Social Science Council. All data were stored, secured, and used exclusively for academic purposes, removing identifiers to protect the learners participating in the study. Results Most of the respondents were 17-19 years old (81%), and the majority were females (52%). The learners were mostly from Grade 11 (71%) from the Academic Track-Humanities and Social Science strand (25%). The local agricultural supply is met (SD = 1.07), and the agricultural program in the area is strong, such as entrepreneurship, livelihood, and employment (SD = 1.15). While the price range is large and the product is expensive (SD =1.20), the overall mean perception of 2.91 (SD = 1.22). This result indicates that the respondents have a moderate perception (3.49) of food sustainability in terms of economic aspects. The perception and awareness of respondents on food production capacity and skills are low (SD = 0.96), while moderate on the adequacy of food nutrition and observance of health regulations (SD = 0.99). The respondents appear to have a moderate view of food sustainability in terms of social elements, based on the overall mean impression of 2.75 (SD = 0.99). Results indicate that the respondents have a moderate level of perception and awareness towards food sustainability. In terms of rules and processes surrounding animal products like pork, chicken, and beef (SD = 1.03). This implies that the respondents are generally recognizing the importance of nutrition as well as following health guidelines in our local area (SD = 1.00), with an overall mean perception of 2.69 (SD = 1.01). Respondents have moderate perceptions and awareness of the fact that schools are subject to government instructions, mainly concerning land and water management, waste management, response to climate change, and reduction of pollution (SD =1.07), and striving for public-private partnerships through government policies for sustainability of food systems at school with the lowest mean (SD=1.04). The average perception of food sustainability in terms of governmental support and amenities is shown as a moderate one by an overall mean score or rating of 2.98 (SD=1.05). Participants have a moderate perception and awareness that the government should support schools in the preservation of the food system (SD = 1.28), with a descriptive interpretation of high, and school promotes research and technical innovation related to food preservation being the lowest (SD = 1.04), as indicated in means ranging from 3.04 to 3.57. The overall mean perception of 3.18 (SD = 1.14) implies that the respondents have a moderate perception of food sustainability in terms of public participatory willingness. The respondents have a reasonable perception and awareness, with means ranging from 2.81 to 3.15, recognizing that our food is sourced from local forests, gardens, or fishery products (SD = 1.14) and sourcing through local markets and food (SD = 1.18). The overall mean perception of 2.94 (SD = 1.16) www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 74 shows that the respondents have a moderate perception of public food sourcing practices concerning food sustainability. The respondents are highly perceptive and aware that they check for safety standards, shelf life on the label of purchased processed food products (SD = 1.17), and check quality and safety (SD = 1.19), it is shown with means ranging from 3.46 to 3.63. The mean perception of 3.54 (SD = 1.17) represents high levels of perception regarding food sustainability as far as choice and rating of food quality are concerned. It showed that education has a great influence on their decisions towards the fact about the quality, security, and safety of food (Chakraborty et al, 2021). Moderate perception and awareness of the means for pests, weeds, and disease control used in school/ community (SD = 1.14) and the wide extent of agricultural intensification in the school/community (SD = 1.16) range between 2.84 to 3.16. The mean perception value was found to be relatively moderate at a value of 3.03(SD = 1.16). Respondents are aware and perceptive of food waste during post-harvesting processes, production, or supply chains (SD = 1.09) and that there are mechanisms in place to minimize this waste in schools (SD = 1.06), as evidenced by mean scores ranging between 2.52 and 2.85. The overall perception means of 2.70 (SD = 1.09) means that the respondents tend to consider food consumption practices on a limited basis as being moderately sustainable concerning food security. Discussion The age characteristics of the study participants had significant associations with respondents’ perception of the mean and awareness of food sustainability in terms of economic aspects (p=.001; r=.34, N=124). This was also true for their grade level (p=.045; r=.15, N=124) and strand/specialization (p=.030; r=.32, N=124). The null hypothesis was accepted since there is no discernible correlation between the gender of the respondents (at a significance level of 0.05) and food sustainability. In other words, factors such as age, grade level, and strand/ specialization impact how much they know about food sustainability in terms of economic aspects in general. No relationship existed between age (p=.557), gender (p=.445), grade level (p=.999), or strand/ specialization (p=.597) at a .05 significance level about the mean level of perception and awareness for the social aspect regarding food sustainability by adolescents. Hence, gender did not influence learners’ knowledge about social aspects of sustainable food production and consumption. The mean level of the respondent’s perception and awareness of food sustainability in terms of environmental aspects has no significant relationship with their age (12, N = 124; 19.678, p=.0.073), gender (4, N = 108; 0.974, p = 0.914), and grade level (4, N = 124; 0.3.654, p=.455). Meanwhile, with a p-value of 0.044, a significant relationship exists between the respondent’s strand/specialization (32, N = 124; 46.773) at a .05 significance level. This implies that the respondent’s strand/specialization influences the mean level of perception and awareness of food sustainability in terms of environmental aspects. While the mean level of the respondent’s perception and awareness of food sustainability in terms of government support and facilities has no significant relationship with their age (12, N = 124; 13.294, p=.348), gender (4, N = 124; 2.797; p = 0.592), grade level (4, N = 124; 3.156, p=.532), and strand/specialization (32, N = 124; 32.385, p = .498) at .05 significance level. This implies that the respondent’s related factors do not influence their mean level of perception and awareness of food sustainability in terms of government support and facilities. Further, the mean level of the respondent’s perception and awareness of food sustainability in terms of public participatory willingness has no significant relationship with their age (12, N = 124; 19.678, p=.0.073), and gender (4, N = 108; 0.974, p = 0.914). www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 75 Meanwhile, the mean level of the respondent’s perception and awareness of food sustainability in terms of public participatory willingness has a significant relationship with grade level (4, N = 124; 10.896, p=.0.028), and strand/specialization (32, N = 124; 47.456, p = 0.039). This implies that the respondents' grade level and strand specialization influence their mean level of perception and awareness of food sustainability in terms of public participatory willingness. Based on the results, the mean level of the respondent’s perception and awareness of food sustainability in terms of food sourcing practices has no significant relationship with their age (12, N = 124; 11.010, p=.528), gender (4, N = 124; 8.325; p = 0.080), grade level (4, N = 124; 6.611, p=.158), and strand/specialization (32, N = 124; 39.624, p = .166) at .05 significance level. This implies that the respondent’s related factors do not influence their mean level of perception and awareness of food sustainability in terms of government support and facilities. The mean level of the respondent’s perception and awareness of food sustainability in terms of choice and rating of food quality has a significant relationship with their age (12, N = 124; 21.962, p=.0.038). Meanwhile, the mean level of the respondent’s perception and awareness of food sustainability in terms of choice and rating of food quality has no significant relationship with gender (4, N = 124; 5.311, p=.0.257), grade level (4, N = 124; 4.679, p=.0.322), and strand/specialization (32, N = 124; 27.183, p = 0.709). This implies that the respondents' gender, grade level, and strand specialization do not influence their mean level of perception and awareness of food sustainability in terms of choice and rating of food quality. Based on the results, the mean level of the respondents perception and awareness of food sustainability in terms of food production practices has no significant relationship with their age (12, N = 124; 9.770, p=.636), gender (4, N = 124; 4.741; p = 0.315), grade level (4, N = 124; 3.257, p=.516), and strand/specialization (32, N = 124; 28.501, p = .644) at .05 significance level. This implies that the respondents' related factors do not influence their mean level of perception and awareness of food sustainability in terms of food production practices. The mean level of the respondent's perception and awareness of food sustainability in terms of food consumption practices has no significant relationship with their age (12, N = 124; 6.347, p=.898), gender (4, N = 124; 2.432; p = 0.657), grade level (4, N = 124; 5.580, p=.233), and strand/specialization (32, N = 124; 35.657, p = .300) at .05 significance level. This implies that the respondents' related factors do not influence their mean level of perception and awareness of food sustainability in terms of food consumption practices. Of the 124 respondents, only five disagree that the fruits and vegetables produced in the school garden were used in keeping healthy and nutritious foods based on the responses it can be concluded that there is a lack of community involvement and support in the school garden participants mentioned various reasons such as limited availability of vegetables lack of vegetable production and a preference for nonvegetable food options. This suggests that the school garden may not be effectively utilized for promoting healthy and nutritious food choices. Further, based on the responses, it indicates that the use of vegetables in school settings, particularly in canteens, is recognized and valued for its potential benefits in promoting health and strength among learners. Participants mentioned the importance of providing nutrition to undernourished children, maintaining the health and immune system of learners, and strengthening the resistance of young people. The use of vegetables in school feeding programs and as ingredients in cooking is also acknowledged. However, there are some instances where the utilization of vegetables may be limited or overlooked by certain learners. Overall, the responses highlight the positive perception and understanding of the role of vegetables in promoting a healthy future and self-sufficiency. www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 76 The responses indicate that there is a lack of involvement or availability of a school garden in the mentioned context. Participants mentioned reasons such as the absence of a school garden due to most areas being made of cement, which makes it difficult to plant vegetables. Additionally, it is mentioned that only junior high school learners are involved or that the participant themselves is not involved or aware of the situation. This suggests limited or non-existent participation in the school garden initiative in the given context. The responses indicate a positive perception and understanding of the benefits and importance of a school garden. Participants mentioned that the school garden helps take care of young learners by providing them with nutritious food. They also emphasize the significance of the school garden in ensuring a steady supply of vegetables and fruits. The idea of mutual assistance and helping others is mentioned multiple times, highlighting the collaborative nature of the school garden initiative. Participants also mention the involvement of learners themselves, as well as the support of SK officials and other organizations in planting vegetables and fruits in schools. The cultural value of appreciating farmers' contributions to food production is also acknowledged. Overall, the responses reflect a positive attitude toward the role of school gardens in promoting nutrition, collaboration, and community engagement. The conversation revolves around the importance of nutrition and health, with an emphasis on strengthening learners’ bodies and maintaining their overall well-being. However, there is a consistent mention of the limited availability of vegetables and fruits in the school, contrasting with the presence of other food options. The school canteen is seen as a potential source of vegetables and nutritious food, providing healthier meal choices for learners. The concept of sustainability and gardening is brought up as a solution to address the lack of access to vegetables and fruits, promoting self-sufficiency and healthy eating habits. Varying opinions and perspectives are expressed throughout the conversation, adding complexity to the discussion. Conclusion The study demonstrates that learners have a moderate perception of food sustainability concerning economic, social, environmental, and governmental aspects, as well as safety requirements for processed foods. Demographic attributes such as age, gender, grade level, and area of specialization influence learners’ perceptions and awareness of food sustainability. Although barriers like a lack of access to quality vegetables and poor production were identified, learners have positive perceptions towards school gardens, which are valuable in promoting food security and community involvement. To promote understanding and awareness of food sustainability, there is a need to create specific targeted interventions and educational programs that aim at integrating these concepts in TVL Home Economics subjects and Health (MAPEH) across all grade levels. Public-private partnerships must be strengthened to encourage increased research and technical innovation on food preservation, as well as other concerns relating to food sustainability. Government, private organizations, and academic institutions can work together to come up with new ideas on how best they can improve food practices and sustainability. Moreover, promoting school garden initiatives through community involvement is necessary. This may include engaging stakeholders like the PTA, alumni, or community organizations. It is a must to seek city government support and policies that focus on food sustainability among schools. The need for government support that facilitates the creation of a conducive environment for food sustainability initiatives cannot be overemphasized for long-term benefits, making (Gulayan sa Paaralan, Gulayan sa Bayan) school gardens become a city or municipal garden. www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 77 Acknowledgement The researchers extend heartfelt gratitude to the officials of the Schools Division Office of the City of San Pedro, Laguna, the reviewers and validators of this study and the instrument used, teachers, learners and parents, and to all those who participated in this study. Deo Soli sit semper gloria! Conflict of Interests No conflict of interest. References Acharya, K. P., Budhathoki, C. B., Bjønness, B., & Devkota, B. (2022). School gardening activities as contextual scaffolding for learning science: participatory action research in a community school in Nepal. Educational Action Research, 30(3), 462-479. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1850494 Adlit, M. F., Adlit, M. F., Rama, J. M., Dineros, M. J., & Lim-Barrozo, D. (2023). Effects of Learning Action Cells among Elementary Teachers' Level of Awareness on Climate Change Education. Puissant, 4, 1113-1134. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-83684-6 Alexander, G. K., & Grannum, D. R. (2021). School Garden Benefits: Health Promotion and Environmental Conservation. NASN School Nurse. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942602X211058783 Amiri, A., Geravandi, S., & Rostami, F. (2021). Potential effects of school garden on students' knowledge, attitude, and experience: A pilot project on sixth grade students in Iran. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 62, 127174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127174 Andaluz Romanillos, M. S., & Rees, S. (2022). Introducing Food Sustainability in Formal Education: A Teaching-Learning Sequence Contextualized in the Garden for Secondary School Students. Education Sciences, 12(3), 168. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030168 Arcuri, S., Minotti, B., & Galli, F. (2022). Food policy integration in small cities: The case of intermunicipal governance in Lucca, Italy. Journal of Rural Studies, 89, 287-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.12.005 Bhushan, S., Kumar, A., Lone, S. A., Anwar, S., & Gunaime, N. M. (2023). An Efficient Class of Estimators in Stratified Random Sampling with an Application to Real Data. Axioms, 12(6), 576. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms12060576 Burt, K. G., Luesse, H. B., Rakoff, J., Ventura, A., & Burgermaster, M. (2018). School gardens in the United States: Current barriers to integration and sustainability. American Journal of Public Health, 108(11), 1543-1549. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304674 Burt, K. G., Koch, P., & Contento, I. (2017). Development of the GREEN (Garden Resources, Education, and Environment Nexus) Tool: An Evidence-Based Model for School Garden Integration. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 117(10), 1517-1527.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2017.02.008 Cairns, K. (2017). Connecting to food: cultivating children in the school garden. Children's Geographies, 15(3), 304-318. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2016.1221058 Chakraborty, J. S., Parida, B. R., & Singh, N. (2021). Future Food Sustainability Can Be Traced Back into Local People’s Socio-Cultural Roots in Uttarakhand Himalaya, India. Sustainability, 13(13), 7060. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137060 www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 78 Chan, C. L., Tan, P. Y., & Gong, Y. Y. (2021). Evaluating the effectiveness of school garden-based programme in addressing knowledge, attitudes and practices on nutrition and diet of school children aged 3–18: a systematic review. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 80(OCE5), E218. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665121003463 Chiffoleau, Y., & Dourian, T. (2020). Sustainable Food Supply Chains: Is Shortening the Answer? A Literature Review for a Research and Innovation Agenda. Sustainability, 12(23), 9831. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239831 Connelly, L. (2019). Chi-square test. Medsurg Nursing, 28(2), 127-127. https://www.proquest.com/openview/04d2ff080887f9111b68eb7490a9630a/1?pqorigsite=gscholar&cbl=30764 Cramer, S. E., Ball, A. L., & Hendrickson, M. K. (2019). “Our school system is trying to be agrarian”: educating for reskilling and food system transformation in the rural school garden. Agriculture and Human Values, 36, 507-519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09942-1 Davis, J. N., Landry, M. J., Vandyousefi, S., Jeans, M. R., Hudson, E. A., Hoelscher, D. M., ... & Pérez, A. (2023). Effects of a School-Based Nutrition, Gardening, and Cooking Intervention on Metabolic Parameters in High-risk Youth: A Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Network Open, 6(1), e2250375-e2250375. http://jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50375 Davis, J. N., Spaniol, M. R., & Somerset, S. (2015). Sustenance and sustainability: maximizing the impact of school gardens on health outcomes. Public health nutrition, 18(13), 2358-2367. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980015000221 Diaz, J. M., Warner, L. A., Webb, S., & Barry, D. (2019). Obstacles for school garden program success: Expert consensus to inform policy and practice. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 18(3), 195-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2018.1450170 Etikan, I., & Bala, K. (2017). Sampling and sampling methods. Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal, 5(6), 00149. https://doi.org/10.15406/bbij.2017.05.00149 Fardet, A., & Rock, E. (2020). How to protect both health and food system sustainability? A holistic ‘global health’-based approach via the 3V rule proposal. Public Health Nutrition, 23(16), 3028-3044. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136898002000227X Figueroa-Piña, D. G., Chávez-Servín, J. L., de la Torre-Carbot, K., del Carmen Caamaño-Pérez, M., Lucas-Deecke, G., Roitman-Genoud, P., & Ojeda-Navarro, L. R. (2021). Evaluation of the effect of a school garden as an educational didactic tool in vegetable and fruit consumption in teenagers. Nutrition Research and Practice, 15(2), 235-247. https://doi.org/10.4162/nrp.2021.15.2.235 Greer, A. E., Rainville, K., Knausenberger, A., & Sandolo, C. (2019). Opportunities for school gardenbased health education in a lower-income, diverse, urban school district. American Journal of Health Education, 50(4), 257-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2019.1616010 Gregorioa, G. B., & Ancog, R. C. (2020). Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agricultural production in Southeast Asia: toward transformative change in agricultural food systems. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, 17(1362-2020-1097), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.303781 Hák, T., Janoušková, S., & Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators, 60, 565-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003 Hagenimana, T. (2022). Food safety priority, a critical gap and a window for effective food, nutrition security and sustainable development in Rwanda: A contextual analysis. Journal of Regulatory Science, 10(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.21423/JRS-V10I1HAGENIMANA www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 85 Table 11. Mean Perception and Awareness Level of the Respondents on Local Community Practices Related to Food Sustainability in Terms of Choice and Rating of Food Quality Choice and Rating of Food Quality Mean SD Descriptive Interpretation 1. Check for safety standards, shelf life in the label of purchased processed food product. (Sinusuri ang mga pamantayan sa kaligtasan, petsa sa label o ng labels sa istante ng biniling produktong naprosesong pagkain.) 3.46 1.17 Moderate 2. Check quality and safety. (Sinusuri ang kalidad at kaligtasan ng pagkain.) 3.63 1.19 High 3. Check food in terms of variety and adequate availability. (Sinusuri ang iba’t-ibang pagkain at kung paano ito gamitin.) 3.53 1.15 High Over-all 3.54 1.17 High Legend: 4.50 – 5.00 Very High; 3.50 – 4.49 High; 2.50 – 3.49 Moderate. 1.50 – 2.49 Low;1.00 – 1.49 Don’t know Table 12. Mean Perception and Awareness Level of the Respondents on Local Community Practices Related to Food Sustainability in Terms of Food Production Practices Food Production Practices Mean SD Descriptive Interpretation 1.Wide extent of agricultural intensification in the school/community. (Pagpapalawak at pagpapaunlad ng agrikultura sa paaralan/komunidad.) 3.16 1.16 Moderate 2. Agricultural yield is consistently maintained year-round in the school/community. (Ang ani ng agrikultura ay patuloy na pinananatili sa buong taon sa paaralan/komunidad.) 3.03 1.19 Moderate 3. Awareness on the agricultural techniques traditionally practiced in school/community. (Ang kamalayan sa mga pamamaraan ng tradisyonal na agrikultura ay ginagawa sa paaralan/komunidad.) 3.15 1.15 Moderate 4. There is an extent of livestock rearing in the school/community. (Malawak ang pag-aalaga ng hayop sa paaralan/komunidad para sa pagkain.) 2.97 1.17 Moderate 5. Natural means for pests, weeds and disease control are used in school/ community. (Ang mga likas na paraan para sa mga peste, damo at pagkontrol sa sakit ay ginagamit sa paaralan/komunidad.) 2.84 1.14 Moderate 6. Cultivation of local indigenous varieties practiced and encouraged in school/ community. (Paglilinang ng mga lokal o katutubong gawain sa agrikultura ay ginagawa at hinihikayat sa paaralan/komunidad.) 2.90 1.21 Moderate 7. There are technologically advanced agricultural techniques presently practiced. (May mga teknolohikal na pamamaraan sa agrikultura na kasalukuyang ginagamit sa paaralan/komunidad.) 3.07 1.11 Moderate 8. School/community adopt controllable resource recycling and agro waste management practices. (Pinagtibay ng paaralan/komunidad ang pangangasiwa sa pagrerecycle at mga dumi mula sa agrikultura.) 3.15 1.12 Moderate Over-all 3.03 1.16 Moderate Legend: 4.50 – 5.00 Very High; 3.50 – 4.49 High; 2.50 – 3.49 Moderate. 1.50 – 2.49 Low;1.00 – 1.49 Don’t know Table 13. Mean Perception and Awareness Level of the Respondents on Local Community Practices Related to Food Sustainability in Terms of Food Consumption Practices Food Consumption Practices Mean SD Descriptive Interpretation 1. There is food wastage during the consumption for feeding program of the school. (Mayroong pag-aaksaya ng pagkain sa panahon ng pagkonsumo.) 2.84 1.16 Moderate 2. There is food wastage during production, post-harvest practices and supply chains. (Mayroong pag-aaksaya ng pagkain sa panahon ng pagkonsumo para sa feeding program ng paaralan.) 2.52 1.09 Moderate www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 86 3. There is waste management systems or facilities to prevent food loss in the school. (Mayroong pag-aaksaya ng pagkain sa panahon ng produksyon, post-harvest practices at supply chain.) 2.57 1.01 Moderate 4. There are systems or facilities in waste management to prevent food loss in schools . (Mayroong mga sistema o pasilidad sa pamamahala ng basura upang maiwasan ang pagkawala ng pagkain sa paaralan.) 2.85 1.06 Moderate Over-all 2.70 1.09 Moderate Legend: 4.50 – 5.00 Very High; 3.50 – 4.49 High; 2.50 – 3.49 Moderate. 1.50 – 2.49 Low;1.00 – 1.49 Don’t know Table 14. Test of Significant Relationship between the Respondent’s Demographic Profile and Their Mean Perception and Awareness Level on Food Sustainability in terms of Economic Aspects Economic Aspects Respondent’s Related Factors Chi-square Value Description p -value Age *34 .054(df=12) Significant 0.001 Gender 0.445(df=4) Not significant 0.979 Grade Level *9.718(df=4) Significant 0.045 Strand / Specialization *48.675(df=32) Significant 0.030 Note: *Significant at p < 0.05 Table 15. Test of Significant Relationship between the Respondent’s Demographic Profile and Their Mean Perception and Awareness Level on Food Sustainability in Terms of Social Aspects Social Aspects Respondent’s Related Factors Chi-square Value Description p -value Age 10 .669(df=12) Not Significant 0.557 Gender 3.331(df=4) Not significant 0.504 Grade Level 0.047(df=4) Not Significant 0.999 Strand / Specialization 29.443(df=32) Not Significant 0.597 Note: *Significant at p < 0.05 Table 16. Test of Significant Relationship between the Respondent’s Demographic Profile and Their Mean Perception and Awareness Level on Food Sustainability in Terms of Environmental Aspects Environmental Aspects Respondent’s Related Factors Chi-square Value Description p -value Age 19.678(df=12) Not Significant 0.073 Gender 0.974(df=4) Not significant 0.914 Grade Level 3.654(df=4) Not Significant 0.455 Strand / Specialization *46.773(df=32) Significant 0.044 Note: *Significant at p < 0.05 www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 87 Table 17. Test of Significant Relationship between the Respondent’s Demographic Profile and Their Mean Perception and Awareness Level on Food Sustainability in Terms of Government Support and Facilities Government Support and Facilities Respondent’s Related Factors Chi-square Value Description p -value Age 13.294(df=12) Not Significant 0.348 Gender 2.797(df=4) Not significant 0.592 Grade Level 3.156(df=4) Not Significant 0.532 Strand / Specialization 31.385(df=32) Not Significant 0.498 Note: *Significant at p < 0.05 Table 18. Test of Significant Relationship between the Respondent’s Demographic Profile and Their Mean Perception and Awareness Level on Food Sustainability in Terms of Public Participatory Willingness Public Participatory Willingness Respondent’s Related Factors Chi-square Value Description p -value Age 14.891(df=12) Not Significant 0.247 Gender 3.061(df=4) Not significant 0.548 Grade Level *10.896(df=4) Significant 0.028 Strand / Specialization *47.456(df=32) Significant 0.039 Note: *Significant at p < 0.05 Table 19. Test of Significant Relationship between the Respondent’s Demographic Profile and Their Mean Perception and Awareness Level on Local Community Practices related to Food Sustainability in Terms of Food Sourcing Practices Food Sourcing Practices Respondent’s Related Factors Chi-square Value Description p -value Age 11.010(df=12) Not Significant 0.528 Gender 8.325(df=4) Not significant 0.080 Grade Level 6.611(df=4) Not Significant 0.158 Strand / Specialization 39.624(df=32) Not Significant 0.166 Note: *Significant at p < 0.05 Table 20. Test of Significant Relationship between the Respondent’s Demographic Profile and Their Mean Perception and Awareness Level on Local Community Practices related to Food Sustainability in terms of Choice and Rating of Food Quality Choice and Rating of Food Quality Respondent’s Related Factors Chi-square Value Description p -value Age *21.962(df=12) Significant 0.038 Gender 5.311(df=4) Not significant 0.257 Grade Level 4.679(df=4) Not Significant 0.322 Strand / Specialization 27.183(df=32) Not Significant 0.709 Note: *Significant at p < 0.05 www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 88 Table 21. Test of Significant Relationship between the Respondent’s Demographic Profile and Their Mean Perception and Awareness Level on Local Community Practices related to Food Sustainability in Terms of Food Production Practices Food Production Practices Respondent’s Related Factors Chi-square Value Description p -value Age 9.770(df=12) Not Significant 0.636 Gender 4.741(df=4) Not significant 0.315 Grade Level 3.257(df=4) Not Significant 0.516 Strand / Specialization 28.501(df=32) Not Significant 0.644 Note: *Significant at p < 0.05 Table 22. Test of Significant Relationship between the Respondent’s Demographic Profile and Their Mean Perception and Awareness Level on Local Community Practices related to Food Sustainability in Terms of Food Consumption Practices Food Consumption Practices Respondent’s Related Factors Chi-square Valuze Description p -value Age 6.347(df=12) Not Significant 0.898 Gender 2.432(df=4) Not significant 0.657 Grade Level 5.580(df=4) Not Significant 0.233 Strand / Specialization 35.657(df=32) Not Significant 0.300 Note: *Significant at p < 0.05