sustainability

Article
Web-Based Experiential Nutrition Education Intervention
“The Green Hub” to Promote Sustainable and Healthy Diets
among Young Adults in Australia
Nadine Ghammachi * , Seema Mihrshahi and Rimante Ronto

Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University,
Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Background: Sustainable and healthy dietary patterns can help achieve both optimal health
and reduce environmental impacts. They involve the increased intake of plant-based foods which
are local and seasonal, and reduced intake of animal-derived foods and food wastage. There is
emerging evidence regarding the use and effectiveness of web-based health promotion programs to
improve diet related behaviours especially in young adults. This study investigated the effectiveness
of the “Green Hub” pilot study, a four-week web-based experiential nutrition education intervention
to promote sustainable and healthy diets among young adults in Australia. Methods: This study
used a pre-/post-study design with process evaluation. The four-week intervention integrated
modules on different aspects of a sustainable and healthy diets and was delivered through a private
Facebook group. Eligible participants were young adults between the age of 18–25 years old residing
in Australia. Results: Out of 19 participants who consented, 17 participants completed the program.
Two thirds of participants (67%) stated that they were familiar with the sustainable and healthy diet
Citation: Ghammachi, N.; concept but only 33% were able to define this concept comprehensively. The post-intervention survey
Mihrshahi, S.; Ronto, R. Web-Based resulted in improved knowledge, attitudes, and motivation to adopt more sustainable eating patterns.
Experiential Nutrition Education Conclusion: The “Green Hub” experiential nutrition education program showed positive impact on
Intervention “The Green Hub” to participants’ willingness to adopt sustainable and healthy diets. The findings of this pilot study will
Promote Sustainable and Healthy inform future larger scale studies and policy development on improving sustainable and healthy
Diets among Young Adults in diets among young adults.
Australia. Sustainability 2022, 14,
15207. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Keywords: sustainable and healthy diet; young adults; web-based interventions
su142215207

Academic Editor: George Mavrotas

Received: 19 September 2022

1. Introduction
Accepted: 11 November 2022
Published: 16 November 2022
Current food systems and diets compromise human health and deplete natural re-
sources concurrently [1]. By 2050, food systems will need to secure food for approximately
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
10 billion people while helping them achieve optimal health and minimize environmental
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
impact [1,2]. In order to achieve this goal, current food systems and diets need to become
published maps and institutional affil-
more sustainable.
iations.
Global food systems encompass all human activities including agricultural production,
food processing, distribution, retailing, consumption, and waste disposal [3]. Current
agricultural activities for food production have the largest environmental impact by fa-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
cilitating climate change and depleting natural resources [4,5]. In addition, agricultural
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. activities contribute significantly to production of Greenhouse-Gas Emissions (GHGE),
This article is an open access article the use of land and fresh waterfall withdrawals, and the loss of marine systems and bio-
distributed under the terms and diversity [2,5,6]. Agricultural GHGEs increased by 14% globally, and recently reached
conditions of the Creative Commons 30%, causing a significant increase in global temperature [2,6,7]. Around 80% of agricul-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// tural GHGEs arise from the livestock sector, mainly animal-derived food production [8,9].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Besides agricultural practices, current food consumption patterns, such as an increase
4.0/). in processed and animal-source foods production and consumption, have a significant

Sustainability 2022, 14, 15207. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215207 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 15207 2 of 12

negative impact on both health and the environment [7,10–12]. Negative health outcomes
include the rise in overweight and obesity, and development of non-communicable diseases
worldwide [11]. Therefore, the topic of sustainable and healthy diets is an emerging area
in public health nutrition research aiming to optimize health and reduce environmental
impact of food systems.
In 2019, the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems
shed light on the importance of achieving a “planetary health diet” from sustainable
food systems [2]. The recommendations for sustainable and healthy diets depend largely
on inclusion of plant-based foods, with optional fish and dairy and minimal red meat
intake [10]. Furthermore, recommendations include purchasing local and seasonal produce,
reducing food waste, and focusing on sustainably grown produce using environmentally
friendly production practices [3,10,13,14].
In the Australian food system context, there is growing evidence regarding the en-
vironmental impact of the Australian food system on GHG emissions, water use, and
biodiversity [15]. For instance, agricultural production in Australia accounts for 16% of
Australia’s total GHG emissions with livestock as the major contributor (about 80%) [15,16].
Despite differences in environmental impact within each group, evidence indicates that
production and consumption of plant-based foods in Australia (vegetables, fruits, and
grains) have a lower environmental impact compared to animal-sourced and processed
foods [15]. Therefore, recent research has investigated the possibility of implementing
sustainable and healthy diets in Australia [3,16,17]. Findings show that Australians would
like to lead more environmentally friendly lifestyle and mostly support the idea of sus-
tainable diets [3]. However, knowledge and engagement with sustainable eating patterns
remains limited [3,17]. It is especially important to start promoting sustainable and healthy
diets among young Australians who are known to consume overall poor-quality diets.
According to the Australian Institute of Health (AIH) report, young adults are not meeting
the recommended servings of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains [18]. The Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2017–18 National Health Survey (NHS) showed that over half
of people between 18–24 years old do not meet the recommended fruit intake, and almost
95% do not meet the recommended vegetable intake [19,20]. In general, young adults are
more prone to adopt poor dietary habits compared to other age groups [19,20]. Poor dietary
habits can be due to changing life circumstances while transitioning from adolescence into
adulthood [20]. The transition to adulthood is often stressful, characterised by changes in
relationships and living situations, and influenced by socioeconomic status [19–22]. This
suggests that there is a need for nutrition education programs to help young adults in
understanding and adhering to sustainable and healthy diet. One way to reach young
adults is through online platforms, particularly social media [23–25]. Statistics indicate that
young adults are among the most frequent users of mobile phones and the internet [25]. In
addition, literature reviews show that young adults appear to be open to receive nutrition
related information and cooking content on social media platforms [21,26].
This pilot study aimed to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of a four-week
web-based experiential nutrition education program, “The Green Hub”, in promoting
sustainable and healthy diets in young adults in Australia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants
“The Green Hub” was a four-week web-based experiential nutrition education pro-
gram delivered through Facebook and used a pre-/post-study design to assess the ef-
fectiveness of this program together with process evaluation. Eligible participants were
young adults between the age of 18–25 years old residing in Australia (See Table 1 for
inclusion/exclusion criteria). Recruitment channels from the general Australian population
was restricted to online means due to COVID-19 lockdown measures in Sydney during
the period of recruitment (20th of July to 8th of September 2021). A recruitment flyer that
included a program description with a QR code link to an Expression of Interest (EOI)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15207 3 of 12

form was created. Participants were recruited through advertisements on social media plat-
forms (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter), and student noticeboards at Macquarie University.
Interested participants were contacted by the principal researcher who emailed consent
forms and provided further instructions on enrolment in the program. “The Green Hub”
program was delivered over a four-week period through a private Facebook group. This
project was granted ethical approval from the Medicine and Health Sciences Subcommittee
at Macquarie University [reference number: 520211037130416].

Table 1. Participants’ inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria

# Participants presenting with known food

# 18–25 years old allergies, intolerances, eating disorder,
# Residing in Australia (at least and/or medical conditions such as Type 1
two months) or Type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome,
# Access to a Facebook account or Crohn’s disease, or Irritable Bowel
willingness to create an account Syndrome (IBS)
# No previously known medical conditions # Participants reporting pregnancy or plan
# Good command of English for pregnancy in the study period
# Participants following vegetarian or
vegan diets

2.2. Sample Size

For this pilot study, the sample size was calculated based on previous studies which
measured diet quality, nutritional knowledge, attitudes, and intentions on 7-point scales,
with the assumption that the program will achieve change in knowledge and behaviour by
at least by 1 point (10%); therefore, based on matched pairs and on M Diff = 1; SD = 1.6, we
estimated that we would need 23 people to complete the program.

2.3. Intervention
The pilot study contained four modules related to sustainable and healthy diets
concepts (Table 2). The Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) and the Theoretical Domains
Framework (TDF) helped shape the program strategies. The BCW and TDF are commonly
used in public health promotion and nutrition interventions as these models provide the
ability to assess factors influencing behaviour change [27,28].

Table 2. The Green Hub program module content.

Module Title Behavioural Objectives

A sustainable and healthy • Increase awareness of sustainable and

Week 1
diet, what does this mean? healthy diets concepts

• Understand the importance and benefits of

Week 2 Eat local and seasonal shopping local
• Increase consumption of local and seasonal

• Understand protein content in plant-based

Alternatives to meat:
food options
Week 3 plant-based protein
• Swap between animal-sourced to
sources
plant-sourced foods

• Reduce food waste practices through

Reducing food waste
Week 4 shopping practices, planned cooking, and
“Waste no More”
eating behaviours
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15207 4 of 12

Program modules consisted of a variety of activities including informative posts,

quizzes, and cooking videos. In addition to the interactive educational materials, a weekly
cooking challenge component was added to the study to increase engagement with the
program. Weekly cooking challenges were initiated through posting quick and easy cooking
videos every Wednesday which mostly included plant-based meals with high protein
meat alternatives. Participants were encouraged to try the recipes and share pictures and
feedback. Participants who tried the recipes entered a prize draw to win a Woolworths gift
voucher valued at AUD 20 for their groceries each week. At the completion of the program,
participants received a certificate of completion at the end of the program.

2.4. Measurements
2.4.1. Process Evaluation
Process evaluation was performed to monitor and document the program’s imple-
mentation to gain a better understanding of the relationship between program activities
and outcomes. Data on program engagement with the resources (e.g., infographics, videos)
were collected based on Facebook insights (likes, comments, and number of views) and
answers to quizzes.
Quantitative analysis within the program’s Facebook group was conducted through
available insights data to measure participation rate. For instance, number of views on posts,
number of cooking videos views, number of likes, comments, and replies on educational
posts and stories were collected as usage data and total interactions.

2.4.2. Pre- and Post-Survey

The online pre-post survey was administered at baseline and at completion of the pro-
gram in order to test any significant changes in sustainable and healthy dietary knowledge
and behaviours. Outcomes measured included demographic and anthropometric indices
as well as knowledge, self-efficacy, attitudes, intentions and motivation, food practices, and
dietary intake [29–33]. In the post-intervention survey, participants were asked to provide
their feedback on the program which was analysed using content data analysis method.
Surveys were kept anonymous; however, matching sampling was possible using
unique codes (DOB-Initials) assigned for each participant for pre- and post-surveys. All
data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS data analysis software. Socio-demographic
characteristics and anthropometric measures of participants were summarised descriptively.
Differences in participants’ food and nutrition knowledge, attitudes, cooking skills, and
behaviours were investigated from pre- to post-program completion. Significance tests
were not performed because of low numbers of complete responses.

3. Results
3.1. Participants
In total, 65 individuals expressed interest in joining the program. Out of 65, only
19 participants returned the signed consent form and enrolled in the Facebook private
group by the due date. Out of 19 participants, 17 (89%) completed the whole program.
The majority of participants were females (86.7%), and almost all participants were
students (86.7%) and employed either in a full-time or part-time/casual job. About half
the participants (53.3%) were born in Australia while others were from different countries
around the world. Demographic characteristics are summarised in Table 3.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15207 5 of 12

Table 3. Socio-demographic characteristics of participants at baseline (Total N = 15).

Characteristics N Proportion (%)

<20 4 26.7
Age
20–25 11 73.3
Female 13 86.7
Gender
Male 2 13.3
Yes 13 86.7
Student
No 2 13.3
Australia 8 53.3
Country of birth
Other 7 46.7
In a relationship/De facto 8 53.4
Relationship status
Not in a relationship 7 46.7
Full-time 2 13.3
Employment Part-time/casual 9 60
Unemployed 1 6.7
Completed year 12 9 60
Education level
University undergraduate degree 6 40
N = Total number of participants who completed the survey.

3.2. Process Evaluation

3.2.1. Fidelity, Activities Delivered
Program activities were posted regularly on the group as per schedule with one
cooking video weekly, two to three recipe cards, two quizzes, and four to five educational
posts/infographics. The live prize draw was performed on a weekly basis on Sundays.

3.2.2. Participation Rate

Based on Facebook insights, over 90% of participants checked in and viewed the
daily posts throughout the four-week period. The pop-up quizzes were successfully
engaging with almost 75% of participants engaging first two weeks. Number of likes and
comments was considerably low, at an average of 2–3 likes and comments each week per
post. However, the high number of “seen by” for all posts indicated that participants were
checking the program’s materials. Quantitative results of Facebook insights are presented
in Table 4.

Table 4. Facebook insights.

Number of
Facebook Answers to
Seen by * Likes * Comments * Participants
Insights Quizzes †
Trying Recipes
Week 1 (n = 19) 18.5 2.9 1 14 4
Week 2 (n = 18) 15.3 2.8 2.2 14 6
Week 3 (n = 18) 16.5 3 1.5 7.5 7
Week 4 (n = 17) 13.7 2.5 0.8 4 7
(n) total number of participants per week. (*) average number per post. (†) average number of answers provided
on quizzes.

Engagement with cooking challenges increased as the program progressed, however,

it was noticed that some participants were participating more often than others.
Mostly, comments regarding the recipes were very encouraging, see Table 5.
The positive feedback indicated that participants enjoyed the cooking challenges.
The use of exclamation marks, all capital letters emojis, and repetitive adverbs seemed to
indicate participants enjoyment and satisfaction. The words “delicious”, “like”, and “love”
were repetitively used in comments. In addition, based on participants comments and
feedback, some participants altered the recipes based on their personal preferences and/or
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15207 6 of 12

availability and successfully used leftovers. This may indicate that recipes were flexible
and sparked participants creativity and higher order cooking skills.

Table 5. Participants feedback regarding cooking challenges.

Participant Quotes
P1 “Can definitely say that the banana bread was a hit”
“Hi Nadine! Today I made the veggie tacos for lunch, and they were delicious. I’m
P2
really enjoying the weekly recipes and can’t wait to see next weeks!”
P3 “It turned out so well for me!! Delicious.”
“I am OBSESSED! I didn’t expect to love it as much as I do. I honestly don’t leap at
P4 the thought of mushrooms but could not even tell they were in the Bolognese. I will
definitely be adding this into my weekly meal plans!”
“I really enjoyed the recipe, especially as a nice alternative to what I’d normally eat
P4
for breakfast.”

3.3. Pre-/Post-Survey Results

In total, 15 out of 19 participants (79%) completed the pre-intervention survey and
10 out of 17 (59%) completed post-intervention survey.

3.3.1. Knowledge on Sustainable and Healthy Diet Concept

At baseline and post-intervention, almost all participants strongly agreed/agreed
that they are familiar with the sustainable and healthy diet concept although the written
definitions were not very comprehensive. In addition, an increasing trend in knowledge
regarding environmental impact of food was observed. From pre- to post-intervention, it
was noticed that more participants believe that red meat (from 73.3 to 90%) and chicken
(from 60 to 80%) should be limited, while whole grains and legumes (from 66.7 to 90–100%)
should be enjoyed as part of an environmentally friendly diet.
Participants also recognised the high content of protein in plant-based foods post
intervention. This changed for green peas (from 20% pre to 50% post), quinoa (from 66.7%
to 90%) and lentils (from 80 to 100%).

3.3.2. Self-Efficacy, Attitudes, Intentions, and Motivations

Overall, results showed an increasing trend towards improved self-efficacy, intentions,
and motivation for decreasing meat intake, substituting meat with plant-based alternatives
and meeting daily protein intake from plant-based sources. For instance, self-confidence
in achieving the recommended protein intake from plant-based food options increased
from 67.7% pre-intervention to 90% post-intervention. Interestingly, all participants shifted
from not feeling at all confident (20% at baseline) to moderately or fairly/extremely con-
fident about their ability to substitute red meat with legumes and beans. Unexpectedly,
confidence in cooking skills (extremely/fairly confident) slightly dropped from 77.3% at
pre-intervention to 70% at post-intervention.

3.3.3. Food Practices

Food practices improved from baseline to post-intervention. For instance, participants
seemed to purchase more organic and locally produced food products (26.7% to 50%) with
less packaging (53.3% to 80%) from baseline to post-intervention. It also appeared that
participants were consuming less red meat (26.7% to 40%) and composting food waste
more often (40% to 60%) at baseline compared to program completion. There was an
increase in the percentage of participants who shopped for food to be prepared at home
from baseline (26.7%) to post-intervention (60%). Participants appeared to be better at
eating balanced meals, using leftovers for another meal, preparing meals with limited
time, buying seasonal produce, planning meals ahead, and cooking efficiently at post-
intervention. However, the change was not as noticeable for some food practices such as
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15207 7 of 12

following recipes when cooking, shopping with specific meals in mind, and shopping with
a shopping list. Although a large change was not observed for these three food practices, it
is important to note that participant scores were already considerably high at baseline (6.87,
6.86, and 6.53 on a scale of 8, respectively).
In regard to food affordability, 50% of participants post-intervention strongly/somewhat
believed that eating a sustainable and healthy diet can be too expensive, which is an
important barrier in adopting a sustainable and healthy diet. Similarly, availability of
sustainably produced foods and practicality of adopting a sustainable and healthy diet
seemed to be potential barriers.
Encouraging results were noted when participants were asked about the likelihood
of adopting more sustainable eating behaviours to reduce the environmental impact of
foods (refer to Table 6). Participants showed a higher likelihood of consuming more plant-
based, seasonal, and locally produced foods, as well as consumption of less red meat and
processed foods and a reduction of food waste.

Table 6. Participants’ likelihood to take actions that help reduce the environmental impact of foods
in the next 6 months.

Actions to Reduce the Percentage Likelihood (%) Percentage

Environmental Impact of Foods Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Change

Increase plant-based food intake 86.7 100 +13.3

Reduce red meat intake 60 70 +10
Reduce the amount of meat in a
dish while increasing the amount 73.4 90 +16.6
of plant-based food
Introduce one plant-rich day per
80 90 +10
week (e.g., meatless Monday)
Reduce highly processed/fast
80 100 +20
food intake
Reduce food wastage (e.g., use
93.3 100 +6.7
leftovers, store food correctly)
Eat locally grown food 73.4 100 +26.6
Eat seasonal produce 83.3 100 +16.7
% represents proportions for very/fairly likelihood.

3.3.4. Food Frequency Questionnaire—Dietary Intake

The average serving of 2.73 fruits per day did not change from pre- to post-intervention.
A slight drop in average serving of vegetables was noted from baseline (4.47) to post-
intervention (4.3). Interestingly, a larger change was observed for fast food, processed meat,
and legumes/beans intake. Fast food intake dropped from an average of 2.73 at baseline to
two times per week at program completion. Similarly, processed meat intake decreased
by an average of once per week from baseline (3.93 times per week) to post-intervention
(2.9 times per week). However, legumes and beans intake increased from an average of
4 times a week at baseline to 5.3 times per week post-intervention. Despite the improved
attitude and willingness to reduce red meat intake as reported earlier, actual average red
meat intake did not record any change from pre- to post-intervention.

4. Discussion
To our knowledge “The Green Hub” pilot study was the first intervention to promote
sustainable and healthy diets in young adults in Australia. Although the sample size
was considerably small (19 participants), some promising learnings from this study have
implications for future research in this area. At pre-intervention, participants had limited
knowledge regarding sustainable and healthy eating aspects. “The Green Hub” pilot study
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15207 8 of 12

has resulted in a better understanding of what constitutes a sustainable and healthy diet
among young Australians, especially the importance of reducing red meat consumption
in order to achieve a sustainable and healthy diet. Therefore, it is essential to explore the
interventions aiming to raise awareness around sustainable and healthy diets. This is a
fundamental step to help Australian consumers adopt more sustainable eating patterns [34].
Overall, process evaluation revealed modest engagement with program content based
on Facebook insights. Despite modest engagement, participants reported very positive
feedback regarding cooking challenges and mainly rated the program as enjoyable, infor-
mative, and easy to understand. The survey findings also showed an improving trend in
attitudes, self-efficacy, motivation, and willingness to adopt sustainable eating behaviours
such as increasing plant-based food intake, substituting red-meat with legumes/grains,
and purchasing seasonal and local produce. This study findings are consistent with another
similar study, “The Green Eating Project”, a 5-week web-based nutrition intervention aim-
ing to promote sustainable eating behaviours among young adults in the USA [35]. This
project resulted in improved attitudes, self-efficacy, and knowledge related to sustainable
eating patterns [35].
From pre- to post-intervention, participants showed a better awareness regarding the
environmental impact of animal-sourced protein intake and the importance of consuming
legumes and grains as alternatives. Food frequency questionnaire results also showed a de-
crease in processed meat and fast-food intake and an increase in legumes and grains intake.
Nevertheless, there was no decrease in red meat consumption at the program completion.
Although the significance of improvements in food intake is unknown due to small sample
size, this might imply that young adults have the motivation and intentions to reduce red
meat intake but need further guidance to change their actual eating behaviour. These find-
ings are consistent with results from a systematic literature review aiming to understand
consumer awareness and attitudes towards the environmental impact of meat intake [36].
Results showed that consumers were aware and willing to reduce meat consumption, but
only a minority changed their meat intake [36]. Unsurprisingly, previous research showed
that some barriers to eliminate or decrease meat intake remain, such as taste, enjoyment,
cultural beliefs, and nutrition value (high protein content) [37–39]. Therefore, meat reduc-
tion could be gradual and presented as a concept of substitutes or food swaps rather than
a meat elimination approach. A New Zealand based qualitative study found supportive
results regarding young adults’ interest in meat reduction through experimenting with
new alternative meal ideas, rather than emphasizing meat elimination [37]. Furthermore,
another study looking at consumers’ attitudes and behaviours found not only barriers,
but also multiple potential motivators to reduce red meat intake [38]. Motivators such
as environmental impact, animal welfare, and health benefits can all be emphasized in
future interventions for a stronger and more convincing argument towards reducing meat
intake [38].
Using a multidimensional approach to promoting sustainable and healthy diets is
important to achieve long-term behaviour change as it has been shown that increasing
knowledge and raising awareness alone is not sufficient to support sustainable eating
patterns [16]. More factors should be taken into consideration such as affordability, acces-
sibility, and availability of sustainably produced food options. In this study, for example,
participants seemed to be more convinced regarding benefits of sustainable and healthy
diets for their health, the planet, and the local economy at program completion. However,
survey results showed that affordability and accessibility seemed to remain a barrier to-
wards sustainable food consumption and purchasing. This is especially important knowing
that, based on research, food cost and availability highly affect consumers’ food choices
and eating patterns [17,40]. “The Green Project” study highlighted availability of locally
produced food options as a potential barrier for young adults [35]. Regarding affordability,
a recent study indicated that in Australia a sustainable and healthy diet can be more expen-
sive than a typical Australian diet, with serious inequities noted among people of different
socioeconomic status [40]. On the contrary, it can be argued that affordability could be a
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15207 9 of 12

misconception among consumers because the study by Barosh et al. [40] was limited to
a specific metropolitan area in Australia. A more recent study was conducted with the
same aim but on a national scale that is more representative of the Australian context [17].
These findings showed that a sustainable and healthy diet is even more affordable than a
typical Australian diet across all areas of the country [17]. Similar results were found in
other countries around the world such as the UK and Brazil [41,42]. This might suggest
that it is essential to provide information in future interventions on how and where to shop
for affordable sustainable and healthy food options. In addition, this is important input for
policy makers to make local produce more available and accessible.
Participants’ positive feedback regarding cooking challenges and recipe cards in this
study was encouraging. Interestingly, participants seemed to shop more often for food
to be prepared at home at program completion. This might indicate that due to cooking
challenges, participants were more motivated to cook at home. This is important to
address as the literature shows that cooking meals at home more often is associated with
better diet quality [34,43–45]. Although participants reported positive feedback regarding
cooking at home, confidence in cooking skills dropped slightly. This may be related to
perceived over-rating of their cooking skills when comparing them to the cooking videos or
selection bias due to small sample size. These findings indicate the need to develop more
resources that include live cooking shows or easy to follow step-by-step cooking videos,
similar to the “The Green Hub” study [22,46]. Other studies targeting young adults also
indicated the need to develop more interventions to improve cooking skills and provide
meal ideas [22,37]. Adequate cooking skills during young adulthood can predict higher
vegetable intake and lower processed and fast food consumption throughout adulthood,
and potentially a lower environmental impact of food choices [47].
Young adults are the most avid users of social media platforms including Facebook and
Twitter [48]. Facebook provides a wide range of features and insights that made program
delivery practical and innovative. In addition, program content was made unrestrictedly
accessible for all participants at their own convenience. So almost all participants viewed the
program content on a daily basis although overall engagement was considered moderately
low. This suggests that Facebook is a potentially convenient yet effective medium for
nutrition education interventions. For instance, Brown et al. [49] delivered an intervention
using mobile phone texting to increase fruit and vegetable intake among young adults.
Participants in the study voted for Facebook being one of the most preferred ways to
receive nutrition information which supports our findings [49]. Other systematic reviews
are also supportive of the large potential to deliver more interventions for young adults
through different social media platforms [21,24]. Nevertheless, overall low engagement
remains a commonly reported problem [21,50,51]. Klassen et al. [21] and Maher et al. [50]
conducted systematic literature reviews to investigate the effectiveness of social media
use in improving nutrition outcomes and health behaviour change in young adults. Both
reviews showed that studies that used private Facebook groups retained high rates of daily
logins but overall low engagement [21,50]. Engagement also varied widely among studies,
meaning that other factors than the choice of platform could also potentially affect program
engagement, such as study design, quality of program content, participants’ interests in the
topic, and level of readiness to change of the participant [21].

Strengths and Limitations

This study had some strengths and limitations. One main strength of this pilot study
is that it is the first web-based intervention to promote sustainable and healthy diets
comprehensively among young adults. The study findings will provide evidence to inform
larger scale interventions in the future. This is especially important since there has been
growing interest in integrating sustainable diets principles in the Australian context [15,17].
A limitation of this study is the small sample size. This may have resulted from uncer-
tainty and the impact of lockdown measures in Sydney which occurred just prior to this
project beginning. Other factors such as additional recruitment time or limited recruitment
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15207 10 of 12

strategies (emails, face-to-face invitations, google advertisements) may have also had an
impact [52]. Risk of selection bias and lack of generalisability are important limitations of
this study. Participants who joined can differ from the general young adult population
by access to internet, education status, interest in sustainable diets, and ability to access a
kitchen or cooking facilities. In addition, due to the small sample size, significance tests
were not feasible for this study; therefore, positive changes cannot be conclusive. It could
also be argued that participants who consented to enrol in the Facebook group were already
considering or more interested in sustainable eating patterns than the general population
of young adults in Australia. Some other study limitations include participants being
mostly females (86.7%), which is in line with previous literature indicating that females
usually show more interest in health-related interventions including dietary behaviour
than males [50]. It would be interesting to investigate new recruitment strategies to attract
more male participants for equal gender representation. Also, the program was delivered
over a short period of time, so long-term effects are unknown.

5. Conclusions
“The Green Hub” study showed encouraging results in improving self-efficacy, atti-
tudes, knowledge, and willingness to adopt sustainable and healthy diets using a short
intervention over a four-week period, delivered through Facebook. Process evaluation
showed a high level of satisfaction with the content, such as cooking challenges, but overall,
there was moderate to low engagement using indicators such as “likes” and comments on
the Facebook page. “The Green Hub” study will need to be replicated in a larger population
of young adults due to our small sample size, and may even be tailored to other population
groups. This is the first step for researchers to inform future interventions in the Australian
context. Findings presented in this study may be used to inform policy makers to integrate
sustainable dietary practices in the Australian food system and promote sustainable and
healthy diets in the Australian Dietary Guidelines.

Author Contributions: N.G. and R.R. conceived the research question and study protocol. N.G.
designed the study material including nutrition education material, cooking videos, and recruitment
tools. N.G. conducted study implementation, data collection, and data analysis, and drafted the
paper as first author. S.M. supervised data collection and analysis and R.R. supervised throughout
the study. S.M. and R.R. edited subsequent drafts of the manuscript. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was granted ethical approval from the Medicine
and Health Sciences Subcommittee at Macquarie University (reference number: 520211037130416).
Informed Consent Statement: Written informed consent was obtained from all participants involved
in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: Authors would like to thank Julia Carins and Keren Papier for their guidance
and advice on this project. Authors would also like to thank all participants for joining the study and
engaging with program material.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sarlio, S. Towards Healthy and Sustainable Diets Perspectives and Policy to Promote the Health of People and the Planet, 1st ed.; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018.
2. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al.
Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393,
447–492. [CrossRef]
3. Pearson, D.; Friel, S.; Lawrence, M. Building environmentally sustainable food systems on informed citizen choices: Evidence
from Australia. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 2014, 30, 183–197. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15207 11 of 12

4. Smith, P.; Gregory, P.J. Climate change and sustainable food production. Proc. Nutr. Society. 2013, 72, 21–28. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Vermeulen, S.J.; Campbell, B.M.; Ingram, J.S.I. Climate Change and Food Systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012, 37, 195–222.
[CrossRef]
6. Cederberg, C.; Hedenus, F.; Wirsenius, S.; Sonesson, U. Trends in greenhouse gas emissions from consumption and production of
animal food products—Implications for long-term climate targets. Animal 2013, 7, 330–340. [CrossRef]
7. Clark, M.; Macdiarmid, J.; Jones, A.D.; Ranganathan, J.; Herrero, M.; Fanzo, J. The Role of Healthy Diets in Environmentally
Sustainable Food Systems. Food Nutr. Bull. 2020, 41 (Suppl. 2), 31S–58S. [CrossRef]
8. Esnouf, C.; Bricas, N.; Champenois, A.; Russel, M. Context: New Challenges for Food Systems. In Food System Sustainability:
Insights from duALIne; Esnouf, C., Russel, M., Bricas, N., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2013; pp. 5–26.
9. Friel, S.; Dangour, A.D.; Garnett, T.; Lock, K.; Chalabi, Z.; Roberts, I.; Butler, A.; Butler, C.D.; Waage, J.; McMichael, A.J.; et al.
Health and Climate Change 4: Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: Food and agriculture.
Lancet 2009, 374, 2016. [CrossRef]
10. Barbour, L.R.; Woods, J.L.; Brimblecombe, J.K. Translating evidence into policy action: Which diet-related practices are essential
to achieve healthy and sustainable food system transformation? Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2021, 45, 83–84. [CrossRef]
11. Chan, R.S.M.; Woo, J. Prevention of Overweight and Obesity: How Effective is the Current Public Health Approach. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7, 765–783. [CrossRef]
12. Ng, M.; Fleming, T.; Robinson, M.; Thomson, B.; Graetz, N.; Margono, C.; Mullany, E.C.; Biryukov, S.; Abbafati, C.; Abera,
S.F.; et al. Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980–2013: A
systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 2014, 384, 766–781. [CrossRef]
13. Martini, D.; Tucci, M.; Bradfield, J.; Di Giorgio, A.; Marino, M.; Del Bo’, C.; Porrini, M.; Riso, P. Principles of Sustainable Healthy
Diets in Worldwide Dietary Guidelines: Efforts So Far and Future Perspectives. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1827. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. UnitedNations. Sustainable Development Goal 12: Ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns [Internet]. Available
online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/ (accessed on 28 August 2021).
15. Friel, S.; Barosh, L.J.; Lawrence, M. Towards healthy and sustainable food consumption: An Australian case study. Public Health
Nutr. 2014, 17, 1156–1166. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Mann, D.; Thornton, L.; Crawford, D.; Ball, K. Australian consumers’ views towards an environmentally sustainable eating
pattern. Public Health Nutr. 2018, 21, 2714–2722. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Goulding, T.; Lindberg, R.; Russell, C.G. The affordability of a healthy and sustainable diet: An Australian case study. Nutr. J.
2020, 19, 109. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. AIHW. Overweight and Obesity [Internet]. Updated 2020 Jul 23. Available online: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-
health/overweight-and-obesity (accessed on 28 August 2021).
19. Ashton, L.M.; Sharkey, T.; Whatnall, M.C.; Williams, R.L.; Bezzina, A.; Aguiar, E.J.; Collins, C.E.; Hutchesson, M.J. Effectiveness
of Interventions and Behaviour Change Techniques for Improving Dietary Intake in Young Adults: A Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis of RCTs. Nutrients 2019, 11, 825. [CrossRef]
20. Roy, R.; Kelly, B.; Rangan, A.; Allman-Farinelli, M. Food Environment Interventions to Improve the Dietary Behavior of Young
Adults in Tertiary Education Settings: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2015, 115, 1647–1681.e1. [CrossRef]
21. Klassen, K.M.; Douglass, C.H.; Brennan, L.; Truby, H.; Lim, M.S.C. Social media use for nutrition outcomes in young adults: A
mixed-methods systematic review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2018, 15, 70. [CrossRef]
22. Larson, N.I.; Nelson, M.C.; Neumark-Sztainer, D.; Story, M.; Hannan, P.J. Making Time for Meals: Meal Structure and Associations
with Dietary Intake in Young Adults. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2009, 109, 72–79. [CrossRef]
23. Berryman, C.; Ferguson, C.J.; Negy, C. Social Media Use and Mental Health among Young Adults. Psychiatr. Q. 2018, 89, 307–314.
[CrossRef]
24. Chau, M.M.; Burgermaster, M.; Mamykina, L. The use of social media in nutrition interventions for adolescents and young
adults—A systematic review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2018, 120, 77–91. [CrossRef]
25. Nour, M.; Chen, J.; Allman-Farinelli, M. Efficacy and External Validity of Electronic and Mobile Phone-Based Interventions
Promoting Vegetable Intake in Young Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 2016, 18, e5082.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Deliens, T.; Van Crombruggen, R.; Verbruggen, S.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Deforche, B.; Clarys, P. Dietary interventions among
university students: A systematic review. Appetite 2016, 105, 14–26. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Cane, J.; O’Connor, D.; Michie, S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementa-
tion research. Implement. Sci. 2012, 7, 37. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Michie, S.; van Stralen, M.M.; West, R. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour
change interventions. Implement. Sci. 2011, 6, 42. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Australian Health Survey. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; Australian Health Survey: Canberra, Australia, 2021.
30. Haapasalo, V.; de Vries, H.; Vandelanotte, C.; Rosenkranz, R.R.; Duncan, M.J. Cross-sectional associations between multiple
lifestyle behaviours and excellent well-being in Australian adults. Prev. Med. 2018, 116, 119–125. [CrossRef]
31. Lavelle, F.; McGowan, L.; Hollywood, L.; Surgenor, D.; McCloat, A.; Mooney, E.; Caraher, M.; Raats, M.; Dean, M. The
development and validation of measures to assess cooking skills and food skills. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 118.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15207 12 of 12

32. Thompson, C.; Vidgen, H.A.; Gallegos, D.; Hannan-Jones, M. Validation of a revised General Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire
for Australia. Public Health Nutr. 2021, 24, 1608–1618. [CrossRef]
33. Weller, K.E.; Greene, G.W.; Redding, C.A.; Paiva, A.L.; Lofgren, I.; Nash, J.T.; Kobayashi, H. Development and Validation of Green
Eating Behaviors, Stage of Change, Decisional Balance, and Self-Efficacy Scales in College Students. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2014, 46,
324–333. [CrossRef]
34. Larson, N.I.; Perry, C.L.; Story, M.; Neumark-Sztainer, D. Food Preparation by Young Adults Is Associated with Better Diet
Quality. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2006, 106, 2001–2007. [CrossRef]
35. Monroe, J.T.; Lofgren, I.E.; Sartini, B.L.; Greene, G.W. The Green Eating Project: Web-based intervention to promote environmen-
tally conscious eating behaviours in US university students. Public Health Nutr. 2015, 18, 2368–2378. [CrossRef]
36. Sanchez-Sabate, R.; Sabaté, J. Consumer Attitudes Towards Environmental Concerns of Meat Consumption: A Systematic Review.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1220. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Kemper, J.A. Motivations, barriers, and strategies for meat reduction at different family lifecycle stages. Appetite 2020, 150, 104644.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Lentz, G.; Connelly, S.; Mirosa, M.; Jowett, T. Gauging attitudes and behaviours: Meat consumption and potential reduction.
Appetite 2018, 127, 230–241. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Mullee, A.; Vermeire, L.; Vanaelst, B.; Mullie, P.; Deriemaeker, P.; Leenaert, T.; De Henauw, S.; Dunne, A.; Gunter, M.J.; Clarys,
P.; et al. Vegetarianism and meat consumption: A comparison of attitudes and beliefs between vegetarian, semi-vegetarian, and
omnivorous subjects in Belgium. Appetite 2017, 114, 299–305. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Barosh, L.; Friel, S.; Engelhardt, K.; Chan, L. The cost of a healthy and sustainable diet—Who can afford it? Aust. N. Z. J. Public
Health 2014, 38, 7–12. [CrossRef]
41. Reynolds, C.J.; Horgan, G.W.; Whybrow, S.; Macdiarmid, J.I. Healthy and sustainable diets that meet greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets and are affordable for different income groups in the UK. Public Health Nutr. 2019, 22, 1503–1517. [CrossRef]
42. Verly-Jr, E.; de Carvalho, A.M.; Marchioni, D.M.L.; Darmon, N. The cost of eating more sustainable diets: A nutritional and
environmental diet optimisation study. Glob. Public Health 2021, 17, 1073–1086. [CrossRef]
43. Thorpe, M.G.; Kestin, M.; Riddell, L.J.; Keast, R.S.J.; McNaughton, S.A. Diet quality in young adults and its association with
food-related behaviours. Public Health Nutr. 2014, 17, 1767–1775. [CrossRef]
44. Hanson, A.J.; Kattelmann, K.K.; McCormack, L.A.; Zhou, W.; Brown, O.N.; Horacek, T.M.; Shelnutt, K.P.; Kidd, T.; Opoku-
Acheampong, A.; Franzen-Castle, L.D.; et al. Cooking and Meal Planning as Predictors of Fruit and Vegetable Intake and BMI in
First-Year College Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2462. [CrossRef]
45. Hartmann, C.; Dohle, S.; Siegrist, M. Importance of cooking skills for balanced food choices. Appetite 2013, 65, 125–131. [CrossRef]
46. Bramston, V.; Rouf, A.; Allman-Farinelli, M. The Development of Cooking Videos to Encourage Calcium Intake in Young Adults.
Nutrients 2020, 12, 1236. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Utter, J.; Larson, N.; Laska, M.N.; Winkler, M.; Neumark-Sztainer, D. Self-Perceived Cooking Skills in Emerging Adulthood
Predict Better Dietary Behaviors and Intake 10 Years Later: A Longitudinal Study. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2018, 50, 494–500.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Hingle, M.; Yoon, D.; Fowler, J.; Kobourov, S.; Schneider, M.L.; Falk, D.; Burd, R. Collection and visualization of dietary behavior
and reasons for eating using Twitter. J. Med. Internet Res. 2013, 15, e125. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Brown, O.N.; O’Connor, L.E.; Savaiano, D. Mobile MyPlate: A Pilot Study Using Text Messaging to Provide Nutrition Education
and Promote Better Dietary Choices in College Students. J. Am. Coll. Health 2014, 62, 320–327. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Maher, C.A.; Lewis, L.K.; Ferrar, K.; Marshall, S.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Vandelanotte, C. Are health behavior change interventions
that use online social networks effective? A systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2014, 16, e40. [CrossRef]
51. Williams, G.; Hamm, M.P.; Shulhan, J.; Vandermeer, B.; Hartling, L. Social media interventions for diet and exercise behaviours: A
systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open 2014, 4, e003926. [CrossRef]
52. Whatnall, M.C.; Hutchesson, M.J.; Sharkey, T.; Haslam, R.L.; Bezzina, A.; Collins, C.E.; Tzelepis, F.; Ashton, L.M. Recruiting and
retaining young adults: What can we learn from behavioural interventions targeting nutrition, physical activity and/or obesity?
A systematic review of the literature. Public Health Nutr. 2021, 24, 5686–5703. [CrossRef]