Luana F. J. Swensson*
Florence Tartanac- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy
1 Introduction
There is a growing attention from policy makers, development partners and donors on the promotion of environmental sustainability through school feeding programmes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC) contexts (1–3). School feeding programmes currently reach approximately 466 million children daily and represent an estimated investment of US$84 billion (42), making them a powerful lever for promoting environmental—alongside social and economic—sustainability outcomes and promoting increased access to healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Illustrative of this growing interest are emerging concepts and initiatives such as “Regenerative” (3) and “Planet-Friendly” (1) school meal programmes.
This increased focus builds on previous work that recognizes that, according to choices related to what food to procure, from who, and from what type of production practices, school food procurement—as a key example of public food procurement—can serve as an strategic tool to trigger food systems transformation and promote multiple social (including nutrition), economic and environmental objectives, according to countries policies and national priorities (4–8).
This approach is further supported by existing evidence showing that the strategic use of public food procurement has the potential to contribute to government efforts on climate change mitigation (9, 10), biodiversity conservation (11–13, 43), deforestation (14) and adoption of production practices with no use of synthetic fertilizers or pesticides, such as organic and agro-ecological ones (13, 15–18).
It is also consistent with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals which recognizes public procurement as a lever for more sustainable production and consumption patterns (Target 12.7). Moreover, it resonates with the broader global discourse (19, 20) and the academic literature on sustainable and green public procurement (21), which highlights the potential of public procurement across different sectors to advance environmental sustainability outcomes.
Although the link between school feeding, public procurement, and environmental sustainability is not new, this connection has received the most policy and scholarly attention in High-Income Countries (HICs), particularly in Europe, where much of the literature is concentrated (22).
In contrast, school feeding and related food procurement policies in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs)—and the associated literature - have traditionally prioritized social and economic objectives, such strengthening linkages with local agricultural production and supporting smallholder producers (22–25). Existing research draws attention to a persistent disconnecting between school food procurement initiatives and the broader sustainable public procurement debate in these country contexts, emphasizing the need to bridge this gap (4, 7).
With environmental issues increasingly at the forefront of national agendas in LMIC countries, school feeding and food procurement present a valuable opportunity to support countries in meeting both national and international environmental sustainability commitments. Nevertheless, there is still limited discussion—particularly from a LMIC perspective—on the potential challenges to advancing this agenda, especially those linked to public procurement mechanisms.
These include bottlenecks related to (i) defining environmental sustainability for food (22, 26, 27); (ii) operationalizing environmental sustainability objectives through the procurement processes (28–30); and (iii) and managing trade-offs (23, 31–34).
While these challenges are not exclusive to food procurement and may be more commonly addressed in other sectoral sustainable public procurement initiatives, they are rarely examined in the school feeding literature. Addressing these bottlenecks is crucial for advancing the strategic use of school feeding and school food procurement to promote environmental sustainability, particularly from a policymaking perspective. From an academic standpoint, such analysis is equally important for identifying knowledge gaps and highlighting areas in need of further research. This paper seeks to contribute to this effort by offering the school feeding literature a critical reflection on these procurement-related challenges. While school food serves as the central case examined, the insights generated are applicable to broader public food procurement contexts.
2 Bottlenecks for promoting environmental sustainability through school food procurement
2.1 Defining environmental sustainability for food
Sustainability is a wide and complex concept. While there is a wide consensus that school food should be sustainable, the lack of consensus on what exactly “environmentally sustainable food” is poses important challenges to the regulation and implementation of this policy objective through school food procurement (22, 26, 27).
One important starting point is that environmental sustainability encompasses various dimensions and interconnected pathways. These pathways include energy use; land use and land-use change; biodiversity loss; production and use of fertilizers and pesticides; water use and water pollution; emissions of pollutants from farming and agricultural activities; and disposal of waste (35).
While ideally all these dimensions should be considered together in defining environmental sustainability for food, this is not often the case (33). As highlighted in a literature review by Molin et al., environmental sustainability of food is proxied in most studies by referring (mainly or only) to GHG emissions or assumed benefits for organic and local products (22). These may have a negative impact on policy making, limiting the outreach of school food procurement policies and, in particular, overlooking potential synergies and trade-offs with other dimensions (31).
A decision to only focus on some dimensions of environmental sustainability (such as climate change) may be linked to policy choices and priorities. However, it may also be linked to gaps and related difficulties in how to define and measure the environmental sustainability of food. Difficulties that are often overlooked by the school feeding literature and global debate.
Assessing environmental impacts in food systems involves a large number of decisions, including which environmental impacts and which stages in the life cycle to consider. While a full account should cover as many environmental impacts as possible (and all the different stages in food value chains) current methods and datasets are not equally well developed to consider all relevant environmental impacts (27, 33, 36). Some dimensions (such as energy use and biodiversity) are under-studied while others (e.g., climate change) are frequently analyzed in the literature (27, 37). In addition, studies concentrate mainly on HICs, while there is much heterogeneity among countries and regions, which creates an additional bottleneck (22, 27, 37).
There are also key issues related to the limitations of existing evidence and estimates, which can sometimes lead to misleading information and affect policy formulation and implementation. One example concerns evidence on the carbon footprint of product categories. It is well known, for instance, that the carbon footprint of beef is on average the highest of all food categories. Nevertheless, it is much less well known that this “average” hides much heterogeneity among producers, which may range from around 20 kg CO2 eq to over 100 CO2 eq per 100 g protein, depending among other things on where and how the food is produced (26, 37). This means that production locations and practices may have a much more important role than is currently considered when addressing environmental sustainability in food procurement, a role that is currently “hidden” in these averages. Similar concerns have been raised by Li et al. (38) regarding estimates related to the carbon footprint of food miles, highlining the importance of utilizing geographically specific footprint information. According to their new methodology, the carbon footprint of food miles were assessed to be 3.5–7.5 times higher than previously estimated, putting the relevance of the location of production for accounting environmental impacts in a new light (38).
While all the authors cited agree that these limitations are linked to the difficulties—and costs involved—in obtaining granular and geographically specific data for true accounting, they also agree that more attention should be paid to this bottleneck and its impact on policymaking. In the case of school food procurement, it is therefore crucial to recognize both the multidimensional nature of environmental sustainability and the challenges in defining and measuring it.
2.2 Operationalising environmental sustainability objectives through the procurement process: defining sustainability criteria and verification instruments
Directly related to the challenges involved in defining and measuring environmental sustainability for food is the issue of operationalising it through the procurement process. As is highlighted in the public procurement literature, while vague concepts can facilitate political consensus they are of little use in public procurement, which requires sharply defined criteria for its operationalisation (30). In the case of environmental sustainability and school food procurement, this is an important challenge that is rarely addressed in the school feeding literature.
Indeed, for the pursuit of sustainability objectives in public procurement, these objectives need to be translated into specific criteria that must be accompanied by means of verification. These criteria must be, among others, (i) objective, non-discriminatory and suitable for the aim to achieve; (ii) measurable and quantifiable; and (iii) include a clear evaluation methodology and means of verification.
Defining this type of criteria and related verification instruments is not an easy task, neither in other sectors (39), nor in the specific case of food and environmental sustainability (28–30). One interesting example of this difficulty is the European Union effort to establish voluntary green procurement criteria for the procurement of food and catering services (35). As Shebesta and Casado highlight, it was possible to witness in this process a “harsh struggle to identify certain foods or practices as sustainable, with arguably limited results along some of the sustainability dimensions.” Shebesta and Casado point out that in the revision of the document core criteria were removed from the list of recommendations due to, among others, difficulties and the complexity in identifying suitable efficient criteria that “really bring more sustainability to food procurement.” These include criteria related to integrated production and seasonal foods, despite the latter being the second most used criterion in the EU context (30).
The challenges involved include not only identifying effective criteria but also the choice of verification means, i.e., how in the procurement process it can be verified that the potential supplier complies with the established criteria. Instruments commonly used are labeling and certification schemes, such as organic certifications. Although they may constitute useful instruments, their use presents challenges, especially in LMIC contexts. These challenges include limited coverage (not covering all dimensions of sustainability) and in particular cost, which often affects smallholder producers and may act as a factor excluding access to public market opportunities.
Efforts—such as those by WHO Europe (29) and by ICLEI (40)—are valuable in supporting the design of sustainability criteria and verification instruments. Nevertheless, they remain largely focused on HICs. Further attention and support are still needed in the literature and development partners for LMIC contexts.
2.3 Managing trade-offs and synergies
With increasing attention to environmental sustainability in LMIC contexts, it is key to have a better understanding of the potential trade-offs and synergies among the various sustainability outcomes that may be pursued in school food procurement. As highlighted by the literature (31) this is an important bottleneck, considering that the “trade-offs” among social, economic and environmental outcomes have serious implications for policymakers and practitioners in interpreting and implementing school food procurement practices.
Indeed, as is known, not all food that is sustainable from an environmental point of view may be also sustainable from a social point of view, and vice versa. Examples in the EU context show how meeting organic targets often means sourcing imported food through central suppliers, which results in trade-offs between environmental costs (their various dimensions, such as increased food miles) and social and economic costs (31). These trade-offs include the exclusion of smallholder farmers due to certification costs and related challenges (41), and the detachment from the local agriculture production, both aspects particularly relevant for LMIC contexts.
In the case of food, the pursuit of sustainability outcomes must also align with nutrition and health outcomes. Indeed, while the choice to pursue one or multiple social, economic and environmental outcomes may be linked to policy priorities, this is not the case of nutrition and health, which must be priority outcomes for any school feeding programme. Here, more than managing the trade-offs the issue is one of understanding and fostering synergies and policy coherence.
While there is some discussion regarding this in HIC contexts (31, 33) and the broader public procurement literature (34) there is still a gap regarding school food procurement in LMICs. This is particularly critical, considering the unique interplay of social, economic, and environmental outcomes in LMICs. As highlighted in the literature, unlike Europe and many HICs, LMICs have a longstanding tradition of incorporating social and economic considerations into public food procurement, reflecting their national policies and priorities (7, 8, 23). Notable examples include the Home-Grown School Feeding model promoted by the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme and various Latin American policies that directly connect school meals with local family farming (24, 25).
As a consequence, the pursuit of new environmental objectives in these country contexts will need to be integrated with these existing social and economic objectives. This necessarily requires managing trade-offs and recognizing the need for an integrated approach to school food procurement. A better understanding of how to manage these trade-offs, foster synergies, and promote policy coherence is therefore key to advancing this agenda.
3 Conclusion: final thoughts and the way forward
Pursuing environmental sustainability through school feeding programmes—and their associated procurement mechanisms—offers a valuable opportunity to unlock the full potential of these initiatives and support countries in meeting their environmental commitments. However, several critical bottlenecks remain underexplored in global debates and school feeding academic literature. This paper aimed to highlight and reflect on some of these overlooked challenges.
Based on this reflection, we can affirm that greater attention is needed from policymakers, development partners, and researchers working on school feeding on the challenges related to (i) defining and measuring environmental sustainability for food; (ii) operationalizing environmental objectives through the procurement process and (iii) managing trade-offs and ensuring policy coherence with other existing social and economic objectives.
While these issues may be addressed in other sectors or within the broader public procurement literature, they remain insufficiently explored in the context of school food procurement. This reinforces, as identified in previous studies, the need to strengthen the link between these domains.
To conclude, there is an urgent need for research that further explores these bottlenecks from a multi-disciplinary perspective (including public procurement, environment and nutrition lens) and that is tailored to the specific contexts and realities of LMICs.
Author contributions
LS: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Investigation. FT: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Author disclaimer
The opinions and statements in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of policies of FAO.
References
1. Pastorino S, Hughes D, Schultz L, Owen S, Morris K, Backlund U, et al. School Meals and Food Systems: Rethinking the Consequences for Climate, Environment, Biodiversity, and Food Sovereignty. London, UK: London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (2023).
2. School Meals Coalition. Investing in Future Generations: Human Capital, Sustainable Food Systems, and Climate Change Action through School Meals. Report of the School Meals Coalition First Global Summit, Paris, 18–19 October 2023 (2023). Paris, France: School Meals Coalition. Available online at: https://schoolmealscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SMC_ParisSummit2023Report.pdf (Accessed April 8, 2025).
3. The Rockefeller Foundation. Rockefeller Foundation Commits US$100 Million to Serve 100 Million Children Nutritious School Meals. (2025). Available online at: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/rockefeller-foundation-commits-us100-million-to-serve-100-million-children-nutritious-school-meals/ (Accessed June 8, 2025).
4. Swensson LFJ, Tartanac F. Public food procurement for sustainable diets and food systems: the role of the regulatory framework. Glob Food Secur. (2020) 25:100366. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100366
5. FAO Alliance Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT Editora da UFRGS. Public Food Procurement for Sustainable Food Systems and Healthy Diets – Volume 1. Rome, Italy: FAO (2021).
6. FAO Alliance Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT Editora da UFRGS. Public Food Procurement for Sustainable Food Systems and Healthy Diets – Volume 2. Rome, Italy: FAO (2021).
7. Swensson LFJ, Hunter D, Schneider S, Tartanac F. Introduction: public food procurement as a game changer for food system transformation. In:FAO, Alliance Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, , Editora da UFRGS, editors. Public Food Procurement for Sustainable Food Systems and Healthy Diets - Volume 1. Rome: FAO (2021). p. 1–24.
8. Swensson LFJ, Hunter D, Schneider S, Tartanac F. Public food procurement as a game changer for food system transformation. Lancet Planet Health. (2021) 5:e495–6. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00176-5
9. Cerutti AK, Donno D, Beccaro GL, Ardente F, Contu S. Modelling, assessing, and ranking public procurement options for a climate-friendly catering service. Int J Life Cycle Assess. (2018) 23:95–115. doi: 10.1007/s11367-017-1306-y
10. Kluczkovski A, Menezes CA, da Silva JT, Bastos L, Lait R, Cook J, et al. An environmental and nutritional evaluation of school food menus in Bahia, Brazil that contribute to local public policy to promote sustainability. Nutrients. (2022) 14:1519. doi: 10.3390/nu14071519
11. Borelli T, Wasike V, Manjella A, Hunter D, Wasilwa L. Linking farmers and schools to improve diets and nutrition in Busia County, Kenya. In: FAO Alliance Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, Editora da UFRGS, editors. Public Food Procurement for Sustainable Food Systems and Healthy Diets - Volume 2. Rome: FAO (2021). p. 338–53.
12. Beltrame D, Borelli T, Oliveira C, Coradin, Hunter D. Biodiversity for food and nutrition: promoting food and nutritional security through institutional markets in Brazil. In:FAO Alliance Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, , Editora da UFRGS, editors. Public Food Procurement for Sustainable Food Systems and Healthy Diets – Volume 1. Rome, Italy: FAO (2021).
13. Valencia V, Wittman H, Blesh J. Structuring markets for resilient farming systems. Agron Sustain Dev. (2019) 39:1–14. doi: 10.1007/s13593-019-0572-4
14. Falvo C, Muscaritoli F. Towards deforestation-free public procurement? Reflections on the interplay between the deforestation regulation (EUDR) and public procurement in the EU. Eur Procure Public Private Partnership Law Rev. (2024) 2:91–113. doi: 10.21552/epppl/2024/2/4
15. Mikkelsen BE, Madsen BB. Sustainable and healthy sourcing of food for the public plate: lessons learned in Denmark. In:FAO Alliance Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, , Editora da UFRGS, editors. Public Food Procurement for Sustainable Food Systems and Healthy Diets - Volume 2. Rome: FAO (2021). p. 82–98.
16. Lindström H, Lundberg S, Marklund P-O. How green public procurement can drive conversion of farmland: an empirical analysis of an organic food policy. Ecol Econ. (2020) 172:106622. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106622
17. Sørensen NN, Lassen AD, Løje H, Tetens I. The Danish Organic Action Plan 2020: assessment method and baseline status of organic procurement in public kitchens. Public Health Nutr. (2015) 18:2350–7. doi: 10.1017/S1368980015001421
18. Sørensen NN, Tetens I, Løje H, Lassen AD. The effectiveness of the Danish Organic Action Plan 2020 to increase the level of organic public procurement in Danish public kitchens. Public Health Nutr. (2016) 19:3428–35. doi: 10.1017/S1368980016001737
19. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). Sustainable Public Procurement: How to Wake the Sleeping Giant! Introducing the United Nations Environment Programme's Approach. Paris. France: UNEP (2021). Available online at: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/37045/SPPWSG.pdf (Accessed May 8, 2025).
20. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 2022 Sustainable Public Procurement Global Review – Part I. Paris, France: UNEP (2022). Available online at: https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/from-crm/300_I_UNEP_Global_Report_2022.pdf (Accessed July 8, 2025).
21. Ortega Carrasco P, Ferrón Vílchez V, Iannone F, Testa F. Green public procurement as an effective way for sustainable development: a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Sustain Dev. (2024) 33:2364–91. doi: 10.1002/sd.3234
22. Molin E, Martin M, Björklund A. Addressing sustainability within public procurement of food: a systematic literature review. Sustainability. (2021) 13:13395. doi: 10.3390/su132313395
23. Stoffel T, Cravero C, La Chimia A, Quinot G. Multidimensionality of sustainable public procurement (SPP): exploring concepts and effects in sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. Sustainability. (2019) 11:6352. doi: 10.3390/su11226352
24. FAO, ABC/MRE, FNDE/MEC. Avances en alimentación escolar en 16 países de América Latina. Brasilia: FAO (2025).
25. Global Child Nutrition Foundation (GCNF). School Meal Programs around the World: Results from the 2024 Global Survey of School Meal Programs. (2025). Available online at: https://gcnf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/GCNF-Global-Survey-Report-2024-V1.8.pdf (Accessed July 8, 2025).
26. Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science. (2018) 360:987–92. doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0216
27. Deconinck K, Jansen M, Barisone C. Fast and furious: the rise of environmental impact reporting in food systems. Eur Rev Agric Econ. (2023) 50:1310–37. doi: 10.1093/erae/jbad018
28. Tregear A, Aničić Z, Arfini F, Biasini B, Bituh M, Bojović R, et al. Routes to sustainability in public food procurement: an investigation of different models in primary school catering. J Clean Prod. (2022) 338:130604. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130604
29. World Health Organization (WHO). How Together We Can Make the world's most Healthy and Sustainable Public Food Procurement. Copenhagen, Denamrk: WHO Regional Office for Europe (2022). Available online at: https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/WHO-EURO-2022-6178-45943-66333 (Accessed May 8, 2025).
30. Shebesta H, Plana Casado MJ. Food: mandatory EU public procurement criteria for food after the Farm to Fork Strategy. In:Janssen W, Caranta R, , editors. Mandatory Sustainability Requirements in EU Public Procurement Law: Reflections on a Paradigm Shift. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing (2023). pp. 127–46. doi: 10.5040/9781509963980.ch-008
31. Smith J, Andersson G, Gourlay R, Karner S, Mikkelsen BE, Sonnino R, et al. Balancing competing policy demands: the case of sustainable public sector food procurement. J Clean Prod. (2016) 112:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.065
32. Kanter DR, Musumba M, Wood SL, Palm C, Antle J, Balvanera P, et al. Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development. Agric Syst. (2018) 163:73–88. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.010
33. Gasonato C, Sanyé Mengual E, Vittuari M, Sala S. Life cycle assessment to support public procurement of food: a review. Cleaner Environ Syst. (2024) 15:100239. doi: 10.1016/j.cesys.2024.100239
34. Hartlapp M. Synergies and trade-offs between social and green public procurement. In:Domorenok E, Graziano P, Zimmermann K, , editors. The Eco-Social Polity? Bristol: Policy Press (2025). p. 210–26. doi: 10.2307/jj.18323757.23
35. European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Rodriguez Quintero R, Gama Caldas M, Boyano A, Wolf O. EU GPP Criteria for Food Procurement, Catering Services and Vending Machines. Luxembourg, Germany: Publications Office of the European Union (2019).
36. Notarnicola B, Tassielli G, Renzulli PA, Castellani V, Sala S. Environmental impacts of food consumption in Europe. J Clean Prod. (2017) 140(pt 2):753–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.080
37. Deconinck K, Toyama L. Environmental Impacts along Food Supply Chains: Methods, Findings, and Evidence Gaps (OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Paper No. 185). Paris, France: OECD Publishing (2022). Available online at: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2022/09/environmental-impacts-along-food-supply-chains_1bc82567/48232173-en.pdf (Accessed May 8, 2025).
38. Li M, Jia N, Lenzen M, Malik A, Wei L, Jin Y, et al. Global food-miles account for nearly 20% of total food-systems emissions. Nat Food. (2022) 3:445–53. doi: 10.1038/s43016-022-00531-w
39. Bratt C, Hallstedt S, Robèrt K.-H, Broman G, Oldmark J. Assessment of criteria development for public procurement from a strategic sustainability perspective. J Clean Prod. (2013) 52:309–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.007
40. ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. Manifesto for establishing minimum standards for public canteens across the EU. Brussels, Belgium: ICLEI (2022). Available online at: https://buybetterfood.eu/documents/sustainable-food-procurement-manifesto (Accessed May 8, 2025).
41. Schelle C, Pokorny B. How inclusive is inclusive? A critical analysis of an agribusiness initiative in Kenya. Sustainability. (2021) 13:10937. doi: 10.3390/su131910937
43. Valencia V, Wittman H, Blesh J. Public food procurement for farm system diversification. In:Swensson LFJ, Hunter D, Schneider S, Tartanac F, , editors. Public Food Procurement for Sustainable Food Systems and Healthy Diets - Volume 1. Rome: FAO; Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT; Editora da UFRGS (2021). p. 248–61.
Keywords: sustainable public procurement, school feeding, environmental sustainability, food systems, low- and middle-income countries
Citation: Swensson LFJ and Tartanac F (2025) Promoting environmental sustainability through school food procurement in low-and middle-income countries: critical reflections. Front. Nutr. 12:1687603. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2025.1687603
Received: 17 August 2025; Revised: 04 November 2025;
Accepted: 27 November 2025; Published: 17 December 2025.
Edited by:
Lorenza Mistura, Council for Agricultural Research and Agricultural Economy Analysis | CREA, ItalyReviewed by:
Sofia Lingegård, Royal Institute of Technology, SwedenRaphael Leao, University of Lisbon, Portugal
Copyright © 2025 Swensson and Tartanac. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Luana F. J. Swensson, bHVhbmEuc3dlbnNzb25AZmFvLm9yZw==; bHVhbmFzd2Vuc3NvbkBob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ==