UBC Undergraduate Research

AMS Lighter Footprint Strategy Chiu, Virginia; Clark, Amanda; Knill, Jonathan; Lam, Philip Apr 9, 2013

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Chiu_V_et_al_SEEDS_2013.pdf [ 777.35kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108465.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108465-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108465-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108465-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108465-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108465-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108465-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108465-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108465.ris

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report       AMS Lighter Footprint Strategy Virginia Chiu, Amanda Clark, Jonathan Knill & Philip Lam Scenario 7 & Group 7  University of British Columbia LFS 450 April 10, 2013           Disclaimer: ?UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report?.    2  AMS LIGHTER FOOTPRINT  STRATEGY  Virginia Chiu Amanda Clark Jonathan Knill Philip Lam  UBC Food System Project LFS 450 University of British Columbia Course Instructor:  Sophia Baker-French TA: Camil Dumont April 9, 2013 ABSTRACT:  3 The purpose of this report is to propose revised and updated metrics for the ?AMS Lighter Footprints Strategy? (AMSLFS) document that was created in 2008 (Baker-French, 2013).  The new findings will be achieved through conducting an assessment of the current targets outlined in the AMSLFS document, thus determining if they are still measurable and applicable in the context of the new Student Union Building (SUB) (Baker-French, 2013).   The report will highlight the methods used to gather the research in order to make the appropriate recommendations to the key stakeholders.  Methods include a literature review, key informant interviews, and a focus group. Further, notes gathered from a guest lecture on Logic Models are applied to help organize and coordinate the programs and actions plans under review.   In our analysis we determine whether targets outlined in the AMSLFS document are still relevant to the new SUB.  When targets were deemed still appropriate our conclusions propose applicable and actionable revisions and actions along with associated inputs, outputs and possible outcomes.   INTRODUCTION:  The purpose of this report is to propose revised and updated metrics for the ?AMS Lighter Footprints Strategy? (AMSLFS) document that was created in 2008 (Baker-French, 2013).  This required an assessment of the current targets outlined in the AMSLFS document to determine if they are still measurable and in the context of the new Student Union Building (SUB) (Baker-French, 2013).    4  As stated in the, ?Introduction to the UBC Food System Project & Scenario Descriptions for 2013?, the overall objective for AMSLFS is to reduce the university campus?s ecological footprint to sustainable levels and to foster environmental justice in their operations and through their relationships within the University and broader community (Baker-French, 2013).  The AMSLFS focuses not only ecological footprints within Alma Mater Society (AMS) operations, but impacts across campus as well as the Vancouver community.  The AMSLFS strategy engages many constituencies outside of AMS and the University of British Columbia (UBC). Therefore, this project is not only relevant to UBC Food System, but to the city of Vancouver.  On a global scale, UBC is widely recognized for its sustainability initiatives.  Last year UBC sustainability efforts and people were recognized with 14 provincial national and international awards (UBC Sustainability, 2013).  The AMSLFS revision will focus its targets within the context of the new SUB and ideally will gain recognition, not only for the sustainable building achievements, but as well for food related initiatives that aim to reduce ecological footprints now and in the future. Our group consists of four, fourth year undergraduate students enrolled in LFS 450 within the faculty of Land and Food Systems. As members of this faculty, we have a solid understanding of food systems, sustainability practices, and group work skills.  We approached the AMSLFS project with excitement because it could be molded to our liking.  This was the first AMSLFS revision.  Owing to the fact that there was no blueprint to follow, we were able to pursue targets that we found the most interesting.  Our passions relate to food and how it is produced, purchased, prepared and finally disposed.  That being said, we focused on the food related targets outlined in the AMSLFS document.  We did not focus on the targets or metrics  5 that did not apply to our skill set, such as building materials or other domains outside the food and waste realm.  Our group believes that a Utopian Food System should be sustainable and meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (Baker-French, 2013).  We all agreed that the twelve principles showcased in the ?UBCFSP Visions for a Utopian Food System? were essential.  However, we have chosen to focus on two of the utopian statements in particular because they fit within the framework of AMS and the new SUB.  The first being, food sold at AMS food outlets should be culturally and ethically appropriate, affordable, safe, nutritious and minimally processed (Baker-French, 2013).  The second being zero waste production, in that waste is reduced to the greatest extent possible and what waste is produced is composted or recycled locally (Baker-French, 2013). METHODS:  Our first task was to read through the AMS Lighter Footprint Strategy 2008 document and identify all the food related targets and metrics.  Next, we had to access whether the targets were feasible and quantifiable.  We also evaluated whether targets had already been achieved and therefore were outdated and insignificant.  Next, we began reflecting on defining what ?good? metrics and indicators are.  After gaining an understanding of the AMSLFS, we commenced a literature review of past SEEDS projects to better comprehend applicable targets and their associated metrics.  Key words we used in our SEEDS research included, ?Student Union Building? and ?AMS?.  The SEEDS research allowed us to gather information on the new SUB sustainability features that would help us make revision to the AMSLFS.  In addition, we investigated other lower ecological footprint models exemplified by different institutions to see if  6 the AMSLFS had any vital pieces missing.  Some of the universities we researched were, University of Guelph (Pitman, 2012).  Aside from the AMSLFS, some of the key documents we researched included the ?AMS Lighter Footprint Strategy Action Plans and Indicators?, ?UBC Food Systems Project Food Action Plan?, ?UBC Climate Action Plan?, ?Vancouver Food Strategy Draft for City Council Consideration? and the ?New SUB Tenant/Lease Agreement?.  Armed with a substantial amount of research, our group felt overwhelmed with information and how to successfully apply it to our project.  Many of the targets were relatively broad and we needed more guidance from our instructor, Sophia Baker-French and teaching assistant, Camil Dumont.  Our group met with both Camil and Sophia multiple times to narrow down the scope of the project.  After consultation from Sophia and Camil, we decided to focus on the food related targets outlined in the AMSLFS document.  Eventually, we managed to organize a meeting on Tuesday, February 5, 2013 with the SEEDS coordinator and AMS representatives and confirmed that a revised focus on food related targets was reasonable.    Our next major task was to prepare for a focus group with key stakeholders, which was held on Thursday, March 7th, 2013.  After gaining insight from the stakeholders and reflecting on the state of the targets, the next step was to identify metrics, which could be reported annually (Baker-French, 2013).  It was determined that metrics would provide the most valuable information about the success of the initiatives to achieve their goals (Baker-French, 2013).  After we accomplished an overall assessment of the targets, we prepared a revised version of the AMSLFS document within the context of campus Climate Action Plan targets and in-line with UBC Food System s Project Food Action Plan (Baker-French, 2013).  7 Finally, we attended a guest lecture and gained knowledge on what Logic Models are and how they can help organize and coordinate programs and actions plans.  This helped us prepare our final component of the project.  The Logic Model would help communicate the connections between he goals and actions of the plan and to note any gaps in the current plant (Baker-French, 2013).   FINDINGS: One of our first tasks was to evaluate whether targets outlined in the AMSLFS document had already been completed.  The SEEDS research allowed us to gather information on the new SUB sustainability features that would help us make revision to the AMSLFS.  This was helpful to an extent; however, there was no research specifically available on the AMSLFS document itself because we were the first group to review the document in the last five years.  For example, there was a substantial amount of research on ?Bring Your Own Container? (BYOC) available on the SEEDS website (Brown, et. al, 2008).  Implementing BYOC was an important food related target outline in the AMSLFS document and our group came up with multiple metrics and recommendations to present to the stakeholders.  However, since 2008 the BYOC target has been worked on extensively in the past five years, we soon found out that our recommendations were no longer applicable because the BYOC was already in motion.   Our first meeting on Tuesday, February 5, 2013 gave us the opportunity to meet stakeholders in person for the first time, as well as gain insight AMSLFS history and to clarify our specific project objectives.  The attendees of this meeting were all very helpful as well as insightful.  We also confirmed that a revised focus, on food related targets, was reasonable.   Overall, our group had to assume that targets outlined in the document were all significant and still currently being worked on regardless if this was the reality.  Unfortunately,  8 this was not entirely the case.  On Thursday, March 7, 2013 our group conducted a focus group with key stakeholders and found that many of these targets were now obsolete.  Either the targets had been achieved, for example the BYOC initiative, or they were no longer applicable in the context in the new SUB.  Regardless, the focus group still provided our group with a refreshed perspective of the targets outlined in the 2008 AMSLFS document.  Only after our focus group were we able to brainstorm recommendations for existing targets.  The questions we asked to the stakeholders provided answers to many of our questions and most importantly, re-evaluated which targets are still relevant or important.  The focus group also provided new information such as, pre and post consumer waste initiatives and the conflicts of a campus wide bottle water ban.   After the focus group, we identified the targets currently being worked on as well as gaps with the AMSLFS.   Some of the targets that are currently being worked on included increasing the amount of local food purchases (Alma Mater Society, 2008).  AMS has renewed their contract with food distributors such as Gordon Food Service (GFS) and Central Food Service (personal communication, March 7, 2013).  AMS is currently working with their food distributors to increase local and seasonal food sourcing (personal communication, March 7, 2013).  Initiatives such as local food procurement added to UBC?s achievement as Canada?s first university to achieve a Gold rating in the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS).   The STARS document states that UBC receives 48% of their food from within 150 miles, or is third party certified organic and/or fair trade (UBC Sustainability, 2011).  The objective of this report is provide AMS stakeholders with an assessment of the current targets outlined in the AMSLFS document and determine if they are still measurable and in the context of the new Student Union Building (Baker-French, 2013).  Therefore our group  9 spent most of research identifying many gaps and make recommendations where applicable.  Overall, there is a substantial amount of revision that is required.  It has been 5 years since the AMSLFS document was created.  AMSLFS goals are changing drastically due to the new SUB.  Some of the most significant gaps we identified were:  AMS requires better follow up on impacts committee plans, AMS requires implementation of universal signage for food labelling and disposal facilities.  AMS needs to assign metrics so that targets can become quantifiable where applicable (Personal communication, March 7, 2013).  Please see Appendix 1 for a complete breakdown of our findings.  DISCUSSION: Based on the literature review and research that we conducted, as well as the focus group meetings with the AMS stakeholders, we were able to acquire a significant amount of information. According to the information from the findings section, the AMS has already been and is currently making considerable effort towards sustainable action to achieve a lighter footprint. For example, AMS has been strategic in their selection of food distributors, partnering with an increased number of local distributors. Since the previous targets were set in 2008, the AMS food vendors have also provided customers more vegetarian and vegan options, as well as options of bringing reusable containers at a discounted rate. These actions collectively demonstrate the numerous things that AMS is doing to improve their sustainable footprint. As a result, our group finds that the AMS has been gaining credibility among the UBC community as an increasingly active participant towards a more sustainable business and future. Some of the findings stated above include the shift towards more local foods as one of the improvements. This is undoubtedly due in large to the increased consumer demand for ?local? food items in our  10 food system at UBC and in our society. For the past recent years, local foods have received notable attention and are of no exception at our sustainable campus here at UBC. Our project?s objectives of revising target goals for the AMS in the new SUB aim towards a similar direction. By formulating and revising targets on the basis on increased local-food procurement, the AMS participates in a food system trending towards this common trajectory.   The new SUB is projected to be a very green, sustainable building altogether. Furthermore, the focus group meeting revealed some of the technological advances the new SUB will also feature. The example of the new Optimum Control (OC) tracking system is particularly worth mentioning; it is computer tracking will make it possible for food vendors to record exactly where their ingredients came from, as well as recipes, waste and the most popular menu items. This is significant for our project, since it opens up an opportunity that was not there previously. In both the AMSLFS and the AMS Action plan & Indicators documents, the targets were set as broad and non-measurable statements. These statements included language such as ?significantly reduce? or ?increase the proportion of?? without a definitive value or indicator by which it should be measured (Alma Mater Society, 2008).  As a result of the generalization, there has been difficulty in measuring the degree of accomplishment for each specific target.  According to the stakeholders from the meeting, this incomplete process of evaluating the targets have also been due to the amount of labour and time required for this task, and the lack thereof. Yet with the computer tracking system ready to set in place, it addresses two sides of this issue. The first being that more quantitative targets can now be set with a specific numerical value attached. Secondly, the computer will ideally save much of the time and labour needed for keeping track of the data, hence making the indication of these targets more efficient. This would alleviate one of the greatest barriers currently affecting the AMS staff.   11  With that being said, further investigation and clarification of the software and its features will be required. There is still no guarantee that the OC program will be able to track all of the items related to ecological footprint measures. We would also be interested to learn whether or not the system will allow invoice-scanning features, which presumably could help identify where the food sources originated. This is but one of the gaps we identified from the information that was retrieved from the literature reviews and focus group meetings, along with further questions we still need to be addressed. It was made very clear to us that follow-up after AMS Impacts Committee meetings was less prevalent, as was the overall communication between AMS food staff and UBC Food Services. Not only is this a problem internally because it potentially delays the response to certain issues, it also creates some problems externally. More specifically, the lack of a cohesive decision-making process between AMS and UBC Food Services, the two most prominent food service providers on campus, creates a gap in campus-wide communication to the student body. Visiting the various food outlets across campus, it is difficult to find universal signage for food labels or disposal sites. There seems to be a differentiation as widely ranged as the number of food outlets and this is likely not the most beneficial strategy for moving in a more sustainable direction campus-wide.   Whether the given targets in the strategy in action plan are assessing certain percentages, or tracking the reduction of ecological footprint items; the overarching certainty is that this must be an ongoing process. The proposed new features of the new SUB are ideally able to address several of the difficulties in measuring previous targets. Yet there requires a tremendous continual effort to transform the UBC food system to become even more sustainable. This project in many ways truly encapsulates the complexity of current food systems. Numerous stakeholders are involved between the producer to the consumer, and accountability is required  12 from each link. By setting targets for the various aspects of the UBC AMS food system, from food procurement, to consumer purchases and so forth, we are attempting to address ecological footprint at every one of these given links. The project also reflects the rapid pace at which the food system in the Lower Mainland in accelerating towards greater sustainability. While this has been on the agenda for quite some time now, there has been an even stronger push in this direction, as many of the targets set were quite progressive and optimistic. Some of these progressive targets include alleviating water bottle sales completely, and capturing 100% of pre and post consumer waste. It is evident that lowering the ecological footprint of our food system is becoming a significant priority, and the AMS at UBC certainly aims to become a leader in doing so.    STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS: There are many food related targets outlined in the AMSLFS.  We made revisions, recommendations and proposed actions to achieve the each of the food related targets.  Furthermore, we created logic models to explain various inputs, outputs and outcomes for certain targets.  See Appendix 1 for a complete breakdown of the revisions, recommendations and logic model that we purpose for the AMSLFS document revision.   Our first recommendation is for AMS stakeholders are to initiate a regular meeting time with other stakeholders, such as UBC Food Services.  Currently, this is not happening.  Instead of working on similar targets as individual organizations, setting up a time to pool resources and share knowledge will lead to actions plans being implemented more efficiently and targets achieved quickly.  13 Our second recommendation is the implementation of universal signage.  This standardized message should be found at food outlet, even non-AMS run food services and should effectively communicate to sustainable initiatives to students. For example, post consumer waste management needs immediate attention.  The proper disposal signage will help students develop connections between the act of proper disposal and the sign. This action however, cannot be carried out effectively without regular planning meetings between AMS and UBC Food Services as well as valuable follow up afterwards. Our third recommendation is to set quantitative targets where OC tracking system can be utilized. See Appendix 1 for a complete break down of recommendations. Now that AMS has the new software system tracking ability, targets can be quantitative and therefore more meaningful. Our final recommendation is to engage with LFS 450 classes on an annual basis so that targets do not become obsolete.  AMS can greatly benefit by research conducted by LFS 450 students.  A regular revision will assist AMS stakeholders in evaluating whether they are fulfilling their targets or whether they need make revisions so they are in context. One of the most challenging components of the AMSLFS document was that it had not been reevaluated for five years.  This long period gave rise to many targets and metrics being either being obsolete or ignored.  Many of the ideas that we wanted to present to the stakeholders were no longer applicable.  Essentially, the focus group provided an accurate and up-to-date status of the most important targets that AMS is currently focused on. Until the focus group our team was not able to make meaningful recommendations to AMSLFS document.  Unfortunately, a substantial amount of our preliminary research was no longer relevant.  This was unfortunate timing.  However, if the AMSLFS document was reviewed on a more frequent basis, this could have been avoided.  14  SCENARIO EVALUATION:  Our group felt that the AMSLFS document revision was challenging because of the broad scope of the objective.  To narrow in on the research objective, our group recommends that there an initial assessment with a key AMS stakeholder, as well as a member of the LFS 450 teaching team, to determine what food related targets are the highest priority, lowest priority and obsolete.  This meeting will allow for a quick evaluation of the status of AMSLFS targets and where the group should focus its research. Our group still recommends a focus group to present research and questions to the AMS stakeholders.  However, our group experienced a substantial amount of preparation for the focus group, only to find out that the targets that we assumed were significant were no longer applicable.  Nonetheless, we recognized that this was still meaningful research, however, if we had the knowledge of the current status of the targets before we began our research we could have much more efficiently prepared for our focus group.   Furthermore, this could have been avoided with the initial meeting proposed.  Our second suggestion is for the LFS 450 teaching team.  We believe that this scenario needs to be reviewed annually. The annual review will help keep the AMS on tract of current targets and how to incorporate new targets.    REFLECTION: While completing this project, there were some initial hurdles that made the execution of tasks quite challenging. At the very beginning, our group had difficulty interpreting the main objectives of our expectations. This frustration was quickly turned into a reach for more resources and help, and we continued to attempt in articulating what our goals were. Eventually, we were able to formulate direction-seeking questions for our stakeholders, and derived focus  15 group meetings to address them. Other challenges arose from these, in part for the planning of the meetings, and then in part for some of the gaps we still had post-meeting. Nonetheless, this provided our group some opportunities to learn valuable skills, such as time management for project timeline, organizing stakeholder meetings, and developing articulate language around progress metrics and documents. Most of all, our group anticipates the final outcome of this project as we truly hope to see the revisions of our targets and action plan unfold in due time in the new SUB.               16 Appendix I: Target & Action plan Revisions  Below are the current targets that are in the ?Lighter Footprint Strategy? (2008), as well as the revisions we have made for each. For certain targets, logic models are applicable and explain the various inputs, outputs and outcomes of the targets provided.    1. Food & Beverage (Internal)   Current target:  A) Significantly reduce the average per-serving ecological footprint of food and beverages sold at the AMS food outlets.  Recommended revised target: A) Reduce the average per-serving ecological footprint and food and beverages sold at the AMS food outlets by [x] % by the next annual progress report.   Current Target:  B) Set informed targets for increasing the purchase of local food ingredients as a percentage of total food purchases ? ST ? Context & background: To AMS, ?local? food ingredients includes the following: working on seasonality, renewing contract with GFS, purchasing local (according to the STARS document 48% of food purchased with 150 miles) raw ingredients, preparing the majority AMS food items at AMS outlets (ie. decrease purchasing of processed foods), purchasing sustainable fish (100% Ocean Wise Certification and Pacific fish options only), consolidating inventory so that there are fewer trips to campus, working with Central foods to increase local and seasonal produce.  Recommended revised target:  B) Increase the purchase of local food ingredients as a percentage of total food purchases.  ? Proposed actions: 1) Increase the purchase of seasonal produce by [x] %. 2) Increase the purchase of raw ingredients by [x] %.. 3) Increase the percentage of food purchased with 150 miles from 48% to 60% (more than half of our food should come within 150 miles). 4) Only purchase 100% Ocean Wise Certification seafood.  When possible choose Pacific seafood options. 5) Work with Central foods to decrease the amount of trips to campus. 6) Work with Gordon Food Services (GFS) to increase purchase of local and seasonal food items.  7) Consolidate purchases and inventory with other AMS food outlets. 8) Determine the ability of the new computer and software tracking system (Micros and Optimum Control Software) to track purchases.    17 Current target:  C) Significantly increase the number of certified organic, fair trade and GMO-free ingredients used by the AMS food outlets.  Recommended revised target: C) Where applicable, determine which organic certification standards are credible. Develop a list of Fair-trade items that are available for purchase. Define ?local?. Develop a system to measure the food products, even in the absence of labels.  Current target:  D) Increase proportion of items procured from UBC Farm and strengthen relationships with other local producers ? ST ? Context & background:  Target is no longer applicable. UBC farm was utilized less this year.  It only comprises a small percentage of food.  This was the first year that there was no growth in the amount of produce purchased. When there is a UBC Farm menu option available at the AMS outlet there is a substantial amount of advertising and it is highly accepted and is a high selling options.  Recommended revised target: D) Continue to strengthen relationships with UBC Farm and actively support UBC Farm initiatives. ? Proposed action:  Actively market to AMS food outlet customers when dishes are prepared with produce from UBC Farm.  Current target:  E) Set informed targets for reducing high impact ingredients like meat and dairy in the AMS food outlets as a percentage of total food purchases. This includes reducing the proportion of meat to vegetables in recipes, as well as increasing vegetarian, vegan and raw food menu options. ? ST ? Context & background: There is philosophical intent and people want to see more vegetarian and vegan options.  Already, due to consumer demand, there has been an increase of vegetarian and vegan menu items, with many more recipes. For example blue chip is making a lot of dairy free baked goods.   Recommended revised target:  E) Competitively price vegetarian/vegan food items with meat food items. ? Proposed actions:  1) Utilize the new Micros and Optimum Software system (POS) in unison with the executive chefs research to set targets that will allow for the opportunity to quantify the reduction of high impact ingredients like meat and diary in the AMS food outlets. 2) Increase the amount of dietary food alternatives (ie. gluten free, dairy free)     18 2. Food & Beverage - (Interactive)   Current Target:  A) Encourage UBC Food Services to significantly reduce the ecological footprint at all of their food outlets, including franchises.  Recommended revised target:  A) Encourage AMS food outlets to regularly adapt menu offerings to compete with other UBC food outlets/ franchises. ? Context & intention explained: A challenge of reducing ecological footprint for AMS interactive food outlets is that there is less control within the external franchise locations. For example, it would be difficult to limit the origin of food sources and limit practices and such locations. However, we recognize that there would be an economic disadvantage to lose revenue from removing franchises altogether. Our recommendation is to allow AMS food outlets overcome this challenge by offering more appealing food items than franchise outlets. This would eliminate the need for franchises, while maintaining reasonable revenue. ? Proposed actions:  1) Incorporate more visibly sustainable, fresh, local menu offerings than the competing outlets. By doing so, AMS food outlets can establish themselves as leaders of campus-wide sustainable food choices.  2) The AMS may choose to conduct further research to improve marketing to out-compete the limited, static offerings of most of the less sustainable food franchises. (This could be a long term goal).   Current target:  B) Work with student groups, the UBC Farm, and the UBC Sustainability Office to improve food security by increasing the amount of local food produced on campus and in the Vancouver community.  Recommended revised target: Overall, more indicator development may be necessary to support and track the progress towards achieving this target. The sole indicator currently representing this target for on-campus food production may not be adequate.   Current target: C) Create a feasibility assessment of potential sites for rooftop garden projects on buildings around campus. ? Context & background: A short-term feasibility assessment was already been completed in April 2012 by a LFS 450 group. The new SUB will have a rooftop outdoor courtyard with approximately 50% of the landscape dedicated towards agricultural purposes.   Recommended revised target:  For this particular target, we suggest creating a more long-term feasibility assessment for potential rooftop gardens and edible landscaping. However this is beyond the scope of the current AMS targets and project at this point.   19  Current target: D) Investigate ways for the AMS to support the UBC Farm in its food production initiatives. ? Context & background: AMS is already steadily supporting the UBC Farm with regular food procurement and purchases, so this target is not longer appropriate.    Recommended revised target:  D) Continue to strengthen relationship with the UBC farm.    Current target:  E) Lobby UBC Campus and community planning to ensure long term security of UBC FARM. ? Context & background: As mentioned above, this is already a goal that is being acted upon.  Recommended revised target:  E) Lobby UBC Campus and Community Planning to continue to ensure long term security of UBC farm, as well as the Macmillian Orchard Garden. (Long-term goal).     3. Materials - (Internal)  Current target:  A) Track and reduce the quantities of disposable materials used in AMS operations and significantly reduce the ecological footprint per unit of these materials.  ? Context & background:  Due to the new infrastructure that will be implemented in the new SUB, tracking and reducing the quantities of disposable materials used in AMS operations will be feasible. The new SUB will be able to track the quantities of disposable materials used in AMS operations.  No revisions to the target are necessary. We only suggest in addition: ? Proposed actions: There will be an electronic floor scale that will be purchased and placed in the waste collection area of the new SUB. This scale will allow for a measurement of waste by weight.  The goal is not only to track all waste, but also to track and separate the different waste streams. Once data has been collected, targets can be set so that the EF per unit of these materials will be reduced.   Current target:  B) Set informed targets for reducing materials used: focus on paper, disposable containers, and general waste in AMS businesses and events ? ST  20 ? Context & background: Currently, waste systems include the ?Schafer bin system? and vermicomposting. The new SUB will have the resources to track waste. The SUB may consider tracking waste on a daily, weekly, monthly basis. The electronic floor scale will be accessible not only to AMS, but to all of UBC food operations.  The intention is a campus wide initiative. Therefore an interactive target needs to be set, so that there is collaboration with UBC food services to monitor and reduce all waste produced on campus. This target also needs to be in line with the Zero Waste Reduction Plan.  Recommended revised target (additional target): B) Collaborate with non-AMS run food outlets and vendors to decrease materials and general waste. ? Proposed actions:  There needs to be incorporation with all of the food outlets in the new SUB.  AMS should set the leadership and initiative to reduce materials used.  However, all outlets (including non-AMS run outlets) need to have access to infrastructure.  For example, the floor scale, etc.    Current target:  C) Continue to provide incentives for customers to bring their own mugs and reusable containers in order to reduce the amount of disposables by an additional 15-20% - LT ? Context & background:  Before, 2012 most AMS food outlets did not have a register system that could track container discounts before then. Currently there are number of AMS food operations that are tracking BYOC.  Blue chip, Moon Noodle, Honour Roll Sushi, Pie R Squared, Bernouilli?s bagels, The Burger Bar and The Gallery Restaurant are the AMS Food operations involved in BYOC.  This has been tracked and measured.  With the data available outlined in the table below, a target can be met with actual values.    Recommended revised target:  C) Increase the amount of BYOC customers to 15%. At the Blue Chip, 15% of costumers bring their own container. Set the standard for all the other AMS food outlets that only have a customer base of 0-1% of customers who bring their own container.  Note:  Blue chip serves a lot of coffee.  Bringing your own mug is more common.  Bernouilli?s bagel also serves a lot of coffee.  They have the second largest customer base of BYOC customers. The food outlets have a harder time encouraging students to bring their own containers for food related purchases.  January ? December 2012 Number of Discount Number of food/coffee transactions Number of Customers Discount % of Transactions Discount % of customers Blue Chip  57,426 527,626 384,039 10.88% 14.95% Moon Noodle  733 11,904 90,269 6.16% 0.81%  21 Honour Roll Sushi 16 280,382 183,307 0.01% 0.81% Pie R Squared  0 397,787 225,383 0.00% 0.00% Bernouilli?s Bagels 1682 254,371 101,951 0.66% 1.65% The Burger Bar 32 155,942 106,052 0.02% 0.03% Galley Restaurant 225 59,192 64,789 0.38% 0.35%  ? Proposed action:  Continue to provide incentives for customers to bring their own mugs and reusable containers. Increase the amount of BYOC customers to 15%.   Current target:  C) Conduct research to determine the most environmentally-friendly and cost effective disposable takeout containers in order to eliminate the use of non biodegradable products ? ST ? Context & background: This target is currently out-of-date. The Eco-to-go program, created by UBC Food Services, has been adopted by AMS. Ensuring that Eco-to-go program (BYOC general) is standardized throughout the SUB and across campus is imperative.   Recommended revised target:  D) Ongoing research into the most sustainable, affordable, user-friendly container and BYOC system, to ensure the system is continually improved upon. ? Logic model:  Inputs Outputs   Outcomes - Impact     What we invest Activities Participation Short term Medium term Long term    Adequate signage   Acceptance of lower revenue  Removal of displayed bottled water    AMS food outlets   Students Less bottled water waste   Less available bottled water   More students using free water dispensers   Bottled water only available  22  Additional water filtration dispensers   upon request   Lower revenue from bottled water      4. Building Materials   Current Target:  A) Completely remove bottled water from all outlets. ? Context & background:  The issue of a campus wide ban on bottled water was presented, but a complete ban cannot be enacted out due to health and safety concerns. For instance, emergency supplies of clean water need to be on hand in the case of a rare emergency. In addition, not all people on campus are students. There are some tourists and they may not have a water bottle they can use to be refilled. However, a strive towards less bottle water available should cut down on demand from students. In addition, increasing the visibility and ease of access to clean water stations will help students carry water bottles.  Recommended revised target:  A) Bottle water be only available upon request and not openly displayed for purchase, thus out of sight, out of mind. This will decrease the demand for bottled water and thus the associated waste. In addition, adequate water dispensing stations need to be available to deter students from demanding bottled water. ? Logic model:   Inputs Outputs   Outcomes ? Impact     What we invest Activities Participation Short term Medium term Long term    Adequate signage   Acceptance of lower revenue Removal of displayed bottled water    AMS food outlets   Students Less bottled water waste   Less available bottled water   More students using free water dispensers   Bottled water  23   Additional water filtration dispensers   only available upon request   Lower revenue from bottled water     Current target:  B) Capture 100% post-consumer waste.  ? Context & background:  The AMS food outlets already capture 100% pre-consumer waste and want to better deal with post waste. One area to improve is the usage of compost bins. Many students wish to compost, but do not want to carry around their rubbish in search of an appropriate bin. The current SUB sometimes feels it is lacking enough composting bins. Along with adequate signage to inform students, the new SUB should have more easily accessible compost bins.  ? Current gaps and unanswered questions:  In addition, how will this waste be tracked? The focus group mentioned scales built into the floor to weigh various waste. Is this financially feasible and will staff use the scales? Lastly, is the waste contained in the bins (whether it be garbage, compost, or recyclable) appropriate, or are non-waste items found in waste bins?   Recommended revised target:  B) Adequate varieties of bins need to be available to capture 100% post consumer waste with appropriate signage. ? Proposed Action: Utilize scales built into the floor of the waste collection room as mentioned in the focus group meeting. In addition, AMS janitorial staff need to be instructed to measure the waste from each bin (compost, recycling, and waste).  ? Logic model:   Inputs Outputs   Outcomes ? Impact     What we invest Activities Participation Short term Medium term Long term    Additional compost Installation of compost bins AMS janitorial Less post consumer Ability to track waste More students using free  24 bins   Adequate signage   Scales built into the floor   and signage   Install scales into floors   Train employees to weigh waste before emptying    staff   Consumers waste   Higher compost usage    more accurately water dispensers   Bottled water only available upon request   Ability to create fully detailed waste tracking        5. Communications   Current Target:  Increase overall student awareness of the AMS? environmental initiatives through communications strategies. A) Actively promote incentives for customers to choose environmentally friendly options at AMS businesses. This includes both lighter footprint menu options as well as increasing use of reusable takeout containers, mugs and cutlery ? ST  Recommended revised target:  A) Provide incentives for customers to choose lighter footprint options at AMS outlets. Increase amount of lighter footprint food product options, and increase usage of reusable containers, mugs and cutlery by [x] % by the next annual report. ? ST  ? Proposed actions to achieve this target:  1) Provide customer incentives by presenting all food items with UBC FSP Food Labels, checking boxes for ?local, organic, GMO-free, ocean-wise? featured-products. 2) Provide discounted prices (visually observable on menu) for customers that bring personal containers & mugs. ? Logic Model:  Inputs Outputs   Outcomes - Impact      25 What we invest Activities Participation Short term Medium term Long term    Food Labels UBC FSP Usage of reusable containers/ mugs AMS food vendors  Increased consumer- awareness of lighter footprint product options   Discount pricing for  reusables  Consumers  Decrease in non-reusable containers/ mugs   Disappearance of non-reusable container usage   Current Target: B) Create a tracking system to monitor the number of customers who choose lighter footprint menu options ? ST  Recommended revised target:  B) Monitor and record the number of customers purchasing lighter footprint menu options. ? ST ? Proposed actions to achieve this target: 1) Utilize the OC system settings to track the number of lighter footprint items purchased, to match the products to categories on the Food Labels. 2) Periodically collect and analyze the data from all food outlets to assess whether Food & Beverage targets reductions are met.  ? Logic Model:  Inputs Outputs   Outcomes - Impact     What we invest Activities Participation Short term Medium term Long term    OC system  Set-up and customize OC system settings (uniform across all outlets) AMS food vendors  Established tracking system to monitor target reductions     26  Monitor and analyze data periodically, compare to F&B target reduction goals Food & Beverage manager or appointed analyst  Successful and efficient method of monitoring goals achieved     Additional targets from the Action Plan & Indicators document (2008):   Current target:  C) Produce annual progress report on AMS Lighter Footprint Strategy.   Recommended revised target:  C) The hired sustainability staff member will produce an annual progress report on AMS Lighter Footprint Strategy.   Current target: D) Promote proper waste disposal and reduce littering: SUB Materials Stewardship project   Recommended revised target:  D) Promote proper waste disposal through universal signage and effective communication at all disposal sites of the New SUB.  ? Proposed Action:  Set up universal signage at all disposal sites.  Current target:  Incorporate sustainability into the AMS? communications with staff, clubs, and constituencies. E) Update all training manuals for staff, executives, councillors, commissions, and clubs to include sustainability training and best practices ? ST  Recommended revised target:  E) Ensure all staff, executives, councillors, commissions, and clubs are up-to-date on information of sustainability training and best practices. ? ST  ? Proposed action:  Training manual will be incorporated into tenant contract, as a specified section on food vendor expectations and sustainability targets and practices.  ? Logic model:   Inputs Outputs   Outcomes - Impact      27 What we invest Activities Participation Short term Medium term Long term    Sustainable Food vendors section ? Tenant Agreement Sustainability training for all staff members/ involved members  AMS food vendors (tenants) Knowledgeable and well-trained staff members   A New SUB with sustainability policies and practices engrained in the facility & network   Tenants agreeing to sign contract  Possible challenges with non-negotiable nature of contract     Other Current targets:  ? Enhance Website.  ? Track and Display Utility Use in SUB (Electricity, Steam, Petroleum Gas, and Water)  ? Investigate ways to incorporate sustainability into the AMS ?brand? and all AMS communications each year.   ? Focus on AMS events as a means to reduce our ecological footprint and to act as a model for other UBC community groups ? ST  Recommended revised target:  We do not find any of these as relevant targets necessary for this particular time and context. We suggest removing these targets above from the strategy list.   New target proposed:  F) Integrate internal food service outlets across UBC campus for collaboration of communication and waste management. ? Proposed actions:  1) Monthly meeting for AMS, UBC Food Services, and Campus Sustainability to address common concerns. 2) Executive member to follow up and report on these meetings.     28 Media Release  UBC Food System Project  April 2013 AMS Lighter Footprint Strategy   Description: The re-evaluation of the AMS Lighter Footprint Strategies 2008 document began as a broadly defined undertaking to identify gaps, inconsistencies, and ambiguities. We had to make recommendations, fill the gaps, and update the document to be relevant for the 2013 and the New SUB. As our task was not narrowly defined, we were able to choose areas to focus on that were partly based on our interests and those of the various AMS executives, stakeholders, and SEEDS coordinator. We combined the effectiveness of a literature search of past SEEDS projects as well as comparing the 2008 document to other lighter footprint strategies exemplified by other institutions. To finalize our recommendations, we conducted a large focus group with all key players in attendance. The focus group allowed us to evaluate the current situation on the Lighter Footprint Strategy and to determine which goals were most critical to success.  Quote ?Success is not garnered by the delegation of work, but by the collaboration of many minds?   29 References: Alma Mater Society. (2008). AMS Lighter Footprint Strategy Alma Mater Society. (2013). AMS Lighter Footprint Strategy - Appendices Alma Mater Society. (2008). AMS Lighter Footprint Strategy Action Plan and Indicators Alma Mater Society. (2013).  AMS Sustainability Requirements  Baker-French, S. (2013). UBC Food System Project Vision Statement for a Sustainable UBC Food System. [Class Handout]. Department of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada Baker-French, S. (2013). Introduction to the UBC Food System Project & Scenario Descriptions for 2013. [Class handout].  Department of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Brown, M., Christy, J., Chun Lin Lai, K., Galson, M., Li-Yin Lin, J., Ng, K., & Tai-Ling Hsieh, V. (2008). UBC Foods Systems Project: Exploring Ways to Lighten AMS Food and Beverage Department's Ecological Footprint-Venue: Blue Chip Cookies. City of Vancouver. (2013). What feed us: Vancouver Food Strategy. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/people-programs/vancouvers-food-strategy.aspx McCawley, P. F. (2001). Logic model for Program Planning and Evaluation.  Pitman, T. (2012).  Hospitality Services Wins Local Food Award.  Retrieved from http://atguelph.uoguelph.ca/2012/02/hospitality-services-wins-local-food-award/  30 University of British Columbia Vancouver Campus Climate Action plan 2010-2015 (2011). Climate Action Plan Report Retrieved from http://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/sustain.ubc.ca/files/uploads/CampusSustainability/CS_PDFs/PlansReports/Reports/UBCClimateActionPlanReport_2011.pdf UBC Sustainability. (2013). And the award goes to? Retrieved from http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/sustainability/and-award-goes-to%E2%80%A6 UBC Sustainability. (2011). Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS). Retrieved from http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/our-commitment/strategic-plans-policies-reports/external-benchmarks     

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0108465/manifest

Comment

Related Items