Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Feasibility assessment for an AMS new SUB no packaging demo restaurant : "The Palate" Kam, Joanne; Leung, Alan; Mawji, Mashael; Read, Nicole; Sousa, Caitlin Apr 5, 2013

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

Item Metadata


18861-Kam_J_et_al_SEEDS_2013.pdf [ 1.33MB ]
JSON: 18861-1.0108503.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108503-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108503-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108503-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108503-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108503-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108503-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report       FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT FOR AN AMS NEW SUB NO PACKAGING DEMO RESTAURANT- “THE PALATE” Joanne Kam, Alan Leung, Mashael Mawji, Nicole Read, Caitlin Sousa  University of British Columbia LFS 450 April 5, 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”.  UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report       FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT FOR  AN AMS NEW SUB NO PACKAGING DEMO RESTAURANT- “THE PALATE”  Joanne Kam, Alan Leung, Mashael Mawji, Nicole Read & Caitlin Sousa Scenario #9, Group #9  University of British Columbia LFS 450 5 April 2013           Di scla i mer: “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”. ii  Abstract:      The UBC food and waste s ystem s are comp onent s  of a greate r global s yst em focus ed on r educin g the adve rse en vironmental impacts of our consum pti on habit s. The numerous wa ys UBC ma y addr ess sust a inabili t y iss ues are foun d in varied inst it uti onal poli cies that focus on areas ran ging from agri cult ure to CO 2 emi ssi ons.  The UBC AMS Li ghter Foot print Strateg y outl ines man y of thes e poli cies , one of which aim s to create a z ero waste s ys tem b y tar geti ng th e waste produc ed b y dispo sable food containe rs . The N ew Student Un ion Buil ding will be int roducing a new food  outlet called “The Palate”, which will oper ate as a bring - your - o wn -contai ner (BYOC ) food outl et that will not offer dispo sable containers to pat rons. A progr am currentl y run b y UBC fo od services known as th e “Eco - To Go” program is under consideration for implementation in th e New SU B to in c reas e student participa ti on and to compl im ent futur e BYOC food outl ets  such as The Palate.  Our pro ject group conducted a feasi bil it y anal ysis of The Palate in the SUB using in - person surv e ys that were comprised of 22 questi ons  related to the present Eco - To Go pro gram and the con cept of a BY OC program .  Our sampl e incl uded 244 participants ove r a thre e - da y sampl in g pe riod us ing a random (it was not a random sampl e) convenienc e sa mpl e. Our result s indi cated that bri ngin g reus able contain er s to purchase food  on campus was an inconven ience to SUB users . However, wi th the int roducti on of the Eco - To Go program in th e SUB, 81% of participants indi cated the y would joi n and use the program. Thus, we con clude d  that th e Eco - To  Go pro gr am addr esses the inconv enienc e o f bringing one’s own container to campus and is int egr al to  the success of future BY OC food  outl ets . Our recomm endati ons hi ghli ght the importanc e of appr opriate mark eti ng so that the UBC comm unit y is more informed about food services that are aim ed at incr e asin g sust aina bil it y.   iii  Introduction:     In prepa rati on for the opening of the New Student Union Buil ding (SUB) in Septembe r 2014 (UBC Alma Mate r Socie t y, 2013 ), the Alma Mat er Societ y (AMS ) is loo king to develop a food service outlet, “The Palate,” that ope rates wit hout the us e of disposable foo d containers.  Th e aim of thi s ini ti ati ve is to contribut e to the redu cti on of the ov er all wast e produc ed on UBC campus .  Specific all y, th e result s of our project will provide the AMS wit h valuable consum e r feedba c k re gardin g th e feasibi li t y of The Pal ate. In acco rdanc e with t he Li ght er Footprint Strategy, The Palate will seek to reduce UBC’s ecological footprint, as well as the amount of dispo sable materials use d in AMS food operati ons by onl y s ervin g food an d beve ra ges to patrons who bring their own reu sable food containers.  Thus, our resear ch objec ti ve was to as sess the feasibi li t y of a bring - yo ur - own - container (BYO C ) food outl et in the New SUB based upon the result s of a consum e r att it udes surve y. (Clea r res ea rch  objecti ve. )      The Eco - To Go pro gr a m allows users to purcha se food using reusabl e co ntainers that can be returned to food outl ets for washin g and reuse at a later time.  Currentl y, UBC Food Servi ces operates the Eco - To Go program at its food outlet s and it is the hope of the AMS that thi s program wil l be carried over to the New SUB  (C ITAT ION) .  The goal of introducing the Eco - To Go pro gram to the New SUB is to increas e partici pati on by makin g the pro gr am more acc essi ble to SUB visi tors.  Additi onall y, if implemented, th e Eco - To Go pro gr am wil l complement the BYOC poli c y at The Pal ate.  To gethe r, these pro grams will contribut e to reducing dispo sable container waste gen erate d by AMS food outl ets as well as incre asing th e UBC campus community’s participation in sus tainable init iatives.   The curr ent thre ats of ani mal ex ti ncti on and cli mate chan ge add ur genc y an d importance to all efforts that aim to reduce our impa ct on the environment. Currentl y, urban cent res are iv  max im iz ing space, b y bu il ding up wards  rather t h a n out wards , and usin g ro oftops for gard ens. (What is the evidence fo r thi s? How is this relevant to your proje ct on take - out wear? ) Comm unit y ga rdens and farmers markets are also seen in gre ater abund anc e and ar e centred on  local agricult ure, suppo rt ing farmers and ethi cal fa rming pr acti ce s.  This  gl obal shi ft towards a “greener” planet is advancing our current understanding of cli m ate chan ge  (The caus al  directi on indi cated her e  seems ill ogic al  especi all y withi n th e contex t provided above ) , its proposed i mpl icati ons for environ mental healt h  and wh at we can do to reduc e the n egati ve ef fe cts of thi s issue.  Incidentally, UBC’s sustainability initiatives play a key role in contributing to this understandin g  bec ause th e y educ ate the campus co mm unit y in the pr a cti c e of sust ainable lifest yle s.        Our group consi sts of five members who are al l in the facult y of Land and Food S ystems but stud y diff erent discipl ine s with in the facult y. Th e value traje ctories of our group are info rmed b y agro scien ce, environm e ntal sust ainabili t y, econo mi cs and nutrit ion. Alt hough diff erent in fo cus, these ar eas of stud y all pr omot e comm on values surrounding sust ain abil it y and the importance of being pro acti ve in reduci ng our environmental foo tprint . These values inclu d e strivi ng to increas e over all campus sust ainabili t y and ini ti ati ves that work towa rds ful filli ng thi s goal, such as thos e aim ing to reduce dispo sable container wa ste in the UBC food s yst em.  Related to the operati ons of the Eco - To Go pro gram, our group al so beli eves that the use of reusable containe rs shoul d be more acti vel y promot ed on campus .      Rega rdin g the gen eral campus awa ren ess and understandin g on the issue s surrounding sust ainabili t y, ou r proje ct assumes that the gene ral campus publi c is well in formed about the long term impl icati ons surrounding sust ain abil it y i nit iatives.  Another assu mpt ion is that the gen eral campus sees th e value of ini ti ati ves that support a healt hier enviro nment, such as fair v  trade teas and the ope rati on of volunt eer - run br in g your own containe r food outl ets such as Sprouts.  Despit e the con sis tent support for curr en t init iatives, there are sti ll addit ional sust ainabili t y pro grams, such as the Eco - To Go pr ogr am, that remain la r gel y unknown b y the campus comm unit y.  An overal l lack of promot ion for these pro grams result s in unawaren ess and reduced participati on.  In the case of the brin g you r own containe r pro gr am, the inconvenienc e associated wit h brin gin g reusable containers to campus would be miti gated by implementi n g the E co - To Go pro gram. Ho wever, the lo cati on of Eco - To Go food outl ets and the marketi n g invol ved with this progra m wil l be critical in incre asing campus participati o n. Currentl y, the Eco - To Go pro gram is ex clusi vel y of fer ed throu gh UBC food se rvices and i s the refor e onl y avail able at their associat ed food locati ons.  Mark eti ng ini ti ati ves that include posters, pamphl ets, signs at food outl ets and easil y acc essi ble Eco - To Go outlets are critical in increasin g campus participati on in the Eco - To Go pro gram.  (This paragraph started out discussing the group’s assum pti ons about the ca mpus comm unit y. Th e to pic seems to shift and the re is some lack of clarity regarding which points are ‘facts’ and require citations and which are assumptions. A concludi ng s entenc e rel ati ng to the groups assum p ti ons could have helped.)       “Sustainability” is a word of many definitions and the context that sustainability shoul d be defined withi n is an issue of contention.  Although we reco gniz e the importance of sust ainable practi c es, the  wa y in which we ex ecute sust ainable behaviour va ries accordin g to our values.  An ex ampl e of a sust ainable practi c e that our group ex pressed mix ed opini ons towards was the use of disposabl e cutl er y at The Pal ate.  As part of the UBC Li ght e r Footprint Stra te g y, our comm unit y pa rtners at the AMS are int er ested in reducin g all dispo sable food containe r waste includi ng dispo sab le cups, containe rs and cutl er y  (C ITAT IO N) .  Co mpos table cutl er y has been int roduced to some campus food outl ets in or der to redu ce pla sti c waste;  however th e UBC vi  compos ti ng fa cil it y is un able to process this new cutl er y  (C ITAT ION) .  Due to this, the AMS feels that not offering cutlery at “The Palate” will assist in reducing the overall ecological footprint of the New SU B and en cour a ge pa trons to bring their own reusab le utensil s  (C IT AT ION ) . Our group values re gardin g cutl er y are that alt e rnati ve cutl e r y, such as bamboo, can be of fer ed at a cost  (Awkward wordin g) .  Offering cutl er y is essenti al for avoidi n g limi ts on food opti ons avail able  at The Palate.  The absenc e of cutl er y at Th e Palate will inevitabl y prev ent the food outl et from off er ing menu sele cti ons such as soups , stews, pastas and stir fr ys  ( T his is a recomm endati on and sho uld not be placed in the i ntroducti on) .       The UBC FS P plan  (which plan are you ref errin g  to? )  includes man y areas for improvement when addr essi ng sust ain a bil it y such as ( : )  wh ere to bu y food, who to bu y fro m, what the impact is, wh y it is important and how we can addr ess the specific conc ern  (If a specific doc um ent is being ref eren ced a cit ati on is needed) . A table outli ning the UBCFS P strate gies that pe rtain to the Palate is described as wel l as our group persp ecti v e on the feasibi li t y and ef fect of the proposed method. An area of fo cus is to increase campus i nvolvement in  efforts to in creas e campus sust ainabili t y and redu ce waste, wit h a spe cific fo c us  on reducin g wast e fro m disposable containers; the lon g term goal is to be a zero waste s ystem (AMS Li ghter Footprint S t rateg y., 2008 -  not refe ren ced in t he work  cit ed s ecti on ).  The isol ati on of convers ati ons and educati on around  sust ainabili t y is a barrier to achievin g a zer o waste s ystem ;  therefo re , educati n g students  in the f acult ies outsi de Land and Food S ystems an d Forestr y requir es more att enti on in order to increas e campus con ce rn for sust ainabili t y ini ti ati ves .   Methodology: vii       We began our proje ct by identif yin g our scena r io goals and conducti n g a literature review of a report (titl e? ) detaili ng a previous inqui r y int o the feasibi li t y of a brin g - you r - own - container restaurant at UBC’s New SUB, as well as Eco To - Go pro grams at othe r No rth American post -secondar y inst it uti ons.  We also consult ed variou s UBC waste reports and the AMS Li ghter  Footprint Strate g y (2008) . (Good. Ide all y in this se cti on you would sa y ho w you identified the material you used. In the result s secti on you would report the mate rial used. )  Foll owin g thi s resea rch, we met with the New SU B Sustainabil it y Coordinator, Col l yn Chan, to discuss our stakeholders’ visions for the Palate and clarify our understanding of UBC’s existing Eco To - Go Progr am.  Durin g thi s meeti ng, we determi ned th at it was in the best interest of our stakeholde rs to conduct a surve y inqui r y int o the kn owled ge of the curr ent Eco To - Go pr ogr am and att it udes of SUB users tow ards the Eco To - Go pro gram and bring your own containe r aspect of th e Palate.  Foll owin g thi s meeti ng, we began to dra ft up a surve y to pr esent to SUB users in ord er to answer ke y quest ions per taining to the Palate and t he Eco To - Go pro gr am.  After mul ti ple revisi ons  (it would be go od to menti on the revisi ons were aim ed at improving the clarit y and relevan ce of qu esti ons) , hard copies of our surve y were dist ributed to SUB users, return ed  and the result ing data compi led and an al yz ed. ( You sh ould menti on that informed consent was obtained from all parti cip ants.)  Our surv e ys wer e conducted in - person, usin g pap er surv e ys in the SUB. Our aim was th at b y conducti n g in perso n surve ys in the SUB, we would be surve yin g our tar get popul ati on and be able to answ er an y qu esti ons people had.  (Goo d. You could provide a ref eren ce supportin g yo ur strate g y.)  We also freq uented the SUB at diffe re nt tim es  (specific times and the number of house spent shou ld b e reported) , so that we includ ed people durin g the morning and afternoon periods. We vocali z ed our surve y (This is not clear. What does ‘vocalizing the survey’ mean ex actl y? ) in the SU B as a form of advertisi ng, to incr ease ex posure viii  to the surve y and incr e as e student involvement fr om mult ipl e facult ies.  (You shoul d briefl y describe the statist ical m ethods used to summ ariz e the surve y result s . )  Usi ng the result s obtained from our surve y, we wer e able to assess the feasib il it y of th e Palate accordi ng to cons ume r att it udes and make app ro priate re comm endati ons to our stakeholders rega rd ing how to best implement the Eco To - G o and brin g - your - o wn - co ntainer pro gr am at thi s new food outl et.  (Good. The surve y did not technic all y asse ss the feasibi li t y of the P alate. Rather the  surve y provide important information to the feasib il it y assessment of the restaurant.)       When conducti ng our lit erature review, we uti li z ed several ke y words  (You shoul d list the ke y words)  in orde r to refin e our sear ch result s.  We began our ini ti al rese arc h by reviewin g a previous report investi gat ing the feasibi li t y of a bri ng - you r - own - container restaurant at UBC’s New SUB th at was comp leted in 2012 b y Chan et al .  After revi ewin g thi s report, we investi gated how oth er post - seconda r y inst it uti ons in North America, su ch as the Universit y of Toronto and Universit y of Vermont, had su ccessfu ll y implemented pro gr ams sim il ar to that of UBC’s Eco To - Go pro gr am.  Our searches for rel evant lit erature focuse d on keyw ords such as “Eco To- Go”, “sustainability”, “bring- you r - own - container” and “disposable container waste”.  For the pu rposes of our project, we also consul ted the UBC Waste Reducti on report (2013 ), UBC Waste Acti on Plan (2013) and AMS Li ghter Footprint Strate g y (2008 ).  (Here you are repe ati ng methods al r ead y discussed, but in more detail.)       In ord er to gain insi ght into consumer knowle dge and att it udes  toward s the current E co - To Go pro gram, our group conducted a surv e y over a three da y time span in th e Main Concourse of the curr ent SUB.   The su rve y itself took place on Tuesda y, Mar ch 19 t h , 2013 from 11:0am -1:30pm , Wednesda y, Ma rch 20 t h , 2013 from 10:00am - 1:45pm and Frid a y, March 21 st , 2013 from 10:00am - 1:00pm .  Our sample siz e (n) was 244 S UB use rs and the actual response ra te was ix   81.3%.  This surve y cont ained 21 questi ons in both mult ipl e choice and sh ort answer format and was pres ented to SUB us ers at a tabl e set up in the SUB  (Id eall y you would refe renc e the appendix with the surve y) .  In orde r to encou ra ge participati on, members of our group ph ysicall y approach ed SUB us ers as the y passed b y our surv e y table and requ ested that the y fil l out a surve y.  Verbal promot ion of our surve y was also used to attract pass erb y t o our table.  It shou ld also be noted that ea ch s urve y par ti cip ant was pr e sented wit h an opportuni ty to ente r into a draw to win one of six $20.00 AMS gift cards, which served as an in centi ve to fil l out our surve y.  Prior to filli ng out a surve y, each pa rticipant was asked to compl ete a consent form indi cati ng t hat the y agre e d to parti cipate in our dat a coll ecti on.  At least two of our group members wer e pr esent at the table throu ghout the s urve y period in ord er to dist ribute and coll ect surve ys and cons ent for ms and to answer the qu e sti ons of the campus com muni t y rega rdin g our project.  We selected cur rent SUB use rs as our sur ve y participants be cause the Palate is slated to be operat ed in the New S UB, thus our rati onale was that the curr ent SUB users would eventu all y be purchasin g food in the New SUB and would ha ve the option of purch asing food at the Palate. The SUB was also chose n for conducti n g our su rv e y as it is a centr al locati on that gath ers and would ensure dive rsit y of the UBC comm unit y.  We chose to distribut e hard copies of our su rve y in order to reach our tar get group of SUB us ers an d in doi ng so, redu ce res ponse bias.  Furthe rmore, b y set ti ng up a ph ysical boot h i n the SUB we wer e able to int eract wit h the campus comm unit y and discuss the purpose of ou r surve y in more detail, as well as obtain more fee dba ck re gardin g cons umer thoughts on the Eco To - Go Pro gram.  (Although thi s is a rep eat of the methods alread y disc ussed above, it is more compl ete and hit s on many of the point s omit ted in the previous version.)  x       Incidentall y, seve ral weaknesses ex ist ed  in our data coll ecti on methods t hat shou ld be identified.  First of all , our sample siz e of n=244 ma y be too small to accu ratel y rep resent the demogr aphic compos it io n of the UBC campus co mm unit y, whi ch ma y hav e result ed in surve y response bias.  (Good. Te c hnicall y, the potenti al response bias would be ass ociated with fact that is was a conveni ence s a mpl e rather than a rando m sampl e. The sample si z e has to do with the power of you r sampl e to detect stati sti cal signific a nce. You were not planni ng to do compar isons , so this is less important. A sampl e of 244 is ver y good.)   In addit ion to thi s, our surve y table was set up at the north end of the SU B buil ding facin g the Bu chanan buil din g and as a result , the majorit y of our surve y pa rticipants we re students of t he Facult y of Arts.  Sever al of our members utilized key words in their verbal promotions of our survey such as “waste reduction” and “sustainability”, which may have contributed to attracting more participants who were awa re of UBC sust a inabili t y ini ti ati ves, ther e b y contribut in g to furthe r surve y respons e bias. (Good insight.)  A source of erro r in our data coll ecti on ma y be att ribu ted to the inconsist ent tim ing of our surve yin g and the fact t hat we onl y surve ye d dur ing thre e weekda ys meant that we did no t sa mpl e an y week end SUB users.  Finall y, none of our group members had an y prior ex perienc e in d raftin g and fo rmatt ing su rve ys, there fore som e of our surve y questi ons ma y have be en difficult t o int erpret or were int e rp reted b y participants in a manner tha t was contradictor y to our inten ti ons.  An ex ampl e of interpret ati on error was so me respondents considering a mug as a “reusable container” when our group intended the term “reusable container” to refer only to containers designed to hold food, not beverag es.  (Good.)      For more in formation regardin g data coll ecti on materials and tool s, includi ng surve y questi ons, please re fer to the Appendix.  (Ex cell ent discussi on. Please note for future reports that xi   thi s discussi on piece shoul d  be part of your discus sion secti on. I und erstand that the rubric ma y have mislead you  for thi s report.)      We conducted a sc ena rio evaluation of our project b y revie wing ou r ori ginal project plan that was dra fted at the comm encement of ou r proje ct work p eriod.  We dete rmined the overall success of ou r project ac cording to which goals o utl ined in our original pr oject plan wer e fulfil led by the tim e our feasibi li t y assessment of The Palate con cluded.  A detailed scen ario evaluation can be found below.   Findings and Outcomes: Ideally the table would be led by an explanatory paragraph. Section 1: Question Findings (n= 244, unless stated otherwise) 1. How often do you bring your own reusable container to school for purchasing never = 42%;  1 time/semester = 8%;  1 - 2 times/m onth = 14%;  1 - 2 times/week = 16%;  3 or more/we ek = 19%;  no response = 1%  2.) When you purchase food on campus that comes in a disposable container, what factors prevent you from using your own reusable container? (check all that apply) Top 3 factors: 1.) Brin gin g m y own reu sable container is inconveni ent  2.) I did not know you co uld use your own container at campus food outl ets  3.) I onl y us e a dispo sabl e container when I fo r get to brin g my own container    3.) Do you know what the “Eco-To Go” program is? no = 67%  xii   ye s = 33%  4.) Are you a member of the “Eco-To Go” program? no = 86%  yes = 14%  5.) If yes, how frequently do you purchase meals using the “Eco - To Go” program at UBC in a week? n = 80  (This is not a yes/ no questi on)  no = 58%  yes = 42%  6.) If the Eco - To Go program was offered campus wide, including in the SUB, would you join? (If you are already a member, select ‘yes’.)   no = 17%  yes = 81%  other = 2%   7.) Would you purchase food from a food outlet in the New SUB that does not provide disposable containers? (In other words, you would be required to bring your own container or to use the Eco - To Go program at this outlet.) no = 10%  yes = 58%  unsure = 32%  8. I would be more likely to eat at a food outlet that did not have disposable food containers if… (Select all that apply):   * refe r to surve y fo r ans wer choic es; # of responses  (The surv e y questi ons and responses wer e not provided in the appendix )  A =  166  B = 181  C = 207  D = 115  E = 127  F = 132  9. What would deter you from eating at a food outlet that does not offer disposable containers but supports the Eco - To Go program (Select all that apply)? ** see surve y for opti ons  A = 118  B = 60  C = 113  D =31  E = 7  F = 46  G = 15  10. What would deter you from eating at a food outlet that did not offer disposable cutlery? (Select all that apply)   A = 90  B = 129  C = 64  D = 10  11. Are there foods that the SUB could serve or serve more Top 3 suggesti ons:  xiii   of that fit your personal food preferences?    1.) Fr esh/ Healt h y food  2.) Ve geta rian/ Ve gan op ti ons  3.) Asian Opti ons    Section 2:   1.  With which faculty are you associated? (The answers on the right are not faculties) n= 237  UBC Staff = 3%  Visi tor = 2%  Other = 5%  Student = 90%  2.  How many years have you been attending or working at UBC? n=241  <1 ye ar =  answ ers?  1 year=  2 years=  3 years=  4 years=  >= 5 years=  3. How often do you purchase food in the SUB (or on campus)?   other = 1%  Almos t never= 8%  1 per semeste r= 1%  1 - 2 times per month = 22 %  1 - 2 times per we ek =  33 %  3 - 4 times per we ek = 22 %  5 or more times per week = 1 %    4.  I currently participate in a UBC Meal Plan:   No = 85%  Yes = 15%  5.  I currently live:    On - campus = 27 %  Off - campus = 73%    6. Age   18 or youn ger = 9 %  19 -  21 = 48%  22 -  25 = 28%  xiv   Over 25 = 15 %    7. Sex   F =   55%             M =  44%             Prefer not to disclose=1 %      Discussion:      During th e three da y period that we were in th e SUB, 244 peopl e comp leted our surve y and signed a consent fo rm. However, we cannot concl ude that thi s number was large enou gh to repres ent the majorit y of the UBC population, nor the majorit y of th e UBC comm u nit y that frequents the SU B on a regul ar basis . Wit h that said, we do beli eve that our result s provide a much bett er repres entation of the att it udes and opi nions on waste redu cti on (you did not ask about waste reducti on in gen eral ) of the UBC com muni t y, wh en comp ared t o last ye ar 's surv e y on the feasibility of a BYOC restaurant. Since last year’s survey was conducted solely through Fac ebook and wo rd of m outh, we feel that we rea ched our ta r get audien ce more eff ecti vel y, b y conducti ng in - p erson sur ve ys in th e SU B (http: // tes/sus es/s eedsli brar y/2012%20 APS C %20261%20Final%20Report%20 - - %202 %20BYOC %20MC %20 P C %20AH%20KM_submi tt edP W .doc.pdf ). (The wordin g in these s e ntences could be improv ed, but the comparison is vali d. It is not cle ar what this UR L is refer ring  to and it is not linking to a webpa ge when I cli ck  on it.) When conducti ng su rve ys pe rta ini ng to issues of sust ainabili t y, it is important to gath er information xv   from a wide variet y of people in order to achieve an unbiased sample of val ues, knowled ge gaps, opini ons and paradi gms  (C ITAT ION  or furthe r ex pla nati on is needed. This ma y be true fo r some surve ys and not true for others ) . It was for thi s reason that  our group chos e not to gath er data onl y from participants in the LFS Facult y, as thi s could have gene rated bias ed result s.  (Good.)  Rega rdless of our sm all sample siz e, however , we  were able to att ain result s of a fairl y dive rse group of people sp anning across man y dif fer ent facult ies and ages. As well , we were also abl e to obtain a near 1:1 rati o of responses from females and males  ( W hat does this mean? What is the rati o of males to fem ales at UBC? ) . These details are important so that we ma y mak e recomm endati ons bas ed on accur ate and unbi ased findi ngs.       By speci ficall y choosi ng certain questi ons to include in our surve y, we were able to gain insi ght on (dicti on) the at ti tudes of participants towards brin gin g their own containers to UBC. For example, by asking questions such as, “How often do you bring  your own reusable container to UBC for purchasing food?” and “How often do you purchase food in the SUB?” we were able to gain a bett er unde rstan ding of how often people ( , )  who eat at the SUB frequentl y ( , )  thi nk to bring their own reus able container  (di cti on) . While the lar gest porti on at 33 % of participants responded to pur chasin g f ood 1 - 2x / week, when we asked how often the y brought their own containers to purch ase fo od from the SUB, 42% responded that the y  neve r bring a reusabl e container to UBC for pur chasing food  (thes e ar e result s) .  (The wordin g her e is awkwa rd. It would be bett er to first in dicate which result you are going to discuss and then discuss it.)       Since the majorit y of the participants surv e yed reported that the y live off - campus , we feel that thi s  (dicti on)  comm ute re presents a possi ble ex planati on for the inconveni e nces surroundin g transporting on e 's own re usable food contain er to and from campus . Moreo ver, when participants were asked wh at would deter them from eati n g at a food outl et that did not offer di sposabl e xvi   containers and cutl er y, th e majorit y of participants cit ed not having room in their bags, worr yin g that food would leak out if the y wer e to car r y their own reusable containers to and from campus , and liking the freedom to spont aneousl y bu y food wi thout having to worr y about cutler y, as their top deterrents. (Good. Again, this is a result . Id ea ll y you would int erpr et the result .)       Through ou r surve y, we were also abl e to gain insi ght on whether partic ipants knew what the Eco - To Go pro gram was, o f which 67% of partici pants did not. Inter esti ngl y enou gh ho weve r, when participants w ere t hen giv en a short ex plana ti on of what the pro gram was, and were then subsequentl y asked if the y would pa rticipate in the Eco - To Go pro gram, 82 % of participants repli ed that the y would. This is an ex tremel y important findi ng, as it point s to the conclusi on that the curr ent marketi n g str ate gies of the Eco - To Go program are not reachin g the majorit y of th e campus population, and that, should marketi ng be come more effe cti ve, the percent a ge of campus participants woul d incre a se.  (Ex cell ent interpretati on and discussi on.)  Ulti matel y, the majorit y of participants showed int er est and a will ingn ess to participate in the Eco - To  Go pro gram, which could also indicate that t he comm unit y at UBC is awar e of the environmen tal and sust ainabili t y iss ues to do with consumer waste, but not the init iatives that are associated with reducin g waste. These ar e ex tre mel y important findi ngs as th e y  support the notion that a BYOC restaur ant is ind eed feasibl e, if adapt e d with an effici ent and co nvenient Eco - To Go pro gr am. Wit h thi s program, it is ver y possi ble to miti gate man y ba rri ers that the particip ants claim concernin g overall inconvenien ce. (Clear interpr etation of yo ur findi ngs.)       Althou gh a proposal regardin g a bett er mark eti ng sch eme for the Eco - T o  Go pro gram can be made, there ar e sti ll some clea r limit ati ons that could have af fect ed our und erstandin g of the publi c's view on the Eco - To Go pro gram, as well as our view on the feasibi li t y of "The Palat e". As previous l y m enti oned, our sample siz e of 24 4 participants is too small of a sample to xvii   adequatel y repr esent the enti re UBC population  (Please see the not es in methods -  it is not the sampl e siz e but the sampli ng method that limi ts ex trapolation to the campus ) . As well , seve ral new conc epts, like Eco - T o Go, wer e int roduced wi thi n our surve y which co uld have potentiall y creat ed confusion fo r par ti cipants who were not fa mi li ar wit h such topi cs previous to doi ng our surve y. Participants ma y also not have re ad the ex planati on of the Eco - To Go pro gram, due to time constraints, which would have affected their answers for some of the questions. What’s more, there remains a fai rl y obvious knowled ge gap on our part, in regards to disposable cutl er y. It remains uncle ar wh ether reus able cutl e r y shoul d be provided alon g with the Eco - To Go program , if  patrons shoul d provide their own cutl e r y, or if reus able cutl e r y shoul d be sold through vending ma chine s. Finall y, sinc e the New SUB will not be compl eted until 2014, some of the participants’ answers may have been misgu ided by their own ideas o f what the New SUB ma y or ma y not offe r to them. As well , our own as sump ti ons that the Eco - To Go pro gram wil l, indeed, be of fer ed in the New SUB, have yet to be officiall y confirm ed.     Group Reflection:      A notable succ ess ou r group had was the coord ination of meeti ngs with our stakeholders. Th e input of our stakeholders was crit ical in the suc ces s of our feasibi li t y anal ys es as the y had a wealt h of knowled ge re garding th e SUB op erati o ns, their visi on for the Palate and su gges ted resourc es. Throu ghout th e planning sta ges, the y al so offer ed their comm ent s on our surve y so that we wer e askin g ques ti ons that would provide us wit h the most important information pertaini ng to ou r feasibi li t y an al ys es. Despit e the overall succ ess in thi s project, there wer e xviii   chall en ges as well . These chall en ges can be divi de d int o the foll owing cat e gories th at wil l be ex plained further: Tempo ral, logist ics and the su rv e y itself. A chall en ge we faced was the amount of time all ocated to this project beca use th e process involved the pa rticipati on of different groups ( , )  Coord inating comm unicati on times for discussi on meeti ngs and throu gh email made it difficult to addre ss imm ediate concerns. Aside from stakeholde rs, the indivi dual group members wer e not alw a ys avail able for pl anning eit her due to restrict ed sch eduli ng or class time. Lo gist ics was a chall en ge bec ause our surv e y was conducted usin g pape r surve ys, rathe r than using a software program.  The group held a prior assumption that a website called “Su rve y Monkey” could be used for our survey, however, ethical considerations did not allow for this, and the alt ern ati ves wer e difficult to navigate thro ugh  t his fa ctor bec ame an iss ue when we reali z ed that it was not consi dered le git im ate as a surve y pro gr a m under th e universit y. As well as causin g immediate del a ys to our su rve y en actm ent, it also lead to resorti ng to usin g pape r surve ys bein g hand ed out to people bein g surve ye d. This itself became a logist ical ni ghtm are as it had to be made sure th at a surv e yor had to have both a surve y and consent form at the end.  (Be car eful to maint ain a professi onal tone.)  Th e la st logist ic difficult y that was noticed was th e  record keepin g of ov er two hundred compl eted forms and consent fo rms. The final  planning diffi cult y noti ce d was the surve y its elf. Despit e having st akeholder input on the questi ons of the surve y, i t w as som eti mes questi onable if it capture d all the information that we needed to obt a in. Addit io nall y, the qu esti ons that were finali z ed to be used  in the s urve y also caused some lev el of con fusion to surve yo rs. Bec a use these questi ons woul d then have to be  ex plained, it decreased the turn - over time of a surv e yo r durin g pivot al lunch  hour rushes.  xix        Despit e seein g a man y diffi cult ies during thi s pr oject  (wordin g) , it must also be noted that over two hundred people were su ccess full y surv e yed. The surve y itself acte d as an information center for the futur e plan s of the AMS that ma y have indi rectl y ch an ged th e perspe cti ves of the people that had been s urv e ye d or inquired about the surve y   Recommendations:      The majorit y of our recomm endati ons for futur e LFS 450 students, Coll yn , Nanc y, and th e rest of the AMS team ste m from pot enti al knowle dge gaps that aros e durin g the impl ementati on of our surve y, as well as from the time const raint s that our team faced duri ng thi s project.       Although we were given the opportunity to create a menu for “The Palate”, we decided to focus sol el y on custom er att it udes, as our group was war y of the time press ures we fa c ed. Howeve r, as pr evious l y mentioned, we did includ e sever al food - r elated qu esti ons in our surve y which we feel will act as the foundation for next year’s LFS 450 students to work with. (This is discussi on and shoul d be included in the discussi on secti on. ) Specific all y, we asked su rve y participants “Are there foods that the SUB could serve, or serve more of, that fit your personal food preferences?” As mentioned in our Discussion section, a large majority of participants answered “Fresh/Healthy Foods,” while the second highest answer was “Vegetarian/Vegan options.” These answers serve as a solid preliminary foundation for next year’s LFS 450 students, who should focus on the menu aspect for “The Palate” by conducting a survey that focuses on custom e r att it u des towards spe cific menu items. In other words, future LFS 450 students should be trying to better understand exactly what customers would want from “The Palate” in terms of food options now that we have determined that the majority of students are, at x x   t h e very least, open to a concept like “The Palate” that also includes the Eco - To Go Pro gram.  (Would you recomm end thi s as a scena rio for nex t ye ar? )       Future students shoul d also keep in mind that because we hav e dete rmined the Eco - To Go Progr am to be a vital component to the success of “The Palate” , an y  rese a rch conduct ed in regards to potential food items should also consi der porti on siz e in relation to the Eco - To Go container. What’s more, because a BYOC restaurant will face the challenge of multiple t ypes of containers, future students will need to consider how a food outlet like, “The Palate” will be able to efficientl y and econo mi call y de al wit h mul ti ple container siz es and sh a pes, in addit ion to mul ti ple food opti ons.       To solve this problem, we recommend that future students look to food outlets like “The Loop Cafe”, which is a UBC Food Services outlet based out of the Centre for Interactive Research on S ustainabil it y. All of our team members hav e visi ted this locati on, and foun d that the y op erat e efficientl y b y havin g a staff membe r porti on out a certain amount of food per custom er. Th eir food opti ons are normall y center e d on  hea rt y stew s with rice and include vegan, ve getarian and meat opt ions. Rega rdless of the containe r siz e, eac h custom er is given two scoops of rice, and one scoop of stew for a set price. We feel that this is a good ex ampl e of an efficient and economi call y sust ainable soluti on, and would be a good ini ti al resour ce fo r future students to use.  (It would hav e been nice to have se en some of these observ ati ons pres ented as result s for the project.)       After talking with Collyn, we realized that part of the AMS’ vision for “The Palate” was the compl ete phase - out of all dispo sable cutl er y. We feel that, althou gh ideal, t his woul d no t be realistic for the initial success of “The Palate”. From our survey results, we were able to determi ne that 42% of participants never bring a reusable food container to campus . From ou r x xi   point of view, this is a signal that the success of “The Palate” w il l dep end solel y on how convenient it is for custo mers to chan ge th eir habi ts. Since 81% of surve y participants wer e open to the idea of the Eco - To Go pro gram, we feel that the AMS shoul d first focus on helpi ng students, staff and facult y, creat e lasting habit s of bringin g their reusable containers or their Eco -To Go membership ca rds to campus .  (The first p ar t of this para graph is deis cussi on.)  After th e first ye ar, futu re LFS 450 students could then wor k with the AMS, to come up with a plan to phase out d isposable cutlery, based on the success of, “The Palate.” In the meantime, “The Palate” could include the cost of disposable cutlery in the price of the food items, or it could only offer disposabl e cutl er y i f staff are ask ed for it.  (These ar e re comm endat ion s.)       Although the possibility of a disposable cutlery selling “Green Vending Machine” was mentioned, (This should be in the result s) we stro ngl y fe el that this will deter potential custom ers from going to “The Palate” as by the stakeholders, we feel that, at this stage , it is far too inconvenient for custom ers to remember to brin g reusable cutl e r y from ho me. We therefor e recommend that “The Palate” offers compostable bamboo cutlery to customers who request it, for a span of at least one ye a r, so that  custom e rs can first grow accustom ed to bringin g their own containers or Eco - To Go membership cards to campus . For both future LF S 450 students, and the AMS , we recomm en d looki ng again to the Lo op Cafe in the Centre for Inte ra cti ve Resea rch on Sustainabil i t y, fo r pric ing on compos table bamboo cutler y.       Finall y, we found that the most important considerati on for ou r surve y participants, re gardless of whether th e food outl e t provided dispo sable co ntainers or not, was the price to porti on rati o. Therefo re,  we recomm en d that future LFS student s who are rese archin g po ssi ble menu items, ensure that the y do a thor ough an al ysis of the cam pus food outlets and wha t the y are ch ar gin g per porti on of food. Agai n, we recomm end startin g of f wit h the Loop Cafe, as the y alre ad y work xxii   with a set portion per price. We also recommend that the AMS focus on advertising that “The Palate’s” customers would save money, as the price of a disposable container would not be included in their meal pri ce.  As previous l y menti oned, we  f urther recommend that “The Palate” shoul d include the cost of compos table bamboo cutl er y int o the cost of eac h meal, but also obvious l y deduct, or not include, the cost of cutl e r y if the custom er brin gs t heir own. This wa y, incenti ves are cr eated fo r custo mers to bring th eir own cutl er y and containe rs, as the y see th e rewa rd first hand wit h a discount on their meal pr ice.   Scenario Evaluation and Feedback:   The fulfill ment of indi vidual go als  outl ined in our ini ti al  project plan  was  used to evaluate the su ccess o f our overall proje ct . To reit erate, the project plan was separated into thr ee chronolo gicall y linear co mponents: Planning, Ena ctm ent, and Conclusion and Recomm enda ti on formation.  Despit e ini ti all y outl ini ng goals to be met, it must be mentioned that the compl ex it y of the project itself ca use d these goals to chan ge . The  following t able summ ariz es which of the goals in our ini ti al projec t plan were compl eted an d which wer e not.  Stage I-  Planning/ Research Question Forming C omponent  Was it a succe ss to us? Wh y?  Side Notes  Evaluate the pros and cons of the Eco To - Go Progr am  Yes -  S ome lit erature was ini ti all y consul ted in ord er to assi st in the directi ng of our pr oject plan .  Programs at other post - secondary institutions similar to UBC’s Eco - To Go program we re investi gate d.  Brainst ormi n g session s were done and the foll owin g factors identified b y our group were investi gat ed:  - The lack of knowledge in the student body of the Eco To-Go program  - Appropriate sizes for the new SUB Eco To-Go container  - appropriate foods that are popular to students to be contained in said containers - incentives to drive eventual behavioral changes In a sense, thi s was th e most crucial part of ou r planning and it was successful, as ke y factors were id enti fied. These important factors will then be used to dictate our goals in the future.  xxiii   including monetary and portion-size adjustments  C ontact project partn ers such as Coll yn Chan and Nanc y Too good  Yes -  Coll yn Chan was the pre domi nant ke y contact dur ing the length of the project. It was during th ese in - pe rson int erviews wit h our grou p that the visi on of The Palate was identi fied. A notable factor discuss ed, that fur ther compl icated our proj ect, was the visi on to phase out cutl er y in the new SU B along with disposable con tainers.  Nanc y Too good was con sult ed when we sou ght to implement our surve y.   Contact mana gement of food service outl ets to obtain, specificall y, an ex ist ing knowledge of the curr ent  Eco To - Go program to there fore assess att it udes towards it.  No -  The reason wh y thi s fact or was not assessed was because our group be gan to feel t hat obt aini ng the student opini on first was of gr eate r importance.  Recomm endati on for future LFS 450 proj ects  Contact Chefs Golob and J osh MacW il liams to gen erate future menu items for the Palate  No -  Same as above.    Inv esti gate onto the possi ble menu items that are app ropriate  No -  Same as above.    Stage II- Enactment C onduct surve y and obtain opini ons from custom ers of the food outl ets withi n the SUB  Yes -  After surv e yin g for thr ee da ys on M arch 19 t h , 20 t h  and the 22 n d , 244 student opinions were obtained. It was after our presentation of data that our stakeholder Coll yn Chan voiced her approval of th e findi ngs. Thou gh, her onl y concern was of th e iss ue of the cutl er y.  Further ex plored in recomm endati ons  Stage III- Conclusion and Recommendation Formation Is Th e Palate feasibl e?  Yes     Media Release  UBC Food System Project  xxiv   April 2013 Project Title: Feasibility Assessment for an AMS New SUB No Packaging Demo Restaurant – “The Palate”   Photo credit: Mashael Mawji  Photo description: Survey part      x xv    Description:  With the opening of the New Student Union Building, come 2014, the UBC Alma Mater Society is looking to develop a unique food service outlet that would operate without the use of disposable food containers.  “The Palate,” would not only contribute to the reduction of campus consumer waste, but it would also serve as an innovative model for alternatives to the post - consumer waste - management practices that are currently found in the majority of food service out lets on campus. Customers would have the option of either bringing their own food container, or participating in the Eco - To Go program, which is a container exchange program that is already employed in UBC Food Services outlets. In this context, our projec t objective was to assess the feasibility of a bring - your - own - container food outlet in the New SUB, based upon the results of a consumer attitudes survey. Of the 244 surveyed participants, 42% do not bring their own containers to campus, but 81% would be i nterested in participating in a container exchange program like Eco - To Go. Therefore, our findings indicate that a food outlet like “the Palate,” is feasible, provided that, moving forward, incentives are created and customer convenience is considered.  Quote “We live in a disposable culture, and that’s why a food outlet like the Palate is so important. It’s an idea that challenges the very social norms -  the very habits -  that our society takes for granted on a daily basis.” -  Nicole Read          xxvi        Works  Cit ed  Chan, M.Y., Chi u, P.S ., Muhammad, A.H., & Mok, K.  (2012 ).  An investigation into the feasibility of bring your own container program at the new student union building .  Retrieved from: htt p:/ /sus tes/sus eed sli brar y/2012 %20APS C %20261%20Final%2 0Report%20 - -%202%20BYOC%20M C %20P C %20AH%20K M_subm it tedPW .doc.pdf .  Universit y of Briti sh Columbi a Alma Mater Socie t y.  (2008) .  AMS Lighter Footprint Strategy .  Retrieved from: htt ps:/ /www.vist urw/tp0.l c511601 1/cobalt MainFr ame.dow ebct .  Universit y of Briti sh Columbi a Alma Mater Socie t y.  (2013).  The SUB.  Retrieved from: htt p:/ /www.ams.ub ms - abou t/ the - sub/ .  Universit y of Briti sh Columbi a.  (2011).  Waste Reduction .  Retrieved fro m: htt p:/ /www.sust - ini ti ati ves/rec ycli ng - w aste/waste - redu ct io n .  Univer sit y of Briti sh Columbi a.  (2013 ).  Eco - To Go: Container Exchange Program .  Retrieved from: htt p:/ / tainabil it y/e co - t o - go .  Universit y of Briti sh Columbi a.  (2013).  Waste Action Plan .  Retrieved fro m: htt p:/ /sus - ini ti ati ves/rec ycli ng - waste/waste - acti on - plan .      xxvii   Appendix UBCFSP Vision:     UBCFS P Visi on  Recomm endati ons and concerns  1. Food is locall y grown, produced and process ed in support of local people, infrastru cture an d economi es  Loc al foods are onl y ef fe cti ve in some cases. Foo d soverei gnt y, local food economi es an d supporting farmers are all posi ti vel y affe cted. Sele cti on, howe ver, ma y be limi ted. It al so ma y not accomm odate cult ural pr efer enc es.  2. Food providers and ed ucators promot e awa reness among consum ers about culti vat ion, processi n g, in gredient s, and nutrit ion of food product s in the food s ystems  Ethi cal producti on must be consi der ed. Ethi cal an im al husb andr y, monocrop producti on, la nd cult ivation, workers environments and wages and the ex ternali ti es produced th at wil l impact the environment  3.  On campus food s yste m actors work toward food sover e ignt y and agenc y  More clari ficati on is nee ded to understand who th e actors are. Agenc y is driven b y pers onal pref eren ce, beli e fs and trajectories. More ef fecti ve m arketi n g that appeals to diffe rent facul ti es will compl ement the on camp us init iatives.  4. Comm unit y membe rs have access to learning oppo rtunit ies  Outli ne the specific educ ati on opportuni ti es that are avail abl e and the costs associated wit h them. Wil l these opportunit ies be offer ed as electi ves , volunt e er ru n programs, or lecture st yl e? Are there certain groups in the comm unit y th at have the le as t dail y ex posure to sus tainabil it y ini ti ati ve s, and if so, how can we get thes e people invol ved and more int er e sted?         xxviii   Findings: S ecti on 1, Questi on 1:   Secti on 1, Questi on 2:     Never  42%  1x/Semester  8%  1 - 2x/month  14%  1 - 2x/week  16%  3+/week  19%  No Response  1%  How often do you bring your own reusable container to UBC for purchasing food? (n=244) xxix   S ecti on 1, Questi on 3:   Secti on 1, Questi on 4:         Yes  33%  No  67%  Do you know what the Eco-To Go program is? (n=244) Yes14% 86% Are you a member of the Eco-To Go program? (n=244) Yesx x x   S ecti on 1, Questi on 5:   Secti on 1, Questi on 6:   88% 7% 5% If yes, how frequently do you purchase meals using the “Eco -  To Go” program at UBC in a week?  None (0 meals)Sometimes (1-2Meals/ Week)Always (3 mealsor more/ Week)n= 244  No Yes Other x x xi   If not, wh y?  - Livi n g in private residen ces with a ch ef  - Foods alr ead y comes pr epack a ged  - Inconveni ent  - Unsure  - Don 't want to carr y cont ainer  - I alwa ys b ring reusabl e containers  - Don 't want to pa y  - It cost $5, would partici pate if fr ee  - Food isn 't kosh er  - Depends, if eati n g in, sure, if to - go, too anno yin g  - I care about how m y dis hes are washed and wat er and soap is not enou gh  - Don 't often bu y food tha t requires contain ers  - Don 't bu y food often  - Don 't want to pa y $5  - Seems unh ygi enic  - Have plent y of own reusable containe rs   Secti on 1, Questi on 7:       Yes, 58%  No, 10%  Unsure, 32%  Would you purchase food from a food outlet in the New SUB that does not provide disposable containers? (In other words, you would be required to bring your own container or to use the Eco - To Go program at this outlet.) n=244 Yes No Unsurexx xii   S ecti on 1, Questi on 8:                 050100150200250Number of Responses Factors I would be more likely to eat at a food outlet that did not have disposable food containers if…  n= 244  xx xiii   S ecti on 1, Questi on 9:               020406080100120140I have nospace inmybackpackfor anextracontainerIf Ibroughtmy owncontainer,I wouldnot wantto wash itI worryaboutfoodleakageI don’t want to pay $5 for the Eco To - Go program I am notconcernedaboutfoodwastereductionNothing OtherNumber of Responses Factors  What would deter you from eating at a food outlet that does not offer disposable containers but supports the Eco - To Go program (Select all that apply)? xx xiv   S ecti on 1, Questi on 10:   Secti on 1, Questi on 11:    020406080100120140I would have to bringcutlery from homeI like tospontaneously buyfood without havingto worry aboutcutleryNothing Other ReasonsNumber of Responses Factors  What would deter you from eating at a food outlet that did not offer disposable cutlery? (Select all that apply) 5  15  47  1  5  18  1  1  1  4  0 10 20 30 40 50Mexican FoodAsianFresh/ Healthy Food (including whole grains)Donair/ FalafelOrganic/ LocalVegetarian/ VeganMeatHalalKosherGluten/ Dairy FreeAre there foods that the SUB could serve or serve more of that fit your personal food preferences?  x x xv    S ecti on 2, Questi on 1:   Secti on 2, Questi on 2:      3 %  2%  5%  90%  Who are you?  UBC StaffVisitorOtherStudentn= 237  4%  27%  23%  13%  1 3 %  20%  How many years have you been attending or working at UBC?  <1 year1 year2 years3 years4 years>= 5 yearsn=  241  xx xvi   S ecti on 2, Questi on 3:             Almost Never  8%  1x/ Semester  1%  1 - 2x/ month  22%  1 - 2x/ week  3 3 %  3 - 4x/ week  22%  5 or more times per week  13%  Other  1%  How often do you purchase food in the SUB (or on campus)? n=244 xx xvii   S ecti on 2, Questi on 4:   Secti on 2, Questi on 5:       15% 85%  I currently participate in a UBC Meal Plan:  n=244  YesNoOn - Campus 27%  Off - Campus 73%  I currently live:  n=244  On-Campus Off-Campusxx xviii   S ecti on 2, Questi on 6:   Secti on 2, Questi on 7:     9 %  48%  28%  15%  Age:  <1819- 2122- 25>25n= 244  55%  44%  1%  Sex:  FemaleMalePrefer not todisclosen= 242  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items