Open Collections

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report       An Investigation into Reusable Container Food Outlets Kohle Merry, Richard Pau, Adam Bontempo, Kris Mazurek  University of British Columbia APSC 261 November 22, 2012           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”.      An Investigation into Reusable Container Food Outlets   The Universit y of Britis h Col umbi a  APS C 261 – Technolog y and Societ y   Kohle Merr y  Richard Pau  Adam Bontempo  Kris Maz urek            Tutorial Instructor: Mr . Faiz al Karim  Submitted: Novemb er 22, 2012  1  | P a g e   Abstract   The Student Union Buil ding (SU B) of the Univers it y of Britis h Col umbi a is comm onl y reco gniz ed as the central hub of the campus —it ac ts as a meeti n g plac e am ong students of all facult ies across the campus .  That being s aid, it is no surprise that the cafet eria in the SUB is ex tremel y popular, s ervi ng more stud ents than an y other food establi shme nt  on campus .  The Alma Mater Societ y (A MS ) of UBC is curr entl y in the const ructi on phase of buil ding a  new SUB, which will house a new cafete ria fe aturin g 11 food outl et s.  With UBC’s push to improve sust ainabili t y, th e AMS is looking int o operating one of these as a ‘Bring your own container’ (BYOC ) outlet, in which students would not be ser ved food in disposable co ntainers.   The chan ge from tradit ional s ingle - us e contai ne rs is pa rticularl y trick y, as unive rsit y students t ypicall y do not hav e time or pati enc e to var y fro m their normal routi nes.   This report looks into the feasibi li t y of op er ati ng one of these BYOC out lets, with the intent to eventuall y shift other food ou tl ets on campus to the BYOC ideolo g y.   The investi gati on was co nducted throu gh a tripl e bott om line anal ysis , foc using on the economi c, social and env ironmental impacts of op erati n g a BYOC food out let.  The stud y was mainl y condu cted focusi ng on two main t ypes of reusable containers, glass and plasti c, as the y were found to be the mos t likel y candid ates  (Al - K hali li , Lau, Chan & Chen , 2011) .  A student surve y was car ried out in order to dete rmine the economi c and social beli e fs  held b y stud ents in regards t o the BYOC ide a  (Appendix A) .  Additi onall y, resea rch on othe r insti tut es and busi nesses wit h simi lar concepts was condu cted to forec ast some of the po ssi ble outcomes that putt ing in a BY OC food outl et on campus would have.   Provided there is some fi nanci al ben efit associate d with bringin g your own container, and eas y ac cess to pur chasin g reusable containers, thi s anal ysis concluded that the BYOC food outl et concept is worth impl em enti ng.  Not onl y will it all ow students to save mone y, but it wil l also pro mote UBC’s sustainability initiatives and act as a pilot project for BYOC food outlets on campus .  The BYOC foo d outl et was found not onl y to have a  succ essful b usiness model, but it could be consi der ed to be the nex t step  forward to make UBC a more sust ai nable campus .   2  | P a g e   Table of Contents  Abstract  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......  1  List of Figu res  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  4  List of Tabl es  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............................  5  Glossar y  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......  6  List of Abbr eviations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  7  1.0 — Introdu cti on  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  8  2.0 — Economi c Assess ment  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....  9   2.1 — Introdu cti on  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  9   2.2 — Rec ycli ng Ex pendit ures  ................................ ................................ ..........................  9   2.3 — Student Surve y  R esult s  ................................ ................................ .........................  10   2.4 — Simil ar Programs  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..  13   2.5 — Conclusi on  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  14  3.0 – Social Assessm ent  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  15   3.1 — Introdu cti on  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  15   3.2 — Student Surve y R esult s  ................................ ................................ .........................  15    3.2 .1  — Gener al Back gr ound  ................................ ................................ ................  15    3.2 .2  — Student Needs  ................................ ................................ ..........................  16    3.2 .3  — Student Preferen ces  ................................ ................................ ..................  19    3.2 .4  — Student Happiness  ................................ ................................ ....................  20   3.3 — Labour Impl icati o ns and Standards  ................................ ................................ ......  21    3.3.1  — Plastic Manufac turing  ................................ ................................ ..............  21    3.3 .2  — Glass Manufa cturing  ................................ ................................ ................  22   3.4 — Conclusi on  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  22  3  | P a g e   4.0 — Environmental Assessm ent  ................................ ................................ ............................  23   4.1 — Introdu cti on  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  23   4.2 — Soli d Waste Reducti on  ................................ ................................ .........................  23   4.3 — Healt h Haz ards  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....  24   4.4 — Conclusi on  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  25  5.0 — Conclusi ons and Recomm endati ons  ................................ ................................ ..............  25  Lit er ature Cit ed  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  27  Appendices  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  30   Appendix A — Student Surve y  ................................ ................................ ......................  30     4  | P a g e   List of Figures  Figu re 1: Plastic and glas s reusable cont ainers  ................................ ................................ ...........  8  Figu re 2 : Surve y Result s (Price Reducti on) ................................ ................................ ..............  11  Figu re 3 : Surve y Result s (Parti cipation)  ................................ ................................ ...................  12  Figu re 4 : Surve y Result s (Pricing)  ................................ ................................ ............................  13  Figu re 5 EcoCl amshell Container  ................................ ................................ .............................  14  Figu re 6 : Surve y Result s of Questi on 11  ................................ ................................ ..................  17  Figu re 7 : Surve y Result s of Questi on 22  ................................ ................................ ..................  18  Figu re 8 : Surve y Result s of Questi on 17  ................................ ................................ ..................  18  Figu re 9 : Surve y Result s of  Questi on 19  ................................ ................................ ..................  20  Figu re 10 : Surve y Result s of Questi on 14  ................................ ................................ ................  20  Figu re 11: Cross secti on of a modern land fill  ................................ ................................ ...........  24                5  | P a g e   List of Tables  Table 1: Recove r y Rates for Plastic Cont ainers  ................................ ................................ .........  9  Table 2:  Recove r y Rates for Glass Containers  ................................ ................................ .........  10                       6  | P a g e   Glossary  1.  Triple Bottom Line Assessment An evaluation o f a product or servic e tha t takes int o account social, environm ental, and economi c fa ctors.  2.  Carbon Footprint/Co2 Emissions The amount of carbon emi tt ed due to the consum pti on of fossi l fuels b y an i ndivi dual or gro up of people.  3.  Pyrex A  brand  nam e  for  an y  of  a  class  of  heat -  and  chemi c al -resis tantglass war e  produ cts  of  var yin g  compos it ion  used  for  cookin g.  4.  Reusable Container Any sort of container man ufactur ed with the int enti on of mul ti ple uses —that is, made to not be discarded afte r singl e use.  5.  Eco-To-Go Program A sustainabil it y pro gr am offer ed at the Unive rsit y of Britis h Colum bia in which students can purch ase a card that  can be tr aded for a co ntainer.  Afte r use, the containe r can th e n be traded back to the UBC food outl et for washing, in retu rn for the student’s card. 6.  Bisphenol A (BPA) An organic compound used in consumer products an d food containers.  BPA was fou nd to pose possi ble healt h risks to humans in 2008.  7.  Solvent A substance th at dissol ves a solute, resu lt ing in a solut ion. A solvent is usuall y a liquid but can also be a soli d or a gas.  8 .  Bio-Degradeable C ap a ble of bein g decompos ed by bacteria or other livi n g or ganism s .            7  | P a g e   List of Abbreviations  AMS – Alma Mater Soci et y  BYOC – Brin g Your Ow n Container  BYOU – Brin g You r Ow n Utensil s  CRF – Container Rec ycli ng Fee  SUB – Student Union Bu il ding  UBC – Universit y of Brit ish Colum bia  BPA – Bisphenol A  BC  – Britis h Col umbi a                8  | P a g e   1.0 – Introduction   As the plans for the new SUB ar e bein g finaliz ed, the AMS is conti nuousl y pushi ng to incorporate green er initi a ti ves int o the buildi ng model.  With 11 food outl ets sancti oned to be openin g when the SU B is compl eted, it seems natural that the AMS shoul d loo k to the cafet eria in ord er to prom ote sustainabil it y, espe ciall y consi de rin g the vast amount of waste gen erat ed b y si ngl e - use containers and wrappe rs .  One fix to this problem is the ‘bring your own container’ food outlet concept, in which students must p rovide a conta iner to the outl et in order to be se rved.  Th is investi gati on looks int o the feasibi li t y of op er ati ng such a food outl et in the new SUB, and the possibl e benefits that this change would int roduce.   The fe asibi li t y of the BY OC food outlet conc ept wa s determined b y inv esti gati n g the economi c, social and env ironmental impli cati ons of the outl et.  Particular att enti on has been placed on the possibl e re usable materials, found t o be plasti c and glass  (fi gure 1) , as well as the operati onal requirem en ts of the outlet  (Al - Kh ali li , Lau, Chan & Chen, 2011) .  Although the economi c costs of the outl et were  quit e import ant to determi ne if the ou tl et wou l d  be successful, it is by no me ans the onl y factor anal yz ed in this stud y.  Social aspects such as healt h and labour impli ca ti ons coupled wit h the needs of the students we re also looked int o, along with environm enta l factors such as soli d waste reducti on an d healt h haz ards .   Through th e diversit y of resea rch asso ciated with thi s tripl e bott om line anal ysis , thi s report aim ed  to recomm end if the AMS shoul d proceed with the implementation  of the  BY OC food outl et pilot project in the new SUB.   Figure 1 – Plastic and glass reusable containers 9  | P a g e   2.0 - Economic Assessment 2.1 – Introduction S ince the Universit y of Britis h Col umbi a currentl y has no intention of producing its own reusable containers, ex ternal sources were consi de red for the pu rposes of th is project.  The universit y ma y how ever be responsi ble fo r the dist ributi on and rec ycli n g of such containers, shoul d the AMS New SUB Sustainabil it y Coordin ator decide to proce ed wi th our recomm endati ons.  The main indi cators we used for the economi c aspe ct of this pro ject wer e the students’ willingness to pay for a reusable container, and the decrease in prices at the BYOC outl et nec essar y (if at all) to attract custom ers.  2.2 – Recycling Expenditures W e looked into two options for the materi al of the container – plast ic and glass.  As far as rec ycli n g is con cern ed, recover y rates for plasti c and gl ass are approx im atel y 75.8 % (Table 1) and 94.2% (T able 2), respecti vel y (E corp Pacifi c, 2011) .  The value of a recove r y rat e is based on the percent a ge of material that can be recovered from the cont ainers collect ed at rec ycli n g depots around t he countr y.  Canad a reli e s on the nonprofit agenc y, Encorp Pacific to do the coll ecti ng and recover y of these containe rs, as well as the necess ar y calculati ons of their success rates.  At fir st glanc e, it would appea r that glass would be the obvious choice of material wit h such a sta gge ring recover y rate, ex ceedin g that of plasti c b y alm ost twent y percent.  Ho weve r, ther e are othe r fa ctors which have not yet be en consi der ed.  Table 1 – Recovery Rates for Plastic containers     2011 Plastic  CONTAINERS  SOLD  CONTAINERS  PURCHASED   RECOVERY RATE  Plastic ≤ 1L 368,331,8 88  269,691,4 74   73.2%  Plastic > 1L  66,029,54 6  58,058,04 9   87.9%  Plastic Liquor ≤ 1L 10,749,16 6  8,989,360   83.6%  Plastic Liquor > 1L  3,982,110  3,678,719   92.4%  Totals 449,092,709 340,417,602  75.8%  10  | P a g e   Table 2 – Recovery Rates for Glass containers 2011 Glass  CONTAINERS        SOLD  CONTAINERS  PURCHASED  RECOVERY RATE   Glass ≤ 1L  29,506,41 4  23,833,80 7  80.8%   Glass > 1L   147,396  171,979  116.7 %   Glass NRBC ≤ 1L  96,948,75 6  96,803,99 6  99.9%   Glass NRBC > 1L   462,419  429,743  92.9%   Glass W&S ≤ 1L  73,022,08 0  67,473,95 7  92.4%   Glass W&S > 1L   11,458,98 2  10,552,80 0  92.1%   Totals  211,546,048 199,266,282 94.2%   Container Recycling Fees (CRFs) cover Encorp Pacific’s net cost of recovering and rec ycli n g produ ct contain ers of various siz es and materials.  For pl asti c co ntainers, the CRF is $0.03 for volumes up to and including on e liter, and $0.06 for volum es o ver one liter ( Ecorp Paci fic, 2011).  As for glass containe rs, the CRFs are $0.12 and $0.1 5 for containe r volum es under and ove r one liter in siz e, respecti vel y (Ecorp Pa cific, 2011 ).  There is a $0.03 differen ce in cost b etween container siz es fo r both plastic and glass , but more importantl y a $0.09 diff e rence betwe en the two materials for a given cont ainer siz e.  This ma y se em like a trivi al amount , but considering t he fact that thousands o f students could potentiall y be participati ng in the BYOC pro gr am , choosi ng plast ic ov er gl ass would result in the school saving hund reds of dollars.  2.3 – Student Survey Results S tudents would have to want to purchas e the pro duct in order fo r it to be successful.  This is why we asked the question, “If you were to purchase a reusable container from UBC, how much would you be willing to spend on it?” in our survey of 125 UBC studen ts in the current SU B basem ent.  The majorit y wer e in fav or of the $1 -  $3 opti on, with a number of students also interested in spending an ywher e fro m $4 -  $6.  Fi gure 2  depicts our surve y result s for thi s questi on.  11  | P a g e    Figure 2 - Survey Results (Pricing) Th ese result s prov ed to be quite useful, and helpe d to lim it the scope of  our rese arch.  We began looki ng int o spe cif ic brands which would s a ti sf y the requirements tha t the  student ’s feedba ck gav e us.  We discovered th at Zipl oc m ak es reusable containe rs out of both plasti c and gl ass, at ver y compet it ive prices.  Their plasti c containers are such a bar gain that no other brand could reall y compete, as the y ran ged from about three doll a rs for two or five doll ars for four (Zipl oc Products), ave ra gin g $1.25 to $1. 50 per containe r.  Their reus able Zipl oc Versa Glass contai ners howev er, sell for t en to twelve dollars each (Zipl oc Products).  Seeing as how onl y abou t 12% of students would be interested in spendin g thi s amount of mone y on a single contai ner, we thou ght to  investi gat e furthe r to see if we could bring just ice to that 24% wil li ng to spend $4 -  $6.  P yr e x glass containers are  co mm onl y  kno wn for their q uali t y, but the y come at a cost  an ywhe re from seven to fifte en dol lars per cont ainer (P yr ex Products).  $7  m ay not seem like it is too far outside the $4 - $6 boun dar y , howev er the siz es avail able for tha t price were far below th e all owable volume fo r an avera ge servin g of food  from the caf eteri a .  This led us to beli eve that Snapware glass containers ma y be th e s olut ion we were looki n g for.  Lunch - siz e contain ers can be purch ased fro m their websit e for as low as six doll ars (Snapware Produ cts), and the vast majorit y of custo mer revie ws we read onli ne were ver y po sit ive indeed.   8%  40%  24%  16%  12%  "If you were to purchase a reusable container from UBC, how much would you be willing to spend on it?" $0$1 - $3$4 - $6$7 - $9$1 0 - $1212  | P a g e   W it h information about the containe r products an d materials that shou ld be made avail able to students, the nex t step was to evaluate the information we obtai ned about the BYOC outlet’s food prices.  Overwhelming results were show cased in the surve y  regardin g the number of students who would  be int erested in a small decr ease in food prices.  The following results were obtained when students were asked, “If food prices were slightly decre ased, would thi s impact your de cisi on about parti cipating in the BY O C food outl et concept?”  Figure 3 - Survey Results (Participation)  A foll ow - up question was posed for those students who answered “Yes,” to the previous one.  “If yes, how large of a food price decrease would make you bring a reusable container to eat?” gave the following results.  The r esult s are showcas ed in fi gure 4 on the nex t page.  88%  12%  0  0  "If food prices were slightly decreased, would this impact your decision about participating in the BYOC food outlet concept?" YesNo13  | P a g e     Based on thi s, it is reason able to conclude  th at a 10% decr ease in food pric es at the outl et would yield the best custom er turnout at the lowes t cost to the busi ness .  Though an y stud ent would ag ree th at a decre a se upwards of 50 %  woul d be more ben eficial to t hem than a 10%  decre ase, the y su rel y re a l iz e how impracti cal this woul d be for AMS.  Add it ionall y, it is assum ed that the students who opted for a 10 % - 25 % decr ease in p rices wou ld be sati sfied with 10%, a reasonable compromi se consi derin g nearl y as man y students would be swa yed by less than this  amount .   2.4 - Similar Programs P rogr ams sim il ar to the BYOC and Eco - To - Go have be en establi shed and proven to be successful at num e rous post - secondar y inst it uti ons in the Unit ed States.  One ex ampl e is the program which was implemented in 2010 at the Uni versit y of Tex as.  The school offers students livi ng in residen ce a 5% dis count on their meal if the y brin g a reus able containe r to the dining hall , inst ead of rel yin g on a dispo sable container to be provided  ( “R eusable to go containers ,” 2010 ) .  Anot her e x ampl e is Eckerd Coll ege in Florida, which designed its ve r y own reusable container called the “EcoClamshell , ” showcas ed below in fi gure 5, to r epla ce dispo sable pol yst yren e containers  (Good all 2008) .  A pol yst yren e contain e r  is provided for 0 10 20 30 40 50Under 10%10 %- 25%25 %- 50%23 %45 %32 %Figure 4 – Survey Results (Price Reduction) 14  | P a g e   the student shoul d the y choose, but the teal - color e d EcoCl amshell has had quit e an impact on the students.  With no discount on food being offe r ed for pu rchasin g on e of the EcoCl amshell containers, onl y selfless bu ye rs hav e been att racted to the pr oduct.  Seeing them around campus has clearl y mad e more peo ple think about sust ainabili t y and the environment though, as two hundred peopl e had purchased th em afte r just a short few mont hs of their first appe aranc e.   Figure 5 – EcoClamshell Container  2.5 – Conclusion Id eal l y, a soluti on is nee ded that is economi call y beneficial for both the AMS and the students of the University of Britis h Col umbi a.  We recomm end the pla ce ment of reus able container vendin g ma chi nes around the New SU B offer in g  both plasti c and glass alt ernat ives.  There shoul d be more plasti c cont ainers off ered than gl ass, as per the prefe renc es of the surv e yed students, coupled with  the rec ycli n g costs to the universit y discussed at the beginni n g of this assessm ent.  We recomm end that the plas ti c containers be Zipl oc, and th e glass one s be Snapwar e, as these are the most cost - ef fe cti ve opti ons avail able on the ma rket.  Finall y, we stron gl y beli e ve that a 10% decr ease in food prices is a necessa r y incenti ve whi c h shoul d accompan y the impl ementati on of the BY OC  food outl et concept, in order to ensure the program’s success.   15  | P a g e   3.0 - Social Assessment 3.1 – Introduction The int roducti on of a Bri ng You r Own Cont ainer (BYOC ) pro gram to a sin gle food outl et in the New SUB will invol ve and provide man y s ocial aspects and impacts to the students of UBC, the empl o ye es of the food outl et, and the m anufactu ring worke rs involved i n the producti on of such contai ners. This secti on cove r s  the healt h and labour imp li cati ons, as well as standards in the manufacturin g  and produ cti on of plasti c and glass containers, student opinions and pref erenc es pert aini ng to the BYOC pro gr am, and the necessa r y chan ges that the outl et wi ll have to make to meet t he requir ements of the pr ogr am. It is ver y important to take int o acc ount these social aspe cts that can dete rmine the su ccess and outcome of the BYOC  pil ot  progr am.  3.2 – Student Survey Results 3.2.1 – General Background S tudent participati on is crucial to the succ ess and spread of the BY OC pro gr am. Their invol vement will foresha dow  the feasibi li t y of impl ementing BYOC to all  of the AMS outl ets . Because the BYOC program’s main goal is to promote sust ainabilit y with in the student popul ati on  and  evoke a  waste - redu cin g lif est yle, the re must be eno ugh i nc enti ve  for students to come and part icipate in order for the ef fect to take pla ce. Th e su rve y, which can be found in Appendix A, was taken b y 125 stu dent s – all found in the SUB basement whe re most of the AMS outl ets currentl y ope rate. Ou r sampl e consi sted of 44% m ale and 56% female students, wit h 28 % in Arts, 20% in Appli e d Science, 40% in Scien c e, and 12% in other fa cult ies. Of the stu dents surve yed,  38% wer e in First Ye ar, 30% in S econd Year, 12% in Third Ye ar, and 20% i n Fourth Ye ar. For resea r ch purposes, this  is an ap propriatel y wide and varied ran ge of stude nts that compl eted  the surve y. 12% of th e students ate at the SUB/purchas ed food at AMS ou tl ets more than five tim es per week, 28% for four to five times per week, 44 % two to three times, and 16% once a week. Th e result s from the 16% will be taken with less rega rd and importan ce wit h relation to the rest of th e students because of their relativ el y minim al impact on the busi ness of AMS outl ets.  16  | P a g e   W hen asked about the Ec o - To - Go pro gram that UBC offe rs  – where  studen ts can sign up for a $5 membe rship car d that can be ex changed for a reus able contain er and return it to get it cleaned fo r pick - up aga i n, 28% were awa re of it, while 72% of students w ere not aw ar e of such a pro gr am ex ist ing. This shows a lar ge popul ace of stud ents that are not aware of the sust ainable and waste red ucing pr acti c es that the AMS provides. The implementation of BYOC at a sin g l e  outl et i n the n ew SUB will have a much greater chanc e of educati n g and spreadin g sust ainable foo d practi ces in UBC sim ply due to its pres ence and ideolog y . After ex plaining what Eco - t o - Go was, 52% of people said the y w ould  use the pr ogr am and get a reusable container provided by UBC while 48 % of people would rathe r brin g their own container from home if BYOC was implemented. It is apparent that ther e wi ll be a need fo r the Eco - t o - Go pro gram t o become more prev alent  when  the  BYOC outl et is int roduced due to the large number of students ( approx . 50% ) tha t do not want to bring a container from home. This will require more wate r use in UBC to clean the Eco - t o - Go co ntainers, and more empl o ye es ma y be neces sar y in order to  or ganiz e and  wash hundr eds of co ntainers. Eco - t o -Go  ma y also requir e mor e infrastru cture spa ce or room in order to have an accessi ble outlet for students to pick up an d drop off their container .  3.2.2 – Student Needs A lar ge 88% of students wanted to see a food p ric e decr eas e if BYOC w as  to be int roduced in order to pr ovide some incenti ve for givi n g their busi ness to the single outlet when there ar e mul ti ple other outlets that provide s ingle - us e  containe rs. The re is alre ad y a price discount in ef fect o f 15 to 25 c ents off food purchases when brin gin g in a reusable container at all UBC Foo d Services and AMS outl ets ( “R eusable t akeout co ntainers ,” 2012). If the discount we re to be advertised more frequ en tl y or aggressi vel y, most students woul d not have a problem with  purchasin g foo d  at the BYOC outl et.  Figu re 6  dis pla ys the result s of  questi on 11 , which as ked students about the po ssi bil it y of eati ng at a BYOC outl et if no price ch an ges were mad e .  17  | P a g e    Figure 6 – Survey Results of Question 11 Note that no students put ‘Everyday’ and 16% put ‘Never’ as a choice for purchasing food from the sin gle BY OC outlet if it was the same as their re gul ar outlet . This is the same 16% that said the y ate at the SUB onc e a week. Fr om these result s, it is apparent that the BYOC outl et wil l see les s busi ness if there is no price reducti on; the 12% t hat ate at the SU B 5 or more times per week did not pick ‘Everyday’ and the 16% that ate once a week were demoted to ‘Never’. A price reduction may get the students’ business back ,  but there ar e sti ll 48% of students who will purchase food at the BY OC outlet  occasionall y . When asked if the y would avoid the outl et simpl y du e to inconve nience, 72% s aid no and 28% said the y would avoid the single outl et. Again, a price redu cti on/di scou nt ma y provi de enou gh incenti ve for student s to eat at the outlet. Fi gur e 7  below shows the most important factors that would affect students’ decision to purchase food at the BYOC outlet. 0%  36%  48%  16%  Likelihood of purchasing food at single BYOC outlet (if it was one that they regularly went to pre-BYOC implementation) EverydayOnce a weekOccasionallyNever18  | P a g e    Figure 7 – Survey Results of Question 22 P rice is the biggest fac tor , foll owed b y food pr efe r ence, and then the conv e nience of bringin g a container arou nd (if not using Eco - t o - G o). If pric es were reduce d ,  and the ri ght t ype of food was chosen as the single BY OC outlet in the n ew SUB, ther e i s a ver y lar ge chanc e that bu siness fro m students woul d increas e and the outlet would be  successful. B elow, fi gu re 8 displa ys that the BYOC outl et ma y hav e the best ch anc e of success if it offer ed food simi lar to what the Pit Bur ger Ba r cu rrentl y does .   Figure 8 – Survey Results of Question 17 8%  36%  24%  20%  12%  Most important factors contributing to BYOC participation TimePriceFood PreferenceConvenienceBeing sustainable4%  12%  24%  24%  4%  32%  Most preferred food outlet for BYOC implementation Bernoulli's BagelsBlue Chip CookiesHonour RollThe MoonPie R SquaredPit Burger Bar19  | P a g e   3.2.3 – Student Preferences W hen asked which t ype of food outl et students prefer red,  68% of students said  the y favoured th e  BYOC  outl et concept  and 32% said a regula r outlet . Fr amed as a gene ral questi on without specific details, thi s showcases that a bout two - thi rds of students prefe r a BYOC t ype of outl et. Re ga rding questi on  20  (Ap pendix A) , 32% of students woul d onl y bu y food if the outl et provide d utensil s , in other words, the y would not bu y foo d if it was BYOC and BY OU  (‘Bring your own utensils’); 52% of st udents surve yed would bu y food if it was BYOC and BYO U, and 16% said that t he y would not bu y food at all from the  BYOC  outl et .   Init iall y , we  recomm end  implement ing  BY OC without the BYOU part, sin ce 32% of stud ent bus iness will be theoreti c all y lost . Another option would be to  implement BYOC and BY OU  at the pil ot out let , and if students don’t have utensils they c ould  sim pl y go t o another re gular outl et and pick one up – simil ar to how it currentl y wo rks in the SUB.  One of our most promis ing questi ons ask ed  whet her students thought that ex clusi vel y using reus able contain ers and utensil s in the n ew SUB sounded like a good ide a.  88%  of students answered  ye s an d onl y 12% thou ght it was a bad idea. Th e same numbers wer e found for if the y wanted to see BY OC eventuall y implemented at all AMS outl ets.  This showcases how th e implementation of BYOC acro ss campus ma y be a poss ibi li t y in the future.   If BYOC wer e to be impl emented at all AMS outl ets, 20% of students wou ld conti nue purchasin g food from AMS outl ets ex clusivel y, 80% would have no pr ef er ence and would eat at eit her or AMS or other outl ets (Subwa y, A&W , ect.) , and non e of th e students  would avoid AMS outl ets and eat at other outl ets ex clusi vel y. Lookin g ah ead, the re will be ver y litt le chance of sp ecific avoidance of AMS outl ets due to BYOC .    20  | P a g e   3.2.4 – Student Happiness Below, fi gu res 9 and 10  displ a y the results for the BYOC program’s impact on student ex perience and so cial aw areness o f sustainabil it y i ssues.   Figure 9 – Survey Results for Question 19  Figure 10 – Survey Results of Question 14   0%  20%  44%  32%  4%  Impact on student experience Large negative impactSmall negative impactNo impactSmall positive impactLarge positive impact4%  36%  48%  12%  Impact on social awareness of sustainability issues NoneA littleA moderate amountA lot21  | P a g e    No student said that the BYOC pro gr am wil l hav e a lar ge ne gati ve impa ct on their student ex perience, and half the students sa y that it will have no impact. As a whole, the posi ti ve/neutral ex perience outwei ghs the ne gati ve, but the AMS shoul d still proceed with the BYOC program slowly and gradually, not pushing it onto students who don’t want it at first at the risk of havin g a detrimental effe ct on their student ex perience at UBC. Howev er, from another qu esti on, 0% of students woul d be displ eased  if BYOC wer e to be implemented at all SUB food outl ets, 60% would be indi ffer ent or somewh at pleased, 36% would be pleased, and 4% w ould be ver y pl eased . Yet again, these result s are promisi n g looki ng int o the possibl e ex pansion of the BYOC concept in the futur e.   The majorit y of students claim that the BYOC con cept wil l have a mod erat e to lar ge impact on their social aw areness and vie w of sust a inabili t y iss ues. This is v er y good as it fulfil ls what the main int ent of  the BYOC pro gr a m —to promot e sust ainabili t y and sust ainable awa reness at UBC .   3.3 – Labour Implications and Standards 3.3.1 – Plastic Manufacturing  P lastic reusable contain er s are most l y pol yprop yl e ne BPA - fre e containe rs, and are massivel y produ ce d b y man y companies such as Zipl oc, U.S. Plastic Corp ., and Lab Depot ("La b containe r, plasti c, " 2007). The manuf acturin g of plasti cs is a lar ge ind ustr y with 2422 establi shm ents and 106,890 people empl o yed in Canada alone ("Indust r y pr ofil e for, " 2012). In the United States, over 489,000 empl o ye es wor k in the plasti c s  indus tr y. The ave ra ge hourl y wa ge is $15.34 where the low est ten per ce nt made less than $10 ("Metal and plast ic, " 2012). The minim um wage is $7.25 in the U.S. an d $10.25 in BC ("Govern ment of B . C ., " 2012). Workers ar e pron e to the emi ssi on of haz ardous air poll utants such as st yr ene and tox ic fumes and dust from plastic factories (" Ibisworld us - ," 2012 ). These c hemi cals and solvents that workers inh ale, ma y lead to respirato r y problems and skin con dit ions.  There is also the healt h iss ue with the lar ge amount s of noi se in plasti c factori es, causing tempora r y hearin g loss or ev en per manent dama ge ("Healt h and safe t y, " 2012).  M an y steps are tak en by manuf actur ers and co mpanies to reduc e the ris k of empl o ye es bein g har med. For 22  | P a g e   inst ance, the y provide ea r plugs and regula r healt h surveil lance as well as educate work ers on the possibl e dangers of the job and provide ex h aust venti lation for dust coll ecti on ("H ealt h and sa fet y, " 201 2).   3.3.2 – Glass Manufacturing  Glass containers and the glass produ ct manufa ctur ing indus tr y has steadil y decre ased in recent ye ars. In Canada, t he number of empl o ye es has decr eased from 11,0 1 2 in 2001 to 6,494 in 2010 for all of Canada ("Can adian indust r y statis ti cs," 2011 ) . In th e U.S, the empl o yment number is at 79,080. The Canadian avera ge annual wa ge is $5 0,486 and the US avera ge is $40,130 ( "Gla ss and glass, " 2012) . Min im um wages are th e  sam e as above. The healt h impli cati ons that workers fac e ar e the inha li ng of sili ca dust and ha r mful emi ssi ons from the melti ng of gl ass. Companies emplo y loc a l ex haust venti lations s ys tems and EPA moni tors to reduce the ris k of worke r harm. Rapid Melti ng  S ystems hav e al so been used to reduce emi ssi ons and ene rg y consum pti on ("Ibisw orld us - ," 2012).  3.4 – Conclusion From the result s of the conducted surve y, a single BYOC outl et in the new SUB is an appropriate step tow ards promot ing sust ainabili t y in students at UBC and conti nuing to att ract student busi ness. The most important featu re to fulfill would be to pick the appropriate food outl et to implement  the BYOC co ncept  and discount the pr ice of food. An onli ne poll on the UBC or AMS w ebsit e ma y prov ide the best result s for what kind of food students want  at a BYOC outl et .. Sustainabil it y in UBC will increas e and th e p romoti on of waste - r educin g beh aviour should be a suc cess, acc ording to surv e y result s. No addit ional cleanin g servi ces ne ed to be provided in the outlet itself, as people we re against the idea of payin g mor e for cleanin g services. Th e labour stan dards for pol yprop yl ene and gl ass containers are fair and ex pected fo r work deali ng with chemi cals. Numero us healt h conce rns are pr esent for worke rs but man y steps are tak en by comp anies to prev ent ill ness and inj uries.   With the technolog y of toda y, conti nuous impr ovements are being made to lim it human ex posure to these harsh chemi c als, so we do not see an y ove rwhelm ing setba cks associated wit h using su c h containers in cor relatio n with the BYOC food outl et pilot project.    23  | P a g e   4.0 - Environmental Assessment 4.1 – Introduction During th e cours e of rese arch on the  environmenta l impact of the BY OC fo od outl et concept , emph asis was p ut on t wo  aspects: solid waste redu cti on and hum an healt h risks. In order to ev aluate the pote nti al benefits of the BYO C outl et , these two aspec ts were investi gated primaril y thr ough resea rch of simi lar programs cur rentl y in ex ist ence , as well as ex ternal reports de ali ng with sim il ar issues.  4.2 – Solid Waste Reduction C urrentl y,  the  m ajorit y of food outl ets at UBC pro vide disposable takeout containers, eit her bio - de gr adable, or compos ed of ex truded po l yst yr en e foam. Consi der ing that the y are single - us e containe rs, a rapid gener ati on of solid waste occu rs. Althou gh  bio - degrad able single - us e containe rs pro mot e the  decompos it ion of soli d waste, materials such as pol yst yren e foam, althou gh rec ycl able, hav e show n no signs of decompos it ion in  the  natural environment. The pol ystyr e ne fo am containe rs ar e used in thi s stud y for comparison with reusable containers.        In a stud y inv esti gati n g comp ari n g the potenti a l environmental impact o f using reusable bevera ge cups  vs.  dispo s able ones, it was con clud ed  that a reus able cont ainer dec re ases environmental impact signi ficantl y as the number of repe at uses incr ease s  (Garrido 2007). The stud y also stresse s th at it  could  have had muc h bett er result s if the reus able containe rs used in  the stud y were li ghter in mat erial. This is because l i ghte r containe r s are s ynon ymous with decre ased solid was te ,  shoul d the need to dispose of the contain er arise.       This stud y showcas es that usi ng reusable cont ainers in the BYOC food outl et  present s  some p otential environmental benefits, as it is a great wa y of combatin g solid waste . This is done by si gnific antl y red ucing  the amount of non - rec ycl a ble soli d waste th at is eith er incinerated or goes to  lan dfil l  sim il ar to figure 11 on the nex t page.  24  | P a g e    Figure 11 – Cross section of a modern landfill 4.3 – Health Hazards The use of reusable conta iners raises some iss ues related to hum an he alt h.  Bec ause a lot of goods and ac cessori es are  man u factur ed ab road and imported,  questi on s arise about the possi ble healt h risks associated wit h the manuf act uring of reusabl e food co ntainers  abro ad, as workin g standards are often not as strict as thos e found i n North Ame ric an facto ries . This is a crucial consi derati on when discussi ng th e BY OC outlet, as the new SU B will be off erin g to sell these reusable con tainers on site; students healt h is a big conce rn to the AMS , and unsafe cont ainers would not be permitt e d.        In an articl e for the New York Times, a local grocer y stor e ’s reusable bags wer e found to contain unsafe l evels of l ead (Gr ynbaum, 2010).  If the food contain ers had haz ardous materials used durin g the ir manufacturin g process, repeat edl y washin g a nd reusing th e container m a y tak e off pr otecti ve coati n gs maskin g the harmful ch emi cals, and result in  a negati ve impact on hum a n healt h. One soluti on to such a problem would be to promot e and educate th ese offsho re m anufactu rers about the importance of co mpl yin g wit h standards,  or even to shift manufa cturi ng ba ck to North Ame ric a.  So long as we can ens ure the contain ers are free of such tox ins, the healt h con cerns associa ted wit h the reusable con tainers would not be an iss ue for th e BYO C o utl et or the reus able containers sold in the new SUB.  25  | P a g e   4.4 – Conclusion Using one reusabl e conta i ner as opposed to  man y  single use containe rs has a definite advanta ge wher e  soli d waste redu cti on is concern ed. Unfortunat el y ,  th e en vironmental costs that washing the containe rs  also incre ases as the ti me progresses , usin g va ri ous resourc es to ‘reuse’ the container (Garrido 2007).  Regardless of resource consumption issues associated with washing the contain er s, the use of reusabl e containers at the BYOC outl et wil l ult im atel y provide a net environmental gain  when compared to sin gle - us e containers.    5.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations   All i n all , thi s stud y foun d that the impl ementati on of the BY OC food outlet would be a feasibl e pil ot project that would hold its own in the cafet eria of th e new SU B.  That bein g said, there are sev eral fea tures that shoul d accomp an y th e new food outl et, in order to ensur e its success.   First, bec ause students ar e no longer pa yin g fo r the single - use contain er, th e y ex pect a price red ucti on in the foo d; a reducti on of 10% was found to be the most fe asibl e to sustain profit and appe ase  the stu dents.  Addi ti onall y, ther e shoul d be some sort of reusable container distribut ion s ys tem implemented in the new SUB to accompan y th e sust ainabili t y ini ti ati ves as well as prov ide students convenient access to the cont ainers.  This could be an ythi n g from a vendin g machine dist ributi on s yst em to an over - th e - counte r system at the BYOC outl et itself.    As int ended, the environ mental benefits associ ate d with the BYOC outl et are also a great step for innovation and sustainabil it y at UBC.  However, t his stud y did find that the resourc es spent washin g the contain ers  do es take awa y from the posi ti ve environmental effe cts , but there is sti ll a net environmental gain associated wit h the introducti on of the BYOC food outl et  and th e reusabl e containe rs that will accompan y it.    26  | P a g e    In short, the ‘bring your own container’ food outlet will be a great addition to UBC’s portfoli o of sustainable init iatives.  The AMS shoul d proceed with the imp lementation of thi s pilot  project , and moni tor its success wit h the intention of spreadin g it across campus in the future.    27  | P a g e   Literature Cited  Al - Khali li , S., Lau, J ., Chan, C., & Chen, J . (2011).  An investigation into reusable food containers . Informall y publi shed manuscript, Universit y of Britis h Col umbia, Vancouv er, Retrieved from htt p:/ /sus tain.ubc.ca/si tes/sus tain.ubc.ca/files/s eed sli brar y/ APS C 261_1D_W aste Reducing Vendin g Produ cts_R eusable Containers. pdf Canadian industry statistics - definition . (2011, Decem ber 20). Retriev ed from h tt p:/ /www.ic.gc. ca/cis - sic /cis -sic.nsf/ IDE/cis - s ic3272d efe.htm l  Ecorp Pacific. (2011). Container Recycling Fees .  Garrido, N., & Dolors Al varez del Casti ll o, M. (2007). Environmental evalu ati on of single - us e and reusabl e cups. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment , 12(4 ), 252 - 256. doi: 10. 1065/l ca2007.05.334  Glass and glass product manufacturing - may 2011 oes industry-specific occupational employment and wage estimates . (2012, March 27 ). Retrieved from htt p:/ /www.bls.gov/oes/c urrent/ naics4_327200.ht m  Goodall , H. (2008). Eco to Go.  Chronicle Of Higher Education ,  54 (33), A6 .  Government of b.c., ministry of labour, employment standards branch, a guide to b.c. employment standards . (2012, Ma y 1). Retrieved from htt p:/ /www.labour.gov.b c.ca/esb/es a guide/  Health and safety in the plastics industry. (2012). Retrieved from htt p:/ /www.hse.gov.uk/pl asti cs/i ndex .htm  Ibisworld us - industry, company and business research reports and information . (2012). Retrieved from htt p:/ /clients1.i bisworld.com.ez prox y.li brar y.ub c.c a/reports/us /i ndust r y/ope ra ti ngcondit ions.aspx? enti d=519  28  | P a g e   Industry profile for the canadian plastic products industry - canadian plastics industry . (2012, September 01). Retriev e d from http: // www.ic.gc. ca/eic/si te/plasti cs -plasti ques.nsf/eng/pl 013 83.htm l  J.G. Press Inc. (2007 ). Rec ycli n g Office Teams U p Wit h Loc al Grow ers To Laun ch Reusable Containers. BioC yc le, 48 (10), 16.  Link htt p:/ /ubc.summ on.serialssol uti ons.com/ li nk/0/ e LvHCXMwY2BQM DBOtU y2N Eo ytE gxTz O3tEhNtj ABKkwx B9YdackmqOt ykEpz N1EG OTfXEG cP XVipGJ -S kx NvaGwOmh42Mj c0FGPgTQQt_M4 rAW 8Q S wEAg60bvA  Lab container, plastic lab container, polyethylene container . (2007). Retrie ved from  http:/ /www.labdepoti nc.c om/ c - 53 - plasti c - lab - cont ainers.php  Metal and plastic machine workers : Occupational outlook handbook . (201 2, March 29). Retrieved  from htt p:/ /ww w.bls.gov/ooh/ producti o n/m etal - and - plasti c - ma ch ine -workers.htm  Michael M. Gr ynb aum. (2010). Even reusable gro cer y ba gs can car r y envir onmental risk: Metropoli tan desk. New York Times, pp. A.22. Retrieved from:  htt p:/ /ubc.summ on.serialssol uti ons.com/ li nk/0/ e LvHCXMwY2BQM DBOtU y2N Eo ytE gxTz O3tEhNtj ABKkwx B9YdackmqOt ykEpz N1EG OTfXEG cP XVipGJ -S kx MP r IQsQP sd gV0V MQbeR NDC 77wS8Aax FACER R vD  S napware Produ cts. (n.d. ). Retrieved Nov ember 2, 2012, from Snapwar e:      http:/ /www.sna pware. co m/ products  Reusable takeout containers | ubc sustainability . (2012, November 8). Retr ieved from  http:/ /www.sust ain.ubc.ca/get - invol ved/st aff/sus ta inabili t y - coordin ators/t oolki t/ reusable - takeout - containe rs  Reusable to - go containe r s catch on at UT A 5% di ning discount encou ra ges usage. (2010,  April 15).  FoodService Director ,  23 (4), 8. Retriev ed November 1, 2012, fr om  29  | P a g e   htt p:/ /bi .galegroup.com.e z prox y.li brar y.ub c.ca/ essentials/ article/GA LE%7 C A222408648/1777972ee322c32 a2df7c d2f0ee07f27? u=ubcolum bia  Zipl oc Products. (n.d. ). Retrieved Nov ember 2, 20 12, from Zipl oc:  htt p:/ /www.z ipl oc.ca/en/products/ containers    30  | P a g e   Appendices Appendix A – Student Survey This is a surve y which we are conducti n g for ou r APS C 261 sust ainabili t y project. Bring Your Own Container (BYOC ) is an opti on that AMS is looking int o for one of the elev en new food outl ets that wil l be located in the new SUB upon its completion. This means that for thi s outlet, disposable take - out containe rs and cups would not be provid ed, and custo mers would be requ ired to provide their own containers and/or mu gs. The AMS BYOC food outl et would serve as an educati onal model and help the AMS evaluat e the fe asibi li t y of movi ng in this directi o n with a lar ger numb er of food outl ets. It would be a treme ndous help to our rese arch if yo u could answer th e foll owing questi ons re gardin g how you vie w thi s idea.  Please circl e your answe rs.  1. Are you a male or female? Male  Female  2. Which faculty are your studies focused in? Arts          Applied Scien ce          Denti str y          Kinesiol og y         Mathe matics  Medicine         Science         Othe r  3. What year are you currently in for your program? First          Second          Third         Fourth          Graduate studi es  4. How often would you say that you eat at AMS SUB outlets on average? Remember, the AMS outlets do NOT include chain companies like A&W, Subway, Starbucks, etc. More than 5 tim es per week  4 - 5 times per we ek  2 - 3 times per we ek  Once a week               Less than once a week  5. Are you aware of the Eco -To Go: Container Exchange Program which is currently operated by AMS? Yes    No  The Eco -  To Go: Container Ex chan ge Pro gr am is avail able at Totem and Vanier Dinin g Rooms , as well as at all participat ing UBC Food Servi ces Loc ati ons. A one - t i m e pu rchase of a $5 membership card gets yo u acc ess to a reus able co ntainer, which is then wa shed for you after you are fini shed eati n g.   6. Now that you are aware of the Eco - To Go Program, would you prefer to participate in that and have a reusable container provided for a one-time fee of $5, or bring your own container from home to the food outlet? Eco – To Go Pro gram   Own containe r  31  | P a g e   7. If you were to purchase a reusable container from UBC, how much would you be willing to spend on it? Keep in mind that a slightly more expensive container (glass) may last longer than a cheaper one (plastic).  $0  $1 -  $3         $4 -  $6          $7 -  $9          $10 -  $12         $13 -  $15   8. If container cleaning services were provided, like in Eco-To Go, what would you be willing to spend? $0  $1 -  $3         $4 -  $6          $7 -  $9          $10 -  $12         $13 -  $15   9. If food prices were slightly decreased, would this impact your decision about participating in the BYOC food outlet concept?  Yes   No   10. If yes, how large of a food price decrease would make you bring a reusable container to eat?  Under 10%  10% - 25%  25% - 50%  Over 50%   11. How likely would you be purchasing food from the single outlet that will have BYOC implemented (if it was one you regularly go to pre-BYOC implementation)?  Not at all  Once a week  Occasionall y  Ever yda y   12. How pleased would you be if BYOC were to be implemented at all SUB foot outlets?  Not at all  Somewhat/ Indif fer ent  Pleased   Ver y pleas ed   13. Would you like to see it eventually implemented at all the AMS outlets?  Yes  No   14. How much of an impact do you think this BYOC program at UBC would have on your view and social awareness of sustainability issues?  None   A littl e   A moderate amount  A lot   15.  How convinced are you that this program has the potential to stand out from other sustainability initiatives that have been introduced in the past?  None at all  Small chance  Somewhat (in between s mall and lar ge ch anc e)  Ver y    32  | P a g e   16.  Would you avoid the outlet that will be taking part in the BYOC program simply because of inconvenience?  Yes  No   17.  Which outlet would you MOST prefer to see implement the BYOC program?  Bernoulli’s Bagels   Blue  Chip  Cookies  Honour  Roll  The  Moon  Pie  R  Squared   Pit  Burger  Bar   18.  If BYOC were to become successful and implemented at all AMS outlets, would you continue purchasing food from the AMS outlets or move to other outlets such as A&W, Subway, or eateries in the village?  AMS   Other   AMS + other (no pr efe re nce)  19. How would the BYOC tentatively impact your student experience at UBC?  Lar ge ne gati ve impact  Small negati ve  No impact  Small posit ive impact  La r ge posi ti ve impact   20. If the BYOC outlet did not provide utensils as well, that is you would need to bring your own container and utensils, how would this affect your decision to purchase food at that outlet? W ould bu y food if it was just BYOC /W ould not bu y  food if it was BY OC AND brin g your own utensil  Would bu y food if it was BYOC and bring you r own utensil  Would not bu y food if it was jus t BYOC  21. If the one BYOC outlet was beside or within walking distance of a regular outlet that provides containers, which outlet would you go to? BYOC   Regula r  22. Please tick the factors that would affect your decision and circle the one that would be the most important to you. Time  Price  Food Pref eren ce       Having to b ring a con tainer around/ convenien c e            Bein g sust ainable   23. Does the idea of exclusively using reusable containers and utensils in the new SUB sound like a good idea to you? Yes  No