Land and Food Systems, Faculty of
DSpace
University of British Columbia. Food Services
University of British Columbia. Campus and Community Planning
Ma, Jingyi
Wang, Vivian
Meyer, Morgane
Wang, Mandy
Bhutta, Noor
Food systems are major contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worldwide (Crippa et al., 2021). Animal-based foods emit more than twice the GHG than plant-based foods (Xu et al., 2021). Additionally, refined grains emit more than 20% of GHG when compared to whole-grains (Mitchell et al., 2024). Shifting diets towards a climate-friendly diet (low in red meat and refined grains) can show benefits. In the UBC context, more than 21% of GHG emissions are from the University’s food system (Vockeroth, n.d.). Because universities can have a lot of power in local food systems, due to the number of students living and using the campus–in UBC’s case that is about 60,000, the size of a mid-sized town–understanding eating patterns and dietary preferences of students is crucial to accelerate positive climate actions. The purpose of this research was to develop a comprehensive understanding of UBC students’ eating habits and dietary preferences at home and on campus, and identify barriers affecting adoption of these habits. The research objective explores students' eating habits across demographics and situations and analyzing factors influencing consumption patterns. Based on this data, an action plan was developed to promote sustainable dietary choices. Recommendations were to be derived that could contribute to the advancement of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2030. The project utilized Community-Based Action Research (CBAR), by gathering data directly from the researchers' community through various forms of interactions, e.g., survey questions, in-person, and future actions formulated for the community. Methods included secondary data collection via a literature review and primary data collection through a Qualtrics survey conducted from March 7th to March 23rd, 2024. Promotion of the survey involved undergraduate societies, the Graduate Student Society (GSS), professors, personal networks, posters, and in-person outreach. The literature review provided foundational knowledge, while the survey yielded insights into UBC students' dietary preferences. Firstly, our findings show that disparities in dietary preferences exist across different demographics such as ethnicity and faculty, e.g., omnivorous preferences were common among Latin American, Korean, and Chinese students, while Caucasians and Southeast/South Asians were likelier to be vegetarians or vegans. Secondly, there is a notable trend of consuming more meat when dining out compared to eating at home, influenced by lack of knowledge on meat cooking methods, cost considerations, and availability. Thirdly, students prioritize price, taste, and nutritional value when purchasing food products, with environmental impact ranking relatively low. Challenges are faced by survey respondents in adopting climate-friendly diets on campus due to limited knowledge, unclear labeling, and perceived higher costs. Reluctance to switch to climate-friendly diets is influenced by concerns about taste, price, and lack of awareness about the environmental impact of dietary choices. Factors influencing decisions regarding climate-friendly options include price, accessibility, and awareness. The discussion investigates the potential misconception of climate-friendly foods, e.g., taste, not a good source of protein, one of the factors deterring students from shifting patterns. Other factors that influence the adoption of a climate-friendly diet on campus are lack of awareness of what a climate-friendly diet constitutes of and where to find these foods on campus, the perception of the climate-friendly food label by students, and the availability, or lack of, climate-friendly food on campus. Limitations of our research include sample bias and representation issues, the potential influence of social desirability bias when responding, and the survey design and project time line. Recommendations from this research span short-, mid-, and long-term initiatives, as well as suggestions for future studies. Short-term recommendations include recognizing student diversity in information campaigns and employing both longitudinal (e.g., empowering student leaders) and latitudinal (e.g., integrating sustainability into curriculum) approaches. Mid-term suggestions involve menu modifications, such as having an all climate-friendly food menu with the option of meat additions, while long-term strategies entail campus-wide adoption of the Climate-Friendly Food Label and a product emission database. Future research should focus on understanding perceptions of the Climate-Friendly Food Label and assessing program effectiveness.latitudinal (e.g., integrating sustainability into curriculum) approaches. Mid-term suggestions involve menu modifications, such as having an all climate-friendly food menu with the option of meat additions, while long-term strategies entail campus-wide adoption of the Climate-Friendly Food Label and a product emission database. Future research should focus on understanding perceptions of the Climate-Friendly Food Label and assessing program effectiveness. 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.”
12Disclaimer: UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program provides students with the opportunity to share thefindings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBCcommunity. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student research project and is not an officialdocument of UBC. Furthermore, readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect thecurrent status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a reportor the SEEDS Sustainability Program representative about the current status of the subject matter of areport.3AcknowledgementWe as Group 5 from LFS 450 would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to our primary project client,Juan D. Martinez from the UBC SEEDS team for his invaluable support throughout our projectdevelopment, as well as his commitment to fostering sustainable initiatives within our community.The UBC SEEDS team’s dedication to environmental stewardship and innovative solutions hassignificantly contributed to our collective efforts in promoting sustainability and creating positivechange.We are also incredibly thankful for the support from the LFS 450 teaching team, Liska Richer andIsabela Andrade for their exceptional guidance throughout the course and the research process. Theirexpertise, enthusiasm, and commitment to fostering a dynamic learning environment have greatlyenriched our educational experience.4Practitioners’ SummaryBackground:Food systems are significant contributors to Global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, withanimal-based foods generating over twice the GHGs of plant-based foods, and refined grains emittingover 20% more GHGs than whole grains (Xu et al., 2021; Mitchell et al., 2024). Shifting to a diet lowin red meat, animal products such as dairy, and refined grains could offer substantial environmentalbenefits. Specifically at the University of British Columbia (UBC), the university's food systemaccounts for more than 21% of its GHG emissions (Vockeroth, n.d.). Given the substantial influenceuniversities have on local food systems, it's vital to understand student dietary habits and preferencesboth at home and on campus to promote effective climate actions. This research aims to provide adetailed analysis of these eating patterns and identify the challenges in adopting more sustainabledietary practices among UBC students.Goals: To develop a thorough comprehension of UBC students' dietary habits and preferences, andidentify barriers to adopting climate-friendly diets.Objectives: Investigate variations in UBC students' eating habits at home vs dining out and create anactionable plan to promote sustainable dietary choices.* CFF = Climate-Friendly Food* CFD = Climate-Friendly Diet5Executive SummaryFood systems are major contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worldwide (Crippa et al.,2021). Animal-based foods emit more than twice the GHG than plant-based foods (Xu et al., 2021).Additionally, refined grains emit more than 20% of GHG when compared to whole-grains (Mitchell etal., 2024). Shifting diets towards a climate-friendly diet (low in red meat and refined grains) can showbenefits.In the UBC context, more than 21% of GHG emissions are from the University’s food system(Vockeroth, n.d.). Because universities can have a lot of power in local food systems, due to thenumber of students living and using the campus–in UBC’s case that is about 60,000, the size of amid-sized town–understanding eating patterns and dietary preferences of students is crucial toaccelerate positive climate actions. The purpose of this research was to develop a comprehensiveunderstanding of UBC students’ eating habits and dietary preferences at home and on campus, andidentify barriers affecting adoption of these habits.The research objective explores students' eating habits across demographics and situations andanalyzing factors influencing consumption patterns. Based on this data, an action plan was developedto promote sustainable dietary choices. Recommendations were to be derived that could contribute tothe advancement of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2030.The project utilized Community-Based Action Research (CBAR), by gathering data directly from theresearchers' community through various forms of interactions, e.g., survey questions, in-person, andfuture actions formulated for the community. Methods included secondary data collection via aliterature review and primary data collection through a Qualtrics survey conducted from March 7th toMarch 23rd, 2024. Promotion of the survey involved undergraduate societies, the Graduate StudentSociety (GSS), professors, personal networks, posters, and in-person outreach. The literature reviewprovided foundational knowledge, while the survey yielded insights into UBC students' dietarypreferences.Firstly, our findings show that disparities in dietary preferences exist across different demographicssuch as ethnicity and faculty, e.g., omnivorous preferences were common among Latin American,Korean, and Chinese students, while Caucasians and Southeast/South Asians were likelier to bevegetarians or vegans. Secondly, there is a notable trend of consuming more meat when dining outcompared to eating at home, influenced by lack of knowledge on meat cooking methods, costconsiderations, and availability. Thirdly, students prioritize price, taste, and nutritional value whenpurchasing food products, with environmental impact ranking relatively low.Challenges are faced by survey respondents in adopting climate-friendly diets on campus due tolimited knowledge, unclear labeling, and perceived higher costs. Reluctance to switch toclimate-friendly diets is influenced by concerns about taste, price, and lack of awareness about theenvironmental impact of dietary choices. Factors influencing decisions regarding climate-friendlyoptions include price, accessibility, and awareness.The discussion investigates the potential misconception of climate-friendly foods, e.g., taste, not agood source of protein, one of the factors deterring students from shifting patterns. Other factors thatinfluence the adoption of a climate-friendly diet on campus are lack of awareness of what aclimate-friendly diet constitutes of and where to find these foods on campus, the perception of theclimate-friendly food label by students, and the availability, or lack of, climate-friendly food oncampus. Limitations of our research include sample bias and representation issues, the potentialinfluence of social desirability bias when responding, and the survey design and project time line.Recommendations from this research span short-, mid-, and long-term initiatives, as well assuggestions for future studies. Short-term recommendations include recognizing student diversity ininformation campaigns and employing both longitudinal (e.g., empowering student leaders) and6latitudinal (e.g., integrating sustainability into curriculum) approaches. Mid-term suggestions involvemenu modifications, such as having an all climate-friendly food menu with the option of meatadditions, while long-term strategies entail campus-wide adoption of the Climate-Friendly Food Labeland a product emission database. Future research should focus on understanding perceptions of theClimate-Friendly Food Label and assessing program effectiveness.7Table of ContentsAcknowledgement................................................................................................................. 3Practitioners’ Summary.........................................................................................................4Executive Summary............................................................................................................... 5Table of Contents................................................................................................................... 7List of Figures........................................................................................................................ 9Figure 1. Dietary preference eating out vs. eating at home............................................... 9List of Abbreviations........................................................................................................... 101. Introduction...................................................................................................................... 111.1 Research Relevance.................................................................................................. 111.1.1 Societal Issues...................................................................................................111.1.2 University of British Columbia Sustainability Issues, Plans, Policies & Practices.121.2 Project Context...........................................................................................................131.3 Project purposes, goals and objectives......................................................................131.3.1 Purpose............................................................................................................. 131.3.2 Goals................................................................................................................. 141.3.3 Objectives..........................................................................................................142. Research Methodology and Methods............................................................................ 142.1 Research Methodology.............................................................................................. 142.2 Research Methods..................................................................................................... 152.2.1 Secondary Data Collection................................................................................152.2.2 Primary Data Collection.....................................................................................162.2.3 Methods of Administration.................................................................................163. Results.............................................................................................................................. 183.1 Secondary Data Collection Results............................................................................183.1.1 Current dietary preference................................................................................ 183.1.2 Factors.............................................................................................................. 183.1.3 Survey Building................................................................................................. 193.1.4 Solutions............................................................................................................193.1.5 Current UBC Policies and Actions.....................................................................203.2 Primary Data Collection Results.................................................................................203.2.1 Demographics................................................................................................... 203.2.1.1 Ethnicity.................................................................................................... 203.2.1.2 Faculty...................................................................................................... 203.2.2 Meat Consumption Eating Out vs. Eating at Home...........................................203.2.3 Factors Influencing Dietary Patterns When Eating Out vs. Eating at Home..... 213.2.3.1 Lack of Knowledge on Meat Cooking Methods........................................ 223.2.3.2 Cost.......................................................................................................... 233.2.3.3 Availability and Accessibility..................................................................... 233.2.4 Values Students Consider When Purchase Food Product................................233.2.5 Challenges or Barriers Choosing Climate-Friendly Diet on UBC Campus........243.2.5.1 Comparison with Off-Campus Dining....................................................... 243.2.5.2 Factors for Reluctance to Switch to Climate-Friendly Diet....................... 2483.2.6 Factors Influencing Students’ Decisions in Choosing Climate-Friendly Options...253.2.7 Stress and Dietary Patterns.............................................................................. 264. Discussion........................................................................................................................ 264.1 Climate-Friendly Food Cost Misconception................................................................264.2 Factors influencing students' adoption of CFD on campus........................................ 284.2.1 Student’s Awareness of CFD............................................................................ 284.2.1.1 Unexpected Finding..................................................................................284.2.2 Student’s perception of the CFF label............................................................... 294.2.2.1 Limitation of Current CFF Label............................................................... 294.2.2.2 Linkage Between Factors......................................................................... 294.2.3 Availability of CFF on Campus.......................................................................... 304.2.3.1 UBC Sustainable Food Guide.................................................................. 304.3 Limitations of our survey and data............................................................................. 304.3.1 Sample Bias and Representation Issues.......................................................... 304.3.2 Social Desirability Bias in Responses............................................................... 314.3.3 Survey Design and Time Constraint..................................................................314.3.4 Lack of High-Quality Qualitative Data............................................................... 314.3.5 Recommendation for Future Survey................................................................. 315. Recommendation............................................................................................................. 325.1 Recommendation for Actions..................................................................................... 325.1.1 Short-term Recommendation............................................................................ 325.1.1.1 Diverse factors influencing students' dietary preferences........................ 325.1.1.2 Longitudinal and Latitudinal Approaches..................................................325.1.2 Midterm-Term Recommendations..................................................................... 335.1.2.1 Pilot Project: Menu Modification............................................................... 335.1.2.2 Benefits of this pilot project.......................................................................345.1.2.3 Limitations of this pilot project.................................................................. 345.1.3 Long-Term Recommendations.......................................................................... 345.1.3.1 Challenges for Scaling Up........................................................................ 355.1.3.2 Possible Solution - Database Building......................................................355.1.3.3 Collaboration with peer institution.............................................................355.2 Recommendation for Future Research...................................................................... 356. Conclusion........................................................................................................................367. References........................................................................................................................388. Appendices.......................................................................................................................40Appendix A: Key Words................................................................................................... 40Appendix B: Survey Questions.........................................................................................41Appendix C: Survey Flow/building....................................................................................42Appendix D: List of People Contacted for Survey Promotion...........................................44Appendix E: Promotional Material.................................................................................... 46Appendix F: Times and Buildings visited on March 21st, 2024........................................46Appendix G: Primary Data Tables and Graphs................................................................ 48Appendix H: Supplementary Data Tables and Graphs of the survey questions...............509List of FiguresFigure 1. Dietary preference eating out vs. eating at homeFigure 2. Top three factors behind dietary patterns of students when eating at home vs eating outFigure 3. The top three factors students consider when buying food products, with a total 375students’ responses.Figure 4. Comparison between student’s Challenges to adopt a CFD on and off campusFigure 5. Top 3 factors influencing student choices on selecting climate-friendly dietsFigure 6. Correlation between stress level and motivation to maintain climate-friendly diet duringexam periodsFigure 7. Factors potentially influencing University Student’s Decisions in ChoosingClimate-Friendly Options, n=63 students.Figure 8. Number of students (in %) from different faculties state that they lack knowledge aboutwhich food choices are climate-friendly10List of AbbreviationsUBC University of British ColumbiaGHG Greenhouse GasUBCFS University of British Columbia Food SystemsCAP Climate Action PlanCF Climate-FriendlyCFF Climate-Friendly FoodCFD Climate-Friendly DietCFFS Climate-Friendly Food System111. IntroductionIn today's rapidly evolving environmental landscape, with floods, droughts, and uncertainty,the intersection of dietary choices and their impact on climate change has become increasinglyapparent. Understanding eating habits and dietary preferences is crucial in accelerating positiveclimate actions. From the production and distribution of food to its consumption, every aspect of thefood system has implications for greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and biodiversity loss. Bydelving into the complexities of our food choices, we can uncover opportunities for sustainablepractices that not only mitigate environmental harm but also promote health and well-being. Thisexploration invites us to reevaluate our relationship with food and empowers us to make informeddecisions and provide thoughtful strategies that contribute to a healthier planet for present and futuregenerations. The topic of research focuses on understanding eating habits and dietary preferences thatcan accelerate positive climate actions, especially among the University of British Columbia (UBC)Vancouver campus.1.1 Research Relevance1.1.1 Societal IssuesFood systems play a significant role globally in driving climate change, contributing to morethan one-third of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Crippa et al., 2021). These emissions,spanning from land-use changes and agricultural practices to packaging and waste management,represents a total of 17.9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (Crippa et al., 2021). The growing meatconsumption trend leading to increased amounts of feed crops for livestock is considered one of theleading causes of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction (FAO,2006).Rice and beef were the largest GHG-contributing plant- and animal-based commodities in2021 (12% and 25%, respectively) (Xu et al., 2021). It is shown that global greenhouse gas emissionsfrom animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods, however, it is also important to notethat converting raw crops to refined-grains, such as white rice, white flour, etc., contributes about 20%more to the environmental impact compared to whole-grains (Mitchell et al., 2024). Therefore, to helpmitigate the effects of climate change on the global, national, and regional scales, a shift in dietary12pattern towards a climate-friendly diet (CFD) is necessary. We define a CFD as a diet that contributesto reducing greenhouse gas emission and is particularly low in red meat and refined grains. In order tohelp better understand the current dietary patterns and develop strategies to promote changes, ourresearch aims to establish a baseline of reasons behind food selection.1.1.2 University of British Columbia Sustainability Issues, Plans, Policies & PracticesFood systems on UBC’s Vancouver campus account for over 21% of UBC’s overall GHGemissions (Vockeroth, n.d.). In response to address this issue, UBC Campus Food Systems has setgoals and initiatives following the University’s declaration of a climate emergency, particularly inreducing GHG emissions from local food production (The University of British Columbia, 2019).UBC Food Services’ (UBCFS) policies and plans as guidelines aim to enable and inspire alifetime of healthy eating. UBCFS suggest meat production and food transportation are majorcontributors to climate change (UBC Food Services, 2024). Through practices such as purchasinghigh quality, nutritious, sustainable foods and prioritising fresh, minimally processed ingredients,UBCFS are committed to offer and actively promote an abundance of affordable, healthy choices forall meals (UBC Food Services, 2024). Along with the UBCFS Visions and Values, the UBC’s ClimateAction Plan (CAP) 2030 Targets and Actions envisions that by 2030, UBC would achieve a 50%GHG reduction in food systems and the development of a Food System Resilience and ClimateAction Strategy which advances climate-friendly foods (CFF) at UBC (UBC Campus + CommunityPlanning, 2024).Previous reports have examined the dietary patterns of UBC students, revealing a differencebetween those living on-campus and off-campus. The students living on-campus tend to have a higherconsumption of meat and junk food, coupled with lower consumption of plant-based food, comparedwith those living off-campus (Rossa-Roccor, 2019). This dietary trend, recognized as environmentallyunfriendly, may contribute to the greenhouse gas emissions of UBC’s Food Systems. However, it hasalready been five years since this report was published and there is a gap in analysing research ofdietary habits in recent years. It is essential to investigate whether there has been any shifts in dietarypatterns among the student population on the UBC Vancouver campus. By identifying main driversbehind UBC student consumer choices, we were able to develop strategies that could potentially shift13the dietary patterns and increase adoption of Climate Friendly and sustainable diets among the UBCpopulation.1.2 Project ContextPrevious research investigating the complex relationship between diet quality and GHGemissions found that diets high in red meat tend to contribute to higher GHG emission. A study byDeforche et al. (2015) assessed if there were changes in food choices during the transition from highschool to college among Belgian students. The data showed vegetables, dietary fibre and calciumconsumption decreased, while consumption of convenience items such as crisps, sweets, and softdrinks increased. This shift suggests an existing trend in having different food preferences wheneating at home during high school, and living alone at college.Understanding the change in foods consumed on campus, Lambrecht et al. (2023) furtherexplored the effects that choosing to eat less meat products on campus have on GHG emissions. Thefindings revealed that animal-source foods contributed significantly to GHG emissions, with beef anddairy being the largest contributors. Eliminating red meat purchases and reducing procurement ofpoultry, fish, and seafood could reduce GHG emissions from the university dining halls by almost half(Lambrecht et al., 2023). This demonstrates the potential for significant shifts in dietary choices tosubstantially reduce environmental impact.Based on these findings, our research was to conduct quantitative data analysis to furtherunderstand the relationship between food choices, GHG emissions and whether the changes in whatstudents eat on campus will affect the GHG emissions resulting from campus food.1.3 Project purposes, goals and objectives1.3.1 PurposeOur project purpose was to develop a comprehensive understanding of UBC students' eatinghabits and dietary preferences at home and on campus in ways that can ultimately contribute toadvancing UBC’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2030 Food Actions target to reduce GHG emissionsresulting from campus food consumption at UBC.141.3.2 Goals● Create a baseline understanding of UBC student eating habits and dietary preferences at homeand when eating out at UBC campus● Identify ways to increase the adoption of sustainable eating habits by identifying barriersaffecting adoption of these habits and uncovering opportunities to encourage their uptake.● Develop recommendations that can increase sustainable eating habits on campus and beyondthe university setting1.3.3 Objectives● Determine if differences exist in student eating habits and dietary preferences among differentdemographics and in different situations (e.g., at home and eating out at UBC, diverse level ofeducation on sustainability, etc.) through conducting a survey with students;● Analyze the driving factors influencing students’ consumption patterns and what theyprioritize when selecting foods;● Develop a feasible action-plan based on survey data that provides advice to motivate thestudent population to transition towards sustainable dietary selections.2. Research Methodology and Methods2.1 Research MethodologyCommunity-based action research (CBAR) is a type of research where the researchers are, orbecome, part of the community they are trying to research on, and do research with the communityinstead of on the community. They are not simply researchers, “they are at once researchers,community members and activists…”(Magnus & Rai, 2023 p.2). This is done by integrating thecommunity into research, so that community members are participants, and not just subjects that arebeing studied by an outsider. The premise here is that it is assumed “that people are able to assesstheir own needs and to act upon them” (Minkler, 2004; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003 in Maiter et al.,2008, p. 306). Thus, researchers act more as facilitators to achieve certain outcomes that thecommunity (and the researchers) would like to see.Since we, the researchers, are part of the community that was studied, the UBC community,we were already connected with the participants. In the survey that we administered, we gave15participants space to express their opinions and give us feedback on the current proceedings at UBC,especially with regards to the teachings of climate change and the strengths of UBC’s current actions.We also personally interacted with 112 participants, and more students (n=124) as we promoted oursurvey in person on the 21st of March. This allowed us to explain our research to participants and whyour research is important.Lastly, the findings of our research will eventually feed back to the community as therecommendations and strategies will concern the UBC campus and its proceedings.2.2 Research MethodsTo gather data, we have used two methods: secondary data collection via literature reviewsand primary data collection via the distribution of an online survey. Data was analysed throughfunctions in Qualtrics, mainly via the “Relate” tool, and in Excel, using Matrix for qualitative analysisand frequency diagrams and pie charts for quantitative analysis. The subsections will go into moredetail about each collection method and the methods of administration.2.2.1 Secondary Data CollectionThe secondary data collection happened in multiple steps. First, we started off with a broadand unfocused data collection to familiarise ourselves with the topic and with the research in place.Key words such as “climate-friendly diet”, “Sustainable diet”, “students dietary choice”, and“University Interventions”. These were entered in the UBC Library search bar, Google and GoogleScholar. A full list of keywords can be found in Appendix F. In addition to a world-wide literaturereview, current practices in place at UBC, such as the CFF label, were reviewed and campus-specificpolicies, such as the Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2030, were studied.After an initial introduction to the topic, further secondary data collection was performed togain insights into potential survey questions, what has been done in similar research as well as theresults and patterns that emerged from previous research that we might expect to see. Keywords werethe same as the introductory research.In total, more than 30 papers and UBC policy and action plan have been reviewed, fromwhich 22 papers have been included in this report, and 10 of the UBC documents.162.2.2 Primary Data CollectionThe primary data collection for this project was conducted through an online survey. We usedQualtrics as a survey tool, as prescribed by the University of British Columbia (UBC) for privacyreasons. A complete sample of the survey can be found in Appendix B.The survey itself constituted 29 questions, including 2 short answer questions. The questions were amix of multiple choice, sliders, and matrices. To make the building easier and to have the questionsthematically categorised, we created a number of building blocks, 10 in total, that each had 0-6questions. Themes of the building blocks included demographics, dietary information, CFD, andstatements. The survey script with all the building blocks and branching patterns, can be viewed inAppendix C.The target population of the survey was every member of UBC: all the students, facultymembers, and staff members, with a particular focus towards the undergraduate population andgraduate population. Initially, there was no target for one faculty in particular. We tried to get arepresentative sample of the University, and had a target sample size of 382 participants. This samplesize was determined using a chart provided by Taherdoost (2017) and corresponds to a sample sizerequired for a population of 50,000 to 100,000—UBC’s population falls within this range.In the end, we received a n=456 responses, with 363 filling out 100% of the survey,representing a 79.6% completion rate.We also used incentives as a method to encourage people to participate in the survey. Threegift cards for the UBC Food Services in the value of $50 each were given away to three participants.Incentive winners were determined by a randomised draw generator (randomresult.com) which wasrandomly chosen. All the email addresses of people that entered the draw were put into the website,which was set to "Pick Items", and the item number was selected (3). All the winners werecommunicated to our SEEDS representative. The SEEDS team contacted winners to arrange for ameeting time and to hand over the gift cards.2.2.3 Methods of AdministrationWe chose to do an online survey, as it allows for continuous collection during the activeperiod of the survey—that is we did not need to actively solicit people; it allowed for flexibility, as17people could click on the link no matter where they physically were at that moment; it allowed for theparticipants to start the survey, stop, and come back to it, so they had more freedom to complete it intheir own time; and lastly, all the data received were collected in one location.We also chose to do an online survey, as it allowed us to gather a baseline of data. While wethought of hosting a focus group, to gain more in-depth thoughts and opinions on the topic, we endedup not doing the focus group due to lack of time.The survey was open from Thursday, March 7th until Saturday, March 23rd, which is just overtwo weeks. March 7th was the day our first contact, the Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS), decided topromote our survey on their Instagram story. By March 23rd, we noticed that there were no moreresponses coming in and we needed sufficient time to analyse the data we gathered, thus we closed thesurvey.The survey took approximately 5 to 8 minutes to complete depending on how in-depth theiranswers were.Initially, we contacted various undergraduate societies, e.g., Land and Food SystemsUndergraduate Society (LFSUS), Engineering Undergraduate Society (EUS), AUS, CommercerUndergraduate Society (CUS) (a full list is provided in Appendix D), via email and Instagram. Afterreceiving a low response rate from our initial contacts, we sent a second email to the ones that had notresponded within a week from the initial contact and also searched up new people to contact.Additionally, we hung up physical posters (see Appendix E for promotion material) in the Lifebuilding, the AMS Nest, the Nest Plaza, Hebb, the Abdul Ladha Science Student Center, and the IRC.We promoted the survey on our personal networks for multiple days and asked people (9 in total) inOC 4002 from 3-4:30pm on March 13th to fill out the survey.By closely monitoring the responses that we got, we were able to see what faculties we werenot reaching with our first recruitment approaches, namely the Faculty of Applied Sciences. On the21st of March, we used 2 iPads provided by the SEEDS team and targeted some buildings to boost theresponse rate from the missing faculties. In Appendix F, times of visits and buildings visited aredetailed. We chose to approach every person in the common spaces of these buildings, unless theirbody language signalled us that they did not want to be approached. The cues of not wanting to talk18included staring ahead onto their work as we approached and not looking up when we talked to peoplearound the table.When we approached people, we said the following sentence and variations of it: “Hi, sorry,do you have a minute? [If affirmative, then we continued with the interpellation.] We are conducting asurvey to learn more about students’ dietary habits and consumer behaviour. You also get the chanceto win a $50 gift card for UBC Food Services. If you want, you can scan the QR code just here, or youcan fill out the survey on the iPad.” Most people chose to scan the QR code with their phones and fillit out in their own time. We noticed that we were a little bit uncomfortable hovering aroundparticipants as they filled out the survey, so the approach that most people chose to take worked for usas well.3. Results3.1 Secondary Data Collection Results3.1.1 Current dietary preferenceWithin the UBC context, we could not find any data about recent students’ dietarypreferences. However, we have found a study done by Verena Rossa-Roccor (2019), whichinvestigated dietary intakes and mental wellness. Here it was found that students living on campusconsume a diet high in meats and junk food, and low in plant-based foods (Rosa-Roccor, 2019). Theinverse was found for students living off campus: low intakes of meat and junk food, higher intakes ofplant-based foods (Rossa-Roccor, 2019). This UBC specific trend is already quite old, especiallywhen taking drastic world events that have taken place since then, so new research is necessary.3.1.2 FactorsWhen considering a widespread shift in diets, towards sustainability, various knowledge gapsand (perceived) barriers need to be acknowledged. Rust et al. (2020) conducted a survey with 50sustainable diet experts and “[t]he most frequently mentioned knowledge gaps were related toworking out how to encourage consumers to buy more sustainable food” (Rust et al., 2020, p.3). Thisshows the importance of getting to know the target audience and their current knowledge gaps as wellas concerns. Rust et al. (2020) also mentions the importance of trying to bring dietary inequalitiescloser together.19According to research done by Mäkiniemi and Vainio (2014), disbelief in the effects of dietson climate change was wide-ranging in Finnish university students, especially amongst male students.Similarly, Slotnick et al. (2023) have found misinformation among American students with regards tothe effectiveness of meat intake reduction and climate change. This lack of knowledge is alsomentioned in the barriers that consumers face as adapted from Stubbs et al. (2018) in Rust et al.(2020), which include: Choice architecture, which relates to social factors and cultural references;Ingrained habits; Lack of consumer knowledge; Belief of meat being the best protein source;Reluctance to learn about negative impacts; Lack of prioritising sustainability; Short-term payoffs;Subsidies and incentives, making meat cheaper; Power of large food businesses; Strong belief in theinnovative action of (agricultural) technology; and lastly, Lack of incentives for food business tochange. All these factors combined lead to the current food system and consumer behaviour we see.3.1.3 Survey BuildingThe survey is built based on the potential factors outlined in section 3.1.2, which could be thepotential factors leading to students’ dietary patterns. The survey structure was created into differentsections, using as reference research done by Corallo et al. (2019), with each section aimed toinvestigate one particular factor affecting food choice behaviours.3.1.4 SolutionsIn a comment by Krattenmacher et al. (2023), they point out the importance of universitiesand their role and power in change. Pressure from student-led organisations across campus, andwelcomed by university leaders, has led to the establishment of an animal-based food free campus2030 at the Erasmus University in the Netherlands. Consumer behaviour and requests have also led toreduced availability in Berlin’s university canteens (Krattenmacher et al., 2023). Canteens across mostuniversities in Berlin are operated by one operator “studierendenWERK Berlin” (studierendenWERKBerlin, 2024). Universities need to use the resources they have to analyse their respective populationsand make changes for sustainability based on current knowledge and willingness of students. Thus, ifstudents show great willingness, somewhat more drastic steps can be taken, e.g., mainly vegetarianand vegan options with meat-free days, alternatively slow implementation of reduced meat options is20important, so that the population may adapt to the changes and does not feel like they are missingsomething.3.1.5 Current UBC Policies and ActionsCurrent UBC practices, such as the Climate-Friendly Food (CFF) label (Climate-FriendlyFood Label, 2022) are a good start, however, needs to be rolled out more across the campus, as itmaximises awareness and sells a compelling benefit (Rust et al., 2020).3.2 Primary Data Collection Results3.2.1 DemographicsTo discern whether disparities in dietary preferences exist among various demographics andsituations, e.g., type of housing, on- vs. off-campus, among UBC students, we examined the followingdata categories: ethnicity, faculty, and living locations.3.2.1.1 EthnicityVariations in dietary preferences were depicted among UBC students based on their ethnicbackgrounds. It is revealed that a significant portion of Latin American (87.5%), Korean (82.4%), andChinese students (82.1%) were omnivorous students, whereas the majority of vegetarians wereCaucasian (40.5%), Southeast Asian (42.1%), or South Asian (51.6%) (see Appendix Figure G1).These findings suggest a probable correlation between food choices and ethnic identity.3.2.1.2 FacultyExamining UBC's various faculties in connection with students' dietary choices revealed thatthose in Applied Science had the lowest proportion of vegetarians (15.7%) and the highest proportionof omnivores (84.3%). Students enrolled in other faculties were found to be twice as likely to bevegetarians compared to those in Applied Science (see Appendix Figure G2).3.2.2 Meat Consumption Eating Out vs. Eating at HomeThe survey results reveal a notable inclination towards consuming more meat thanplant-based food when dining out compared to eating at home. A total of 413 responses werecollected. A substantial portion of respondents, comprising 229 respondents (55.5%), either strongly21agreed or agreed with this statement, suggesting a prevailing preference for meat-centric options inrestaurant settings. While 87 respondents (21.1%) remained neutral, indicating a balanced approach orperhaps a lack of strong preference, a minority of 51 respondents (12.3%) disagreed with thestatement. Interestingly, a smaller yet still significant portion of 46 respondents (11.1%) stronglydisagreed, implying a clear preference for plant-based choices or a reduced inclination towards meatwhen dining out.3.2.3 Factors Influencing Dietary Patterns When Eating Out vs. Eating at HomeThe findings from the follow-up open-ended question regarding the reasons behindrespondents' choices between meat and plant-based options when dining out versus eating at home, ascan be seen in Figure 2 below, suggests a multitude of factors shaping dietary behaviours.22Out of the people who indicated eating more meat than plant-based food when eating out, wefiltered out all the responses that do not contribute to a difference in meat consumption eating at homeversus eating outside. These categories of answer include: preference for meat, dislike for plant-basedfoods, nutrition value difference between plant-based options and meat, cultural and family factors,concerns with meat alternatives, and social/peer pressures. After filtering the results, 112 respondentsprovided valid responses.The top three factors contributing to students’ dietary patterns eating out vs. eating at homeare identified based on the valid responses. Out of 112 respondents, 73 (65.2%) respondents indicatedthere is a lack of knowledge regarding cooking methods of meat, 65 (58.0%) respondents indicatedthey take into account the cost considerations, and 35 (31.3%) respondents indicated they choose foodbased on availability and accessibility.3.2.3.1 Lack of Knowledge on Meat Cooking MethodsIn Figure 3, below, 73 (65.2%) respondents indicated that there is a lack of knowledgeregarding preparation methods of meat dishes at home. Therefore people would choose meat dishesmore frequently at restaurants.233.2.3.2 CostFrom Figure 3, 65 (58.0%) respondents suggested cost considerations played a significant rolein shaping dietary preferences, with 50 (44.6%) respondents noting the affordability or perceivedvalue of meat dishes in restaurants compared to the cost and effort involved in cooking meat at home.They note that meat at grocery stores can be expensive, leading them to consume less of it at homeand opt for meat dishes when dining out to make the meal feel more "worth it." At the same time, 15(13.4%) respondents mentioned that plant-based dishes are generally more expensive at restaurants.3.2.3.3 Availability and Accessibility35 (31.3%) respondents from Figure 3 mentioned choosing meat-based options due to thefactor of convenience and accessibility of dishes. They noted that meat dishes are more readilyavailable and easier to find at restaurants compared to plant-based dishes, leading them to opt forthese choices based on convenience alone. Additionally, the availability and variety of plant-basedoptions emerged as a contributing factor, with some respondents noting the limited availability or lessoptions of plant-based dishes in restaurants compared to meat-based options.3.2.4 Values Students Consider When Purchase Food ProductThe values students prioritize when buying food products have a clear emphasis on price(89%), taste (70%), and nutritional value (62%) as the most influential factors. However,24environmental impact is considered by only 15.7% of students, which points to a relatively lowprioritization of sustainability in food choices among the student population.3.2.5 Challenges or Barriers Choosing Climate-Friendly Diet on UBC CampusWhen dining at UBC, the top three challenges and barriers students face when trying to optfor a climate-friendly diet were identified. Out of 326 responses, 117 (55%) students indicated thatthey struggle due to limited knowledge about which food choices are environmentally sustainable.Nearly as prevalent, 167 (52%) students suggested that there is absence of clear labelling for options.Lastly, there's a widespread perception that 154 (47%) students think climate-friendly options aremore expensive, dissuading many from choosing them.3.2.5.1 Comparison with Off-Campus DiningWhen contrasting the obstacles encountered by students when dining on-campus versusoff-campus, there's minimal difference, aside from a slight decrease in the prominence of lack ofknowledge as the primary factor, shifting from 55% (117 respondents) to 50% (164 respondents)when dining off-campus. Conversely, the prevalence of unclear labelling as a factor increased from52% (167 respondents) to 59% (191 respondents) when dining off-campus.3.2.5.2 Factors for Reluctance to Switch to Climate-Friendly DietAmong 363 respondents, 224 (61.7%) students stated that they would like to take theinitiative to adapt to a more climate-friendly diet, while 32 (8.8%) explicitly said they refused to shiftto a more CFD. Out of the 32 responses for not willing to switch to a climate-friendly diet, 4 (12.5%)25respondents suggested switching to a climate-friendly diet would compromise other aspects, such astaste, price, and convenience. Another 4 (12.5%) respondents indicated that they are unaware of howdietary choices contribute to the overall climate change.3.2.6 Factors Influencing Students’ Decisions in Choosing Climate-Friendly OptionsOut of the 61 responses regarding the open-ended question: ‘What other factors, if any, doyou believe influence university students' decisions regarding climate-friendly dining options’, 42respondents (68.9%) indicated that price plays a significant role in influencing university students’decisions regarding climate-friendly options. Many students express concerns about the cost ofgroceries and meals, with affordability being a primary consideration.19 respondents (31.2%) indicated that accessibility and availability/convenience significantlyinfluence students’ dietary choices. Time constraints and location play an important role, with manystudents opting for convenient and readily available food sources, sometimes overlookingconsiderations for climate-friendliness.Moreover, 17 respondents (27.9%) suggested that education and awareness are crucial factors,with a lack of knowledge about what constitutes climate-friendly dining. It is interesting to note thatsome respondents commented there is a deficiency in the comprehensive education provided byuniversities regarding the environmental consequences of dietary habits.263.2.7 Stress and Dietary PatternsThe results from the survey questions revealed a moderate to high level of stress among 360participants during exam/major assignment deadline periods, with the majority rating their stress levelbetween 4 and 5 on a scale of 1 to 5. In contrast, the motivation to maintain a climate-friendly dietduring exam periods was relatively low, with most respondents rating their motivation between 1 and3 on the same scale. Statistical analysis revealed a negative correlation between stress levels andmotivation to maintain a climate-friendly diet during exam periods, indicating that as stress levels4. Discussion4.1 Climate-Friendly Food Cost MisconceptionIn the analysis of open-ended survey responses examining student attitudes towardsdecision-making regarding environmentally friendly food choices, three primary sectors emergedregarding the factors influencing students' decisions on adopting a climate-friendly diet. The dataresults revealed trends in the high prevalence of price emerging as one of the top three factorsinfluencing UBC students' decisions regarding adopting a climate-friendly diet.27Figure 7 indicates that price holds the highest level of influence among students, with 68.9%of participants stating that price is the lead influencing factor that could potentially shift their dietaryhabits. Following price, the subsequent factors were identified as the education and awarenessregarding what constitutes a CFD, as well as the accessibility of these CFF in proximity to studentliving areas.With price as a critical influence, more than half of the respondents reported they perceivethat CFD as more costly (Result 3.2.5), with reasons such as wanting to afford their meals andplanning diets within budget. Despite student perceptions that CFF are more costly, research suggeststhat high price is a common misconception towards achieving a sustainable diet. Pais et al., (2022)have indicated that adopting a CFD, such as a plant-based or vegetarian diet, may not be as expensiveas an omnivorous diet. However, regional factors significantly influence food prices, it is important toanalyse the misconception under specific context.This knowledge shows the common misconception that environmentally friendly food optionsdemand a higher price. This finding is important for advocating plant-based diets within the universitycampus, especially among students who are mindful of their food budgets and are becomingacquainted with the concept of a climate-friendly diet.284.2 Factors influencing students' adoption of CFD on campus4.2.1 Student’s Awareness of CFDIt's essential to raise awareness about the environmental impact of dietary choices, especiallyin university environments like UBC. Astonishingly, only 15% of students consider environmentalimpact when purchasing food (Result 3.2.4). This lack of awareness severely hampers the potentialfor behaviour change toward more sustainable practices. Bimbo (2023) asserts that individuals whoare aware of the environmental impacts of their food choices, particularly red meat consumption, aremore likely to adjust their diets in favour of more sustainable options. However, at UBC, thechallenge is more pronounced as over half of the students face difficulties in adopting a CFD,primarily because they are unsure of what constitutes such a diet. This underscores a criticalknowledge gap that, if addressed, could lead to significant behavioural changes as more than 61% ofthe students would like to take the initiative to accommodate a more climate-friendly diet (Result3.2.5.3).4.2.1.1 Unexpected FindingThe finding that only a marginally higher percentage (11%) of students from the LFS at UBCare aware of CFD compared to the broader student population (Figure 8.) is unexpected andhighlights potential issues in the effectiveness of sustainability education within LFS and UBC. Thisresult is surprising because food system sustainability is a key component of the LFS curriculum (e.g.29LFS 250, 350, 450), suggesting that students should have a significantly better understanding andawareness of sustainable practices, including dietary choices.4.2.2 Student’s perception of the CFF labelThe importance of clear labelling in guiding students towards climate-friendly food choices ishighlighted by the evidence indicating that a vast majority (80%) of students who considerenvironmental factors when consuming food products rely on CFF labels as a primary reference. Thisreliance underscores the critical role that clear and visible labelling plays in informing studentchoices. However, the effectiveness of these labels appears to be limited by a couple of significantissues.4.2.2.1 Limitation of Current CFF LabelFirstly, more than half of the students report a lack of clear CFF labels on campus. Thissuggests either an inadequate presence of the label or imperceivable to students. Students'unfamiliarity with the existing CFF labels or their inability to easily recognize them can severely limitthe intended impact of these initiatives. The research conducted in Norway indicates that while theintroduction of CFF labels can effectively shift student food consumption patterns toward moresustainable options, this effect tends to reach a plateau within two months (Slapo and Karevold,2019). This finding implies that while labels are effective in the short term, their impact diminishesover time as the novelty wears off. In the long run, labels tend to serve more as a communicationchannel, primarily appealing to those students already concerned about environmental impacts, ratherthan continuously influencing a broader student population.4.2.2.2 Linkage Between FactorsThe short-lived efficacy of food labelling as a driver of change highlights a need for ongoingefforts to keep environmental concerns pertinent and visible. It suggests that while labels are crucial,they should be part of a larger, more dynamic strategy involving continuous educational campaigns,periodic updates to labelling information, and perhaps integration with other incentives that encouragesustainable consumption. Clear, effective labelling, coupled with sustained educational efforts, canhelp maintain student engagement with climate-friendly choices, making environmentalconsiderations a more consistent factor in their dietary decisions.304.2.3 Availability of CFF on CampusIncreasing the availability of CFF on campus is crucial for influencing sustainable dietarychoices among students. According to survey data, 31% of students report that accessibility andconvenience significantly dictate their food choices, emphasising the importance of making CFFoptions more readily available. Additionally, over 40% of students perceive a lack of availability ofsuch options at UBC, indicating a substantial gap between the demand for sustainable choices andtheir accessibility.4.2.3.1 UBC Sustainable Food GuideUBC Food System Projects has responded by creating a UBC Sustainable Campus FoodGuide that lists plant-based food products along with the names of food outlets where they can befound (Barker-French & Richer, 2013). This guide is a step towards bridging the availability gap, butits effectiveness hinges on students' awareness and its visibility on campus. If students are unaware ofwhere to find CFF options, even the best-intended resources may not sufficiently influence dietarybehaviours towards sustainability.4.3 Limitations of our survey and dataThe limitations of our survey conducted at UBC regarding student dietary choices andawareness of CFF options can be attributed to several key factors:4.3.1 Sample Bias and Representation IssuesWhile our survey sample was generally representative from a faculty perspective compared toUBC undergraduate students' demographics (UBC, 2023)—particularly strong in Arts, Science, andApplied Sciences—it exhibited biases concerning other faculties and ethnicity. Notably, Sauderstudents were underrepresented, and students from the LFS were over-recruited, likely due to therecruitment strategies employed primarily within our personal networks. This imbalance could skewthe data toward the views and behaviours of LFS students. Additionally, the representation acrossdifferent ethnic groups was inadequate, which may limit the generalizability of our findings to theentire student body.314.3.2 Social Desirability Bias in ResponsesA significant portion of the survey responses, particularly to questions regarding futureintentions to adopt a CFD (with over 90% of respondents indicating a positive or uncertain attitude),might reflect a social desirability bias rather than genuine preferences or intentions. Students mayhave responded in ways they perceive as socially acceptable, potentially overestimating their interestin sustainable diets.4.3.3 Survey Design and Time ConstraintThe rushed timeline within a single semester led to some shortcomings in the survey design.For example, although we noted a trend where students consider environmental impacts less duringhigh-stress periods like finals, we missed to analyse how significant this factor was compared toothers discussed in the survey. In our survey questions assessing stress levels related to exams,students rated the severity of exam impact on their motivation to transition to climate-friendly diets ona scale of 1-5. However, through open-ended responses, students also highlighted other factorsrestricting their adoption of these diets, including price, awareness, and a lack of knowledge aboutclimate-friendly eating habits. It is uncertain whether exam stress or these other factors serve as theprimary barriers that prevent students from shifting to environmentally friendly diets. This oversightsuggests that a more thorough preliminary analysis of sample trial data could have identified andaddressed logical gaps before the full survey launch.4.3.4 Lack of High-Quality Qualitative DataOur qualitative data, particularly responses to follow-up questions asking for reasons behindprevious answers (Result 3.2.3), lacked consistency and depth. Many responses suggested thatstudents rushed through these questions without fully engaging, highlighting a need for improving thedesign of qualitative questions that encourage more thoughtful and detailed responses.4.3.5 Recommendation for Future SurveyAddressing these limitations in future surveys could involve more balanced recruitmentstrategies, careful question design to mitigate bias, and enhanced qualitative data collection techniquesto ensure that the findings are both representative and insightful.325. Recommendation5.1 Recommendation for ActionsOutlined below are actionable steps for UBC Food Services and various stakeholders withinthe UBC Food System, categorized by timelines: short-term (within one year), mid-term (one to twoyears), and long-term (over two years). These recommendations are designed to significantly reduceGHG emissions by promoting a CFD among UBC students, thereby ensuring the long-termsustainability of the UBC Food System. This strategic plan also provides valuable insights andconsiderations for the future development of a Campus Food Services Policy, promising a moresustainable and environmentally conscious future.5.1.1 Short-term RecommendationEnhancing students' understanding of the necessity and possibility of shifting diets to reduceGHG emissions in our daily practices. We would like to approach it by customizing educationaldelivery methods to different demographics.5.1.1.1 Diverse factors influencing students' dietary preferencesAs we have introduced in the discussion, different demographics exhibit varying levels ofknowledge and motivation regarding CFD, reflecting diverse educational backgrounds, culturalinfluences, and personal values. Recognizing diversity would be the key to targeting differentdemographics and customizing the way of delivering information adapted to their interests and habits.5.1.1.2 Longitudinal and Latitudinal ApproachesTo effectively promote the adoption of a CFD among students at the university, a strategicframework can be implemented that utilizes both longitudinal and latitudinal methods of ideadissemination:● Longitudinal Approach: Empowering Student LeadersThe longitudinal element focuses on providing targeted educational workshops to influentialstudent leaders, such as executives of faculty undergraduate societies, leaders of large clubs, and otherpivotal figures within the student community. These workshops would aim to deepen theirunderstanding of CFD and the critical role they play in sustainability. We believe that encouraging33them to set a precedent by choosing sustainable options for events and meetings could significantlyinfluence the dietary habits of their members.● Latitudinal Approach: Integrating into Broader Educational ExperiencesSimultaneously, the latitudinal approach focuses on embedding CFD education into broadereducational settings and existing student engagement platforms. For academic integration, particularlywithin relevant faculties like LFS, introduce CFD concepts into foundational courses such as LFS100. This could involve lectures, projects, or assignments that explore the impact of dietary choices onthe environment and personal health. For students living in residence, provide a welcome kit thatincludes a booklet with information on selecting CFF, along with simple recipes that use sustainableingredients available on campus. This ensures that new students receive this crucial information rightfrom the start of their university experience.This dual approach ensures that the message of sustainable eating permeates through theleadership and influences broader student activities while also being ingrained in the educationalexperiences of all students, regardless of their involvement in student organizations. The universitycan create a comprehensive and pervasive culture of sustainability that could significantly impactstudents' dietary choices and awareness.5.1.2 Midterm-Term RecommendationsOnce students have an increased awareness of the relationship between food choices andenvironmental impact, it becomes crucial to enhance the visibility of CFF options. As discussed, thereis a significant need to increase both the affordability and availability of these options across UBCfood outlets. To address this, we propose introducing a pilot project to the UBC Food Service Teamaimed at modifying existing menus to highlight CFD more prominently. This initiative is designed tomake sustainable choices more apparent and accessible to students, supporting a shift towardsenvironmentally responsible eating habits on campus.5.1.2.1 Pilot Project: Menu ModificationThe proposed pilot project involves transitioning the standard menu offerings to primarilyvegetarian dishes, with the option to add meat as a topping (de Vaan et al., 2019). According to deVaan et al. 's research (2019), by adopting this modified menu, it increases the choice for a CFF dish34while keeping the willingness to eat at a restaurant. This structure inherently promotes CFF choices asthe default, emphasising their environmental benefits. Each menu item will be clearly CFF labelled toeducate students about its environmental impact, enhancing their understanding and awareness.Example menu modification provided in the (see Figure G4)5.1.2.2 Benefits of this pilot project● Cost-Effectiveness: It requires minimal initial investment since it primarily involves menuredesign rather than changes to the ingredients or pricing structure. The possibility of furtherlowering the price of the vegetarian option depends on the budget analysis by UBC FoodService.● Perception Management: By standardising costs across vegetarian and non-vegetarian optionsand only adding charges for meat toppings, this approach challenges the perception that CFFoptions are more expensive.5.1.2.3 Limitations of this pilot project● Assessment Needs: A dedicated team is necessary to evaluate the project’s impact andeffectiveness, ensuring that the menu modifications achieve the desired outcomes.● Scalability Challenges: Adapting this model to various types of food outlets, such as thosespecialising in burgers (e.g., Triple O’s), may require additional customization to fit differentculinary formats.5.1.3 Long-Term RecommendationsCurrently, the UBC CFF label has been introduced only within the UBC Residence Dininghalls (Open Kitchen, Gather, and Feast) (Climate-Friendly Food Label, 2022), we would recommendto scale up to other UBC food outlets on campus including the vendors in the AMS Nest. Thisconsistency helps in building familiarity and trust in the labels, which can significantly influencestudents' dietary choices. By integrating these labels effectively, UBC can foster a culture ofsustainability that supports students in making informed food choices that are aligned with theirvalues and the University's sustainability goals.355.1.3.1 Challenges for Scaling UpImplementing sustainable practices often comes with higher initial costs, which can be asignificant barrier. A lot of work is required with chefs and menu planners at each food outlet toassess and categorise existing menu items according to the established climate-friendly criteria. Thiswill involve training and continuous collaboration to adapt and develop new recipes that meet thesestandards.5.1.3.2 Possible Solution - Database BuildingTo manage the complexity of the assessment of CFF labels in different food outlets, theestablishment of CFF ingredient database, which would be a reproducible and accessible data analysismethod for food outlet owners to easily evaluate their food products with a consistent and accurateCFF label on the menu to all the food outlets on campus. However, we recognize the multifacetedchallenges of establishing a comprehensive database, such as the multi-dimensional environmentalimpact of different food production and the consistency and accuracy of data.5.1.3.3 Collaboration with peer institutionDue to the extensive workload and complexity of the data, collaborating with peer institutionswould be helpful in terms of enhancing the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the data, which alsoadvocates for a future implementation into communities.5.2 Recommendation for Future ResearchFollowing our project, there is a substantial opportunity for future research to understandfurther and address key aspects of student perceptions and behaviours regarding CFD at UBC. Onepromising avenue is to utilize the CBAR approach to investigate the prevalent misconception amongstudents that adopting a CFD is more expensive. Despite literature suggesting that maintaining aplant-based diet should be less costly (Pais et al., 2022), this perception persists. Research could focuson verifying the actual costs of such diets within the specific contexts of Vancouver and UBC,providing concrete data to challenge or confirm these beliefs.Despite the various commendable initiatives that UBC has already implemented such as CFFlabels, the plant-based food outlet Agora, and the Meatless Mondays Initiative at Open Kitchen; thereis a noticeable gap in the evaluation of these programs' effectiveness. Future studies could examine36the adherence and adaptability of these actions, providing insights that could inform further policydecisions regarding food system sustainability. This research would not only assess the current impactbut also guide improvements and encourage greater student engagement, ultimately enhancing theoverall efficacy of UBC's sustainability efforts in its food services. Such investigations are essentialfor refining and expanding initiatives to make the university's food system more sustainable and inalignment with global environmental goals.6. ConclusionThe comprehensive investigation into the eating habits and dietary preferences of UBCstudents, with a focused objective of aligning with the UBC’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2030 FoodActions target, has yielded significant insights and outcomes. The primary research goals weremultifaceted: to establish a foundational understanding of UBC students' dietary behaviours, identifybarriers hindering the adoption of sustainable eating habits, and develop actionable recommendationsto propel UBC towards a more sustainable food system.Throughout our study, various demographic factors, cultural influences, economicconsiderations, and accessibility/availability issues shaping students' dietary choices have beenexamined. Notably, the findings revealed complex and interesting patterns, with demographicbackgrounds, including ethnicity and faculty affiliation, exerting considerable influence on dietarypreferences. We discovered there are prevalent misconceptions regarding the affordability ofclimate-friendly diets, indicating a crucial need for targeted education and awareness campaigns todispel such notions.The study contributes significantly to the existing body of knowledge surrounding sustainablefood systems, particularly within university settings. By explaining the complexities of students'dietary behaviours and the underlying determinants, actionable insights are provided that can informpolicy decisions and strategic initiatives aimed at fostering sustainability on campus and beyond.However, it is imperative to acknowledge the limitations encountered during the researchprocess. Despite efforts to ensure sample representativeness, potential biases may have influencedsurvey responses, such as underrepresentation of certain demographics. Moreover, the qualitative data37collected may have lacked depth and consistency in some instances, warranting further explorationand refinement of data collection methods.Moving forward, addressing these limitations and conducting additional research will beessential for refining strategies and enhancing our understanding of sustainable food systems withinuniversity environments. Moreover, the implementation of our recommendations, ranging fromtargeted educational campaigns to menu modifications and labeling initiatives, holds the potential toeffect tangible change and catalyze a paradigm shift towards sustainability at UBC.This study underscores the pivotal role of universities in advancing sustainability agendas andfostering environmentally conscious behaviours among students. By leveraging our findings andrecommendations, UBC can lead the way for a more sustainable future, aligning with broader societalgoals of mitigating climate change and promoting environmental stewardship.387. ReferencesBarker-French, S. & Richer, L. (2013). UBC Sustainable Campus Food Guide. University of BritishColumbia Food Systems Project.https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/UBCSustainableCampusFoodGuide.pdfBimbo, F. (2023). Climate change-aware individuals and their meat consumption: Evidence fromItaly. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 36, 246-256.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.01.009Climate-Friendly Food Labels. (2022, December 15). Sustain.ubc.ca.https://sustain.ubc.ca/climate-friendly-food-labelsCorallo, A., Latino, M. E., Menegoli, M., & Spennato, A. (2019). A survey to discover current foodchoice behaviors. Sustainability, 11(18), 5041. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185041Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N., & Leip, A. (2021). FoodSystems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food,2(3), 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9 Deforche, B., Van Dyck, D., Deliens, T., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2015, February 15). Changes inweight, physical activity, sedentary behaviour and dietary intake during the transition tohigher education: a prospective study. SpringerLink.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12966-015-0173-9Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2006). Livestock's Long Shadow.Krattenmacher, J., Casal, P., Dutkiewicz, J., Huchard, E., Sanders, E., Treich, N., Wadiwel, D.,Williams, A., Bègue, L., Cardilini, A. P., Dhont, K., Dugnoille, J., Espinosa, R., Gagliano,M., Lairon, D., Maheta, M., Mendez, L., Nowicki, P., Quinn, T. P., … Twine, R. (2023).Universities should lead on the plant-based dietary transition. The Lancet Planetary Health,7(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(23)00082-7Lambrecht, N. J., Hoey, L., Bryan, A., Heller, M., & Jones, A. D. (2023). Limiting red meatavailability in a university food service setting reduces food-related greenhouse gasemissions by one-third. Climatic Change, 176(6), 67.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03543-yMaiter, S., Simich, L., Jacobsen, N. & Wise, J. (2008). Reciprocity: An ethic for community-basedparticipatory action research. Action Research, 6(3), 305-325. 10.1177/1476750307083720Magnus, A. M. & Rai, K. (2023). Doing rural community-based action research (CBAR): Communityperceptions and methodological impacts. Qualitative Research.https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941231188884Mäkiniemi, J.-P., & Vainio, A. (2014). Barriers to climate-friendly food choices among young adultsin Finland. Appetite, 74, 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.11.016Mitchell, C., Clausen, M., Tanovic, E., & Karl-Waithaka, Z. (2024, March 20). The whole truth aboutwhole grains. BCG Global.https://www.bcg.com/publications/2024/whole-truth-about-whole-grains#:~:text=These%20grains%20provide%20six%20to,environmental%20impact%20per%20nutritional%20unitPapadaki, A., Hondros, G., A. Scott, J., & Kapsokefalou, M. (2007). Eating habits of universitystudents living at, or away from home in Greece. Appetite, 49(1), 169–176.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.01.00839Pais, D. F., Marques, A. C., & Fuinhas, J. A. (2022). The cost of healthier and more sustainable foodchoices: Do plant-based consumers spend more on food? Agricultural and FoodEconomics, 10(1), 18-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-022-00224-9Rossa-Roccor, V. (2019). (rep.). Diet and Mental Wellbeing: Within a biopsychosocial framework anda planetary health rationale. Vancouver: UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program.Rust, N. A., Ridding, L., Ward, C., Clark, B., Kehoe, L., Dora, M., Whittingham, M. J., McGowan, P.,Chaudhary, A., Reynolds, C. J., Trivedy, C., & West, N. (2020). How to transition toreduced-meat diets that benefit people and the planet. Science of The Total Environment,718, 137208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137208Slapø, H. B., & Karevold, K. I. (2019). Simple eco-labels to nudge customers toward the mostenvironmentally friendly warm dishes: An empirical study in a cafeteria setting. Frontiersin Sustainable Food Systems, 3https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00040Slotnick, M. J., Falbe, J., Cohen, J. F. W., Gearhardt, A. N., Wolfson, J. A., & Leung, C. W. (2023).Environmental and climate impact perceptions in university students: Sustainabilitymotivations and perceptions correspond with lower red meat intake. Journal of theAcademy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 123(5), 740–750.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2022.09.015Stubbs, R. J., Scott, S. E., & Duarte, C. (2018). Responding to food, environment and healthchallenges by changing meat consumption behaviours in consumers. Nutrition Bulletin,43(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12318studierendenWERK Berlin. (2024). Retrieved on April 29, 2024 from https://www.stw.berlin/Taherdoost, H. (2017). Determining Sample Size; How to Calculate Survey Sample Size.International Journal of Economics and Management Systems, 2, 237-239.https://hal.science/hal-02557333The University of British Columbia. (2019). UBC’s climate emergency declaration. UBC ClimateEmergency.https://climateemergency.ubc.ca/category/faq/ubcs-climate-emergency-declaration/University of British Columbia. (2023). Fact Sheet Winter 2023: The University of British Columbia,Vancouver Campus [Fact Sheet]. UBC.https://pair.cms.ok.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/145/2023/12/Factsheets_2023_December.pdfUBC Food Services. (2024). Our vision and values. Our Vision and Values – FOOD AT UBCVANCOUVER. https://food.ubc.ca/our-vision-and-values/UBC Campus + Community Planning. (2024). Cap 2030 targets and actions: Food Systems. CAP2030 Targets and Actions: Food Systems | UBC Campus & Community Planning.https://planning.ubc.ca/sustainability/sustainability-action-plans/climate-action-plan-2030/cap-2030-targets-and-actions-food-systemsVockeroth, B. (n.d.). Climate-friendly food labels are making sustainable food choices easier oncampus. FOOD AT UBC VANCOUVER.https://food.ubc.ca/climate-friendly-food-labels/#:~:text=A%20major%20driver%20of%20the,food%20systems%20emissions%20by%202030.Xu, X., Sharma, P., Shu, S., Lin, T.-S., Ciais, P., Tubiello, F. N., Smith, P., Campbell, N., & Jain, A. K.(2021). Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those ofplant-based foods. Nature Food, 2(9), 724–732.https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x408. AppendicesAppendix A: Key Words- dietary choice climate change- dietary choice climate change university- students dietary choice- students dietary choice GHG- Reduce Red Meat consumption- On campus- Current university policies, actions, guidelines- Sustainable diet- Reduce GHG emission- University interventions- Shifts of dietary pattern for university students- Climate-friendly diet- Climate impact with the consumption of meat- Dietary shifts in recent years- University campus diets- Sustainable eating on university campus- Low GHG diets41Appendix B: Survey QuestionsSurvey_sample.pdf42Appendix C: Survey Flow/building4344Appendix D: List of People Contacted for Survey PromotionThe persons in bold have replied and promoted the survey.- VP Communication from Science Undergrad Society (SUS): vpcommunications@sus.ubc.ca- Media (media@aus.ubc.ca), Marketing ( marketing@aus.ubc.ca), and VP Engagement(vpengagement@aus.ubc.ca) from Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS)- LFSUS- VP Communication from Engineering Undergraduate Society (EUS):vpcomm@ubcengineers.ca- VP Communication from Law Student Society (LSS): info@ubclss.com- Commerce Undergraduate Society (CUS): communications@cus.ca- VP Communication from Kinesiology Undergraduate Society (KUS):kus.comms@gmail.com- VP Students (vpstudents@gss.ubc.ca) from Graduate Student Society (GSS)(communications@gss.ubc.ca)- Undergraduate Chemistry Society (UCS): undergraduatechemistrysociety@gmail.com- UBC Biological Sciences Society: bio.soc@ubc.ca- UBC Microbiology and Immunology Students’ Association: ubcmisa.contact@gmail.com- Social Coordinator from Storm Club: stormclububc@gmail.com- VP Social from Environmental Science Students’ Association: essa.ubc@gmail.com- UBC Mental Health Awareness Club (MHAC): ubcmhac@gmail.com- Biomedical Engineering Undergraduate Student Association: ugradbmesocial@gmail.com- Media & Communications Head from the Civil Engineering Graduate Student Society(CEGSS): cegss@civil.ubc.ca- IT Manager from UBC Fizz: itmanager@ubcfizz.com- Geological Engineering Undergraduate Club: geopresident@ubcengineers.ca- VP Communication from Integrated Engineers: site@integratedengineers.ca- Jessica Wolf from Medical Engineering Graduate Association (MEGA): jessica.wolf@ubc.ca- UBC Mining: ubcminingmedia@gmail.com45- G. M. Dawson Club: dawsonexecs@gmail.com- UBC Sustaingineering: sustaingineering@gmail.com- UBC Physics Society: physsoc@phas.ubc.ca46Appendix E: Promotional MaterialPoster: Instagram Story Design:GSS Graphic:47Appendix F: Times and Buildings visited on March 21st, 2024- 12:00 CIRS- 14:00-14:10 Fred Kaiser, ground floor and study spaces on the first floor close to the stairs- 14:10-14:25 MacLoed, first floor and ground floor- 14:25-14:30 The Rusty Hut- 14:30-14:45 Forestry Sciences, main study space on the ground floor- 14:45-15:00 IC/CS Building, where Pho Real is, up the stairs where study spaces are and thestudy spaces that are perpendicular to Main Mall on the first floor- 15:00-15:15 Earth Science Building, ground floor- 15:15-15:30 CIRS, ground floor, first and second floor48Appendix G: Primary Data Tables and Graphs4950Appendix H: Supplementary Data Tables and Graphs of the survey questionsFigures H1. and H2: Climate and non-climate friendly dietary sources predominantly consumed byUBC students.51Figure H3: Different criteria taken into consideration by UBC students when purchasing food items.Figure H4: The impact of food labels on the food purchasing decisions of UBC students.52Figure H5: The motivation of UBC students to adhere to a climate-friendly diet during exam periods(1: not motivated at all, 5: very motivated).Figure H6: Difficulties encountered by UBC students while attempting to select climate-friendlyoptions when dining at UBC.53Figure H7: Difficulties encountered by UBC students while attempting to select climate-friendlyoptions when dining outside of UBC.Figure H8: The extent to which UBC students concur with the statement: "I am willing to change mydietary habits to align with my environmental values, even if it requires sacrificing some convenienceor taste preferences”.
Report
eng
Unreviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Undergraduate
UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report
University of British Columbia. LFS 450
Food
Climate
Behaviour
Dietary
Understanding Eating Habits and Dietary Preferences that can Accelerate Positive Climate Actions
Text