TABLE 3.
Overview of characteristics and key findings of food interventions considering environmental sustainability in postsecondary campus settings1
| Authors | Location | Setting | Sample size | Intervention | Duration | Study design | Outcomes and measures | Summary of findings | Funding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahmed et al. (88) | Bozeman, MO, USA (Montana State University) | Dining hall | Students (n = 249 for survey) | Reduced portion size of all entrées by at least one-quarter. Serving utensils were replaced by smaller tongs, spoons, and ladles (leading to multiple scoops being required to serve the same amount of food). Messaging campaign to raise awareness on food waste; posters demonstrated strategies to reduce waste (e.g., mindful portion sizes, coming back for seconds, exploring all food options in the dining hall). Teach students to develop, implement, and evaluate a food waste intervention. | 3 wk | Pretest, posttest experiment (no control) | Food waste measurements: weighted food and nonfood waste for 3 d pre- and post-intervention. Plate waste measurement: visual estimates of amount of food waste on scale of 1–4 (less than one-quarter to more than three-quarters of the plate) and frequency of food item wasted. Survey (intercept technique): 5 questions on diner attitudes toward food waste. Participant reflections by research team: evaluating effectiveness of experiential learning project (focused more on teaching pedagogy; therefore, not included in data charting). | Although not statistically significant, the intervention demonstrated a 17% reduction in total food waste. Participants self-reported that the intervention made them think more about food waste and supported campus-wide efforts to address food waste through composting. Students reported that they would feel more concerned about food waste if the efforts allowed them to save money. | National Institute ofGeneral Medical Sciences of the NIH; Montana State University's Campus Sustainability Counciland Montana Institute on Ecosystems |
| Duram and Williams (89) | Carbondale, IL, USA | University campus | Students (n = 9) | Campus garden (led by students) to promote sustainability education; later helped to supply campus dining halls and campus farmer's markets. | 3-y evaluation | Case study using mixed methods (interviews, budget analysis) | Qualitative assessment of growth of garden and future recommendations. | Campus gardens were driven by student leadership and were committed to projects that aimed to improve campus food systems. Process of implementing the campus garden was documented. | Southern Illinois University (Green Fund) |
| Godfrey and Feng (90) | Calgary, Alberta, Canada | Dining hall | Students for interviews (n = 10). Students for pre- and posttest survey (n = 32). | Communication campaign on water footprints. Foods were categorized into easy-to-understand posters and labels to identify small, medium, and large water footprints. Low-water-footprint meals were recommended in the second week. | 3 wk | Pretest, posttest experiment (no control) using mixed methods | Production reports and sales report: behavior change (i.e., increase in proportion of low-water-footprint meals sold). price, lifestyle image, and food appearance; measure of belief; emotional response to using water footprint information). Interviews: food choices, how students perceived concepts of environmentally sustainable food and food choices, reactions and interpretations of water footprint signage. | Interviews demonstrated that students perceived environmentally sustainable foods as providing greater health benefits. Students also indicated that they opt for convenience over choosing environmentally sustainable foods. Compared with the pre-intervention period, there were no significant changes in consumption after the intervention. | Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council; University of Calgary Students Union Sustainability Fund |
| Lorenz-Walther et al. (91) | Germany | Canteen | Consumers (n = 503 at pretest; 377 at posttest) | Posters to raise awareness of food waste and provided strategies on how to avoid food waste (e.g., reminder to only take so much food and to choose more side dishes, invitation to ask for a smaller portion of a dish). Reduce portion size: for meat entrées, portion sizes were reduced from 140 g to 120 g or smaller scoops were used for sauces that contained meat (decreased from 100 g to 83 g sauce). | 30 wk; one 6-wk period for pretest and five 6-wk periods for posttest | Pretest, posttest quasi-experiment | Survey: cognitive attitude toward finishing food, perceived behavioral control over having plate leftovers, perceived subjective norms in finishing all food, portion size ratings, taste ratings. Plate leftovers (observed by videotaping of returned trays): leftovers were visually estimated. | Compared with the pretest period, there was a small decrease in food consumption and waste. Participants who indicated the informational campaign influenced their decisions to eat all the food on their plate had less leftovers than those who indicated that the campaign did not influence their decisions. | German Federal Ministry of Education and Research |
| Monroe et al. (92) | Northeastern USA | Online | Students for intervention group (n = 241 at pretest; n = 187 at posttest). Students for control group (n = 367 at pretest; n = 304 at posttest). | Four modules (1/wk) with topics on green eating behaviors, eating local, reducing waste, choosing environmentally friendly proteins. Modules included information displayed in text, pictures, and video clips, and included interactive questions/quizzes. | 5 wk | Pretest, posttest randomized controlled trial | Survey: “green eating” behavior scale (6 items related to pro-environmental food choices, shopping at farmer's markets, organic/fair-trade foods, meals without antibiotics or hormones, and frequency of purchasing meat or poultry labeled free range; decisional balance; self-efficacy at home and school; stage of change; knowledge assessment; readiness to change behavior based on module variables; confidence, relevance, attention, and satisfaction with program). | Compared with the pretest period, scores for “green eating” behavior increased among those who received the intervention. | University of Rhode Island |
| Mu et al. (93) | Union, NJ, NY, USA | University campus | None | Food waste composting system (in-vessel composting technology). | Not applicable | Cross-sectional | Plant growth, life cycle assessment (environmental impact), cost–benefit analysis. | The food waste composting system lowered greenhouse gas emissions, smog formation, fossil fuel use, and eutrophication when compared with a landfill waste system. | Kean University |
| Pinto et al. (94) | Lisbon, Portugal | Cafeteria | Cafeteria (∼240 students/d) | Posters about food waste. Students were trained to provide information on how to reduce plate waste and the social impact of food waste. | 4 wk; 10 d for pre- and posttest periods, respectively | Pretest, posttest ecologic study (no control) | Inorganic and organic waste from trays. Plate waste based on mean serving size. Monetary loss assessment. Waste consumption index to calculate amount of consumption and per capita waste consumption. | Compared with the pretest period, there was a ∼15% reduction in plate waste during the intervention. The information campaign was initially well-received by staff and students; however, interest in food waste declined as the intervention continued. | European Union Horizon 2020 research |
| Rajbhandari-Thapa et al. (95) | Southern USA | Dining halls | Students (n = 3153; n = 1564 in control group and n = 1589 in intervention group) | Removed trays to encourage reduced portions. | 1 wk | Pretest, posttest quasi-experiment (with control) | Number of lunch entrée servings; number of drink servings; number of salad servings; number of dessert servings; number of lunch entrées, salads, and dessert servings with at least one-quarter left over; and number of lunch entrée servings with at least one-quarter left over. | Compared with the control group, students in the dining hall without trays self-selected fewer servings of lunch entrée and drink items. Cafeterias without trays demonstrated fewer servings with leftovers. | None to report |
n = 8 interventions across 8 records.