Filtering by
- All Subjects: Choruses
Methods First-year students’ meal plan and residence information was provided by a large, public, southwestern university for the 2015-2016 academic year. A subset of students (n=619) self-reported their food security status. Logistic generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to determine if meal plan purchase and use were associated with food insecurity. Linear GEEs were used to examine several potential reasons for lower meal plan use. Logistic and Linear GEEs were used to determine similarities in meal plan purchase and use for a total of 599 roommate pairs (n=1186 students), and 557 floormates.
Results Students did not use all of the meals available to them; 7% of students did not use their meal plan for an entire month. After controlling for socioeconomic factors, compared to students on unlimited meal plans, students on the cheapest meal plan were more likely to report food insecurity (OR=2.2, 95% CI=1.2, 4.1). In Fall, 26% of students on unlimited meal plans reported food insecurity. Students on the 180 meals/semester meal plan who used fewer meals were more likely to report food insecurity (OR=0.9, 95% CI=0.8, 1.0); after gender stratification this was only evident for males. Students’ meal plan use was lower if the student worked a job (β=-1.3, 95% CI=-2.3, -0.3) and higher when their roommate used their meal plan frequently (β=0.09, 99% CI=0.04, 0.14). Roommates on the same meal plan (OR=1.56, 99% CI=1.28, 1.89) were more likely to use their meals together.
Discussion This study suggests that determining why students are not using their meal plan may be key to minimizing the prevalence of food insecurity on college campuses, and that strategic roommate assignments may result in students’ using their meal plan more frequently. Students’ meal plan information provides objective insights into students’ university transition.
College is the first time many students will experience living away from home and with learning how to manage college course loads, students also need to figure out how to feed themselves for the next four years. The focus of this thesis will be to assess the current food environment available at Arizona State University. The Perceived Food Environment (PFE) Model was used to evaluate the accessibility, affordability, acceptability, and adequacy of the residential dining halls, restaurants, and marketplaces.<br/><br/>The Tempe and Downtown Phoenix campuses’ food environments were used in this paper to determine what they offer and how healthy the food options are for students. Both campuses combined offer 32 possible choices for students to dine. The Tempe campus has 4 dining halls, 15 fast-casual restaurants, and 5 Provisions on Demand (P.O.D) Markets. The Downton campus has 1 dining hall, 6 fast-casual restaurants, 1 P.O.D Market, and 1 marketplace. <br/><br/>Both campuses have good accessibility to all their dining options, even though Downtown lacks many options compared to Tempe. Dining halls also have good accessibility for students who have meal plans. Affordability did vary among locations, it seemed as though many of the healthier restaurants were either too expensive or, in the case of Engrained on the Tempe campus, open for a short amount of time. The fast-casual restaurants seemed to be more affordable and appear in larger amounts than the healthier options. Marketplaces on campus lack fresh food to choose from, so they also promote the habit of poor eating choices. For acceptability, all dining options are popular on campus and accept payments in cash, card, or Maroon & Gold Dollars (M&G). <br/><br/>Overall, the food environment at ASU seems to favor more unhealthy food options. Students do not have much of a choice when needing to find food on campus because there is a lack of fresh ingredients or a kitchen to use. There are also barriers that risk promoting poor food choice that needs to be addressed to solve this problem.