FINAL SEMINAR REPORT
Behaviors and Numbers: Investigating Grab ‘n Go
Final Report by Alana Miller
Project in Collaboration with Camila Fierro
EVS 300 Seminar
Smith College
7 May 2010
1
Abstract
Since Grab ‘n Go’s implementation in 2004, members of the Smith College campus
community have been concerned with its operational design, as one based on producing large
quantities of waste at every meal. This most recent investigation sought to answer questions
about basic student behaviors in relation to Grab ‘n Go, about the amount of waste generated
through the system and to begin investigating solutions to perceived problems. Two senior
Environmental Science and Policy (ES+P) seminar students, Camila Fierro and Alana Miller,
created a comprehensive survey and conducted statistically significant interviews with students
who use Grab ‘n Go, as well as interviews with key staff members about the operation. The
results show a shocking amount of waste is generated daily by the system, which goes directly to
a landfill where it cannot decompose. Interviews indicated that many students use Grab ‘n Go for
reasons other than its intended purpose (of taking food to-go), that many students are concerned
about the environmental impacts of the system, and that the majority of students would be open
to alternative, more sustainable solutions. The study’s findings fit well within the context of
Smith’s commitment to sustainability, as well as its responsibility as an institution of higher
education to foster awareness of environmental surroundings and critical thinking about
community impact and actions.
2
Introduction
The system of Grab ‘n Go was designed to cater to students’ busy schedules by allowing
students who are unable to sit down for lunch in a traditional dining hall to take food wherever
they needed to go (Mahar, Pat. Personal interview, April 2010). However, the design is
inherently unsustainable, whereby students can use up to five plastic containers per visit to Grab
‘n Go, which are thrown into the trash afterwards. Though Dining Services has been spending
additional money on corn-based “biodegradable” plastics, Roger Guzowski, Five College
Recycling Manager explains that the material only composts back into organic material in the
right conditions. In a landfill, where all Grab ‘n Go waste currently ends up, the containers are
unable to break down (Personal interview, April 2010).
Several studies had been conducted previously about waste produced by Grab ‘n Go by
students in the EVS Seminar. In 2005, two students, Irma Torres-Leon and Wiam Turki-Judeh,
collected food and garbage scraps for three days from Chapin and Hubbard as Grab ‘n Go houses
which was then compared to waste at Tyler and Cushing, non Grab ‘n Go houses. Their
recommendations included not providing water bottles or paper bags at Grab ‘n Go, as well as
composting in all dining halls; these recommendations have since been implemented by the
college. More recently, in 2009, Julia Beaty conducted a survey of 55 students eating in Hubbard
and interviewed dining staff. Her recommendations are helpful, including closing Hubbard’s
open seating during Grab n’ Go, reducing the number of options in plastic containers, and giving
students Tupperware.
Most recently, in Fall 2009, a Green Team effort spearheaded by Davida Ginsberg took
on the challenge of addressing Grab ‘n Go. Ginsberg, Miller (author of this report), and several
other student members of Green Team began conducting interviews in hopes of answering
3
questions about student use and perceptions of Grab ‘n Go. After several weeks of hard work,
however, the task proved too daunting to be carried out within the context of Green Team. At the
time of this study, many different parties (including Green Team, Dining Services and the
student body) recognized the inherent problems of Grab ‘n Go and were eager to implement
solutions, though stated the need for concrete data before moving forward with solutions.
Consequentially, conducting the study through the ES+P seminar appeared to be the best option
to produce the most comprehensive results. Working off of the Green Team study design, Fierro
and Miller planned to complete 460 interviews with students, analyze the data and suggest
reasonable short and long-term solutions to the college.
Methodology
Designing the Study
Before interviews were conducted, Nicholas Horton, Associate Professor of Statistics at
Smith was consulted regarding the study design and questions. Following his advice, a series of
six questions were developed in order to address issues raised by different bodies on campus
regarding student behavior at Grab ‘n Go. The questions were open-ended to allow room for
diverse opinions and the most leading question was asked last. Ultimately, the interviews sought
to address how often students were going to Grab ‘n Go, why, which area of campus they lived
in, where they were taking the food, if they were concerned about the waste generated and if they
would consider alternatives to the current system.
4
Reviewing Dining Services Data
Dining Services records were reviewed to obtain information on how many students go to
Grab ‘n Go throughout the academic year. Of interest was the average number of students using
Chapin and Hubbard every day (Monday through Friday), how the number of swipes is
distributed during the hours the two dining halls are open (10:00-11:00, 11:00-12:00 and 12:001:00 for Chapin, and 11:00-12:00 and 12:00-1:00 at Hubbard), and if there are trends in usage
over different seasons. Data from the 2009-2010 academic year was used for September –
February, while March and April 2009 was substituted for Spring 2010’s numbers (since the data
was collected in March and the swipe numbers were not yet available). Wednesday was assumed
to be a typical day for number of swipes (as suggested by Pat Mahar, manager of Chapin and
Hubbard) and the total number of swipes, as well as their hourly distribution was recorded for
every Wednesday of the school year.
The average number of students using Grab ‘n Go at Chapin was found to be 625 per day
(Appendix A), with a standard deviation of 53. At Hubbard, an average of 207 students go every
day (Appendix B), with a standard deviation of 44. Based on these numbers, for a 95%
statistically significant confidence level, 306 interviews were needed at Chapin, and 154 at
Hubbard.
Interviewing
Camila Fierro and Alana Miller conducted the majority of the interviews, with additional
help from Green Team members Davida Ginsberg and Ollie Shwartz. For approximately two and
a half weeks, interviewers stood at the exit of Chapin and Hubbard during lunch hours and asked
students interview questions while recording their responses.
5
The exact questions asked were:
1. How many times did you come to [Chapin or Hubbard] for Grab ‘n Go last week?
2. Why did you come today?
3. What house do you live in?
4. Where do you take the food?
5. Are you concerned about the waste generated by Grab ‘n Go?
6. Would you be open to alternatives? What if Smith gave students Tupperware?
Interview answers were then compiled in Excel spreadsheets to determine averages, trends and
percentages regarding student behavior and perceptions.
Results
Usage
Dining services records allowed for identification of trends regarding monthly, daily and hourly
distribution of student use of Grab ‘n Go.
Monthly distribution:
The number of daily swipes was examined across all months of the school year to
determine if weather or seasons played a role in how often students were using Grab ‘n Go each
day. The results don’t show a significant pattern and it is evident that a lot of students go to Grab
‘n Go during all months of the year, though Hubbard shows more erratic distribution than
Chapin. (Note: The drop in January is attributed to the fact that school is only in session for one
week of January, during which many students are not yet on campus and do not yet have set
schedules)
6
Average number of
daily swipes
Academic year 2009-2010
Fig. 1a: Chapin: Average number of daily swipes over the academic year. Through the
academic year 2009-2010, the graph shows the average number of students going to Chapin per
day. For Averages and Standard Deviation per month, See Appendix A.
Average number
of daily swipes
Academic year 2009-2010
Fig. 1b: Hubbard: Average number of daily swipes over the academic year. Through the
academic year 2009-2010, the graph shows the average number of students going to Hubbard per
day. For Averages and Standard Deviation per month, See Appendix B.
7
Hourly distribution:
Traditional lunchtime dining halls are open from 11:30-1:30, whereas Chapin is open
10:00-1:00 and Hubbard from 11:00-1:00 every school day for Grab ‘n Go. This leaves several
additional hours where Grab ‘n Go is the only meal option for students. The records clearly show
(Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) that while most students go during the regular lunch hour of 12:00-1:00 (320
on average daily at Chapin, 155 on average daily at Hubbard), many students go during the
additional hours (306 at Chapin between 10:00-12:00 and 52 at Hubbard between 11:00-12:00
on average daily). Therefore, the hours the two dining halls are open likely influence students’
use, though it is difficult to determine to what degree. During the interview period, the students
conducting the study had class most days during the times when Hubbard and Chapin were open
aside from the regular lunch hour. Therefore, (as seen in the second question below regarding
factors influencing use) it is likely more students would’ve said hours open influenced their
decision to use Grab ‘n Go, had more interviews been conducted during those hours.
Hours
open
Average swipes
Fig. 2a. Chapin: Average number of daily swipes distributed per hour. Taken from dining
records of the average number of swipes in Chapin (each day, over the 2009-2010 school year)
per hour of operation.
8
12:00‐1:00
155
Hours open
11:00‐12:00
52
Average swipes
Fig. 2b. Hubbard: Average number of daily swipes distributed per hour. Taken from
dining records of the average number of swipes in Hubbard (each day, over the 2009-2010
school year) per hour of operation.
How many times did you come here for Grab ‘n Go last week?
Based on our student interviews, the average number of visits to Grab ‘n Go was 2.5
times per week at Chapin (with a standard deviation of 1.3) and 2.7 times per week at Hubbard
(also with a standard deviation of 1.3).
9
Why did you come today?
In thinking about the two Grab ‘n Go dining halls, it is evident that there are many factors
which make them attractive options for students, aside from their intended purpose of taking
food to-go. One factor, as mentioned above, is the hours they are open when other dining halls
are closed; also their central location makes them the closest dining halls to many houses and
academic buildings, as well as the library and Campus Center. The menu options at both dining
halls are very distinct from other dining halls, offering students unique, and usually very wellmade, delicious food items, including salads, deli sandwiches, egg sandwiches and cut fruit.
Additionally, the menu is consistent and students know what to expect before going. Finally,
many students do use Grab ‘n Go because the food is prepackaged, making the system (usually)
quicker and easier than a traditional dining hall. An aspect of taking food to-go is nice weather,
since many students will take Grab ‘n Go to sit on campus lawns.
Based on our surveys, other factors besides pre-packaged food play a huge role in
students’ decisions to go to Chapin or Hubbard for lunch. At Chapin, only 34% stated that prepackaged food was the primary reason they went that day. 10% of those surveyed stated hours
were the biggest factor in their coming (though, as stated above, this is probably under-recorded
based on the hours the interviewers were available); 26% went because of the location, 23%
because of the menu items, and 7% stated they wanted to eat on the lawn.
At Hubbard, the results vary slightly, with fewer people going because of the pre-packaged food
(only 21%), whereas 35% stated going because of the menu options, and another 35% for the
location. 8% reported hours as the most significant factor.
10
Fig. 3a. Chapin: Stated reasons for going to Chapin for Grab ‘n Go. Survey results from Chapin
show that 34% of students use Chapin for its intended use, pre-packaged food, while the majority
has other primary reasons for going.
Fig. 3b. Hubbard: Stated reasons for going to Hubbard for Grab ‘n Go. Survey results from
Hubbard show that 21% of students use Hubbard for its intended use, pre-packaged food, while
the majority has other primary reasons for going.
11
Where do you take the food?
Various parties on campus were interested in the question of where students were taking
the food from Grab ‘n Go, primarily to determine how to compost the waste produced, since
students go to various locations around campus. Without a central destination, it could be
difficult to collect all the waste used. The results also raised important questions about Smith
culture in general.
At Chapin it was found that nearly a quarter of students reported going to the Campus
Center to eat, therefore representing a good location for implementing a central compost location
for the compostable waste.
Aside from logical assumptions of going to class, academic buildings and the library or
work, a huge proportion of students (40% at Chapin, 25% at Hubbard) said they take the food
back to their rooms to eat (most frequently to do homework). Additionally, 7% at Chapin and
11% at Hubbard were going to the library to eat. In terms of social atmosphere, this seems like a
culture that Smith shouldn’t foster – students so stressed out and busy that they cannot sit for half
an hour to eat lunch. This factor is in many ways a complete reversal of the previous dining
system where everyone ate in their own house, with their house members.
Another interesting result, which is evident by entering the dining hall as well, is how
many students eat in Hubbard itself. 23% of students said they usually eat lunch within Hubbard,
and this is clear by the fact that most tables are usually full during lunch rushes. Pat Mahar has
called this “Grab ‘n Stay” which completely defeats the purpose of providing a Grab ‘n Go
option for students. It is clear, then, that many students are simply going for other factors, like
the food choice, and that traffic to Hubbard could be reduced by nearly a quarter if “Grab ‘n
Stay” could be accurately addressed.
12
Fig. 4a. Chapin: Where students take Grab ‘n Go food from Chapin. Many students using
Chapin Grab ‘n Go eat in the Campus Center or their rooms.
Fig. 4b. Hubbard: Where students take Grab ‘n Go food from Hubbard. Many students
using Hubbard Grab ‘n Go actually “Grab ‘n Stay”, eating in the dining hall itself.
13
Are you concerned about the waste generated?
Surprisingly a lot of Smithies unabashedly said no, they were not concerned about the
waste produced, usually because they hadn’t even thought about it. At Chapin 37% said no, they
were not concerned, while 18% said maybe. At Hubbard, 43% said no and 22% said maybe. This
means there is a lot of room for education, by students and by the college as a whole.
But still, nearly half of Chapin-goers said they were concerned, and so did 35% of people
at Hubbard. Encouragingly, many students reported that the surveys and our presence had greatly
influenced how often they were coming to Grab ‘n Go, what items they were taking, and their
perception of the waste they were producing.
Fig. 5a. Chapin: Whether or not students are concerned about Grab ‘n Go waste. Nearly
half of students at Chapin said they were concerned about the waste, including plastic containers
and disposable items.
14
22%
43%
Mayb
e
Yes
35%
Fig. 5b. Hubbard: Whether or not students are concerned about Grab ‘n Go waste. Only
35% of students eating at Hubbard reported being concerned about the waste produced.
Would you consider an alternative? What if Smith gave out Tupperware?
Most positively from the survey, the majority of students said they would be open to
alternatives to the system to make it more sustainable. 68% at Chapin reported they would
consider alternatives, along with 60% at Hubbard. Most students were really excited about Smith
giving out Tupperware at Central Check-In and implementing systems to encourage Tupperware
use. While it is understandable that answering a survey about altering ones behavior is much
easier than actually making lifestyle changes, the student feedback was nonetheless very
encouraging.
15
Fig. 6a. Chapin: Would students consider an alternative at Grab ‘n Go, like Tupperware? The
majority of students were interested in more sustainable alternatives to Grab ‘n Go.
Fig. 6b. Hubbard: Would students consider an alternative at Grab ‘n Go, like Tupperware? Over
half the students at Hubbard were interested in more sustainable alternatives for Grab ‘n Go.
16
Discussion
With comprehensive data on student opinions and behaviors regarding Grab ‘n Go, as
well as support from Dining Services, Green Team and other bodies on campus, it seems very
likely that positive changes could be made to reduce waste from Grab ‘n Go, hopefully
beginning this year. We found through the survey that there is a lot of room for Smith to improve
the Grab ‘n Go system and believe that the school is well positioned to do so.
Ultimately, we believe in following the age-old adage: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. The
study results suggest that students should be educated on reducing (being conscious of the waste
they are generated and making educated lifestyle choices), that a system should allow reusing
(through Tupperware), and for what we cannot reuse, there should be infrastructure to recycle (or
compost).
Important findings from the survey include:
*Hours: A significant number of students use Chapin and Hubbard for Grab ‘n Go
because they are the only dining halls open for several hours of the day. This could be addressed
by reducing the hours Grab ‘n Go houses are open, and/or by expanding hours of another dining
hall to allow students to get breakfast at later hours than currently offered (until 9:30 am).
*Menu: Many students are going to Chapin and Hubbard because they like the food
offered. In particular, students reported really enjoying hot egg sandwiches at Hubbard, as well
as the cottage cheese. At Chapin, students like having cold, pre-made sandwiches for lunch, and
yogurt. For both houses, students said they like knowing what to expect when they go. These
menu changes could be implemented in other dining halls to encourage students to eat elsewhere
instead of Grab ‘n Go.
17
*Social atmosphere: The number of students taking food to eat alone in their rooms or
the library to do work is concerning. Grab ‘n Go is consequentially supporting an unhealthy
atmosphere of stress and anti-socialization, which does not fit in with the college’s goals.
*Composting: Because nearly a quarter of all students going to Chapin for Grab ‘n Go
reported going to the Campus Center, we believe the Campus Center would be an ideal place to
begin a pilot composting program, so students can compost the food scraps and containers from
Grab ‘n Go.
*Education: A surprising number of students had never thought about the environmental
implications of their use of Grab ‘n Go and waste production in general. We reject a disposable
lifestyle and believe the college should encourage consciousness among students and foster a
sense of community responsibility.
*Solutions: While the current system of Grab ‘n Go is incredibly unsustainable, we
believe there are many solutions available to fix the system. Below are short-term, mid-range,
and long-term recommendations for the college:
Short-Term:
We believe these changes could be implemented in the 2010-2011 academic year.
1. Sustainability Intern tasks: The college has hired student interns to address issues of
sustainability on campus. We recommend that part of their job is educating students
on Grab ‘n Go and helping Grab ‘n Go dining staff with sustainability efforts.
2. Tupperware distribution: Every year, the college gives students at Central Check-in a
reusable water bottle, or mug, or other container to promote sustainability. For Fall of
2010, it would be very beneficial to give out Tupperware to students and remind
18
students that dining services is happy to run their Tupperware through the kitchen
dishwashers.
3. Switch to paper products: Through discussions with Roger Guzowski of Recycling,
we recommend that the Grab ‘n Go locations switch from “biodegradable” plastic to
paper based containers. There is currently no regulation on how bioplastics are
labeled, and while they may break down in lab tests, it is not certain how they react in
traditional compost piles. Furthermore, paper products provide farmers’ compost with
necessary carbon to aid in organic material breakdown. Guzowski estimates that with
this switch, the farmer Smith currently brings compost to would be able to compost
Grab ‘n Go containers as well.
4. Pilot Compost: In order to begin collecting used Grab ‘n Go containers, the college
should implement a pilot program in the Campus Center. Education would be crucial
in making sure only truly compostable products are put in the bin.
Mid-Range
1. Permanent compost receptacles: Within a few years, the college should be able to
establish permanent receptacles around campus so students can dispose of
compostable materials.
2. Pilot Tupperware at Grab ‘n Go: It would be beneficial to test using Tupperware as an
alternative to disposable containers. Possibilities include having students check-out
Tupperware when they enter Grab ‘n Go (the Tupperware being connected to the
student’s account like a library book), and filling the container with premade food or
taking a Tupperware pre-filled by dining staff. Students would be responsible for
19
returning the Tupperware before they could “check-out” another one. Pat Mahar has
expressed interest in this program, though issues of OneCard technology and
sanitation remain an issue.
Long-Term
1. Permanent Tupperware System: Ultimately the college would switch from a
disposable system to one based on re-using materials and resources. Instead of
throwing out waste after every meal at Grab ‘n Go, students would simply return their
used Tupperware. Such a system is ideally sustainable, as it is a closed system,
whereby materials used are used again, with little to no waste.
Conclusion
The findings and recommendations of this study complement the goals of Smith College
as a forward-thinking, innovative institution. Smith is already making great strides in becoming
more sustainable and addressing the issues of Grab ‘n Go would certainly help this process.
Fundamentally, the college should be fostering a culture of balanced lives while also meeting the
needs of busy students, without supporting unsustainable systems that compromise the natural
environment. Ultimately, as a community, we should strive to be conscious of our actions and
consider our personal, as well as collective impact on the world.
20
Acknowledgements
This report is simply one piece of the puzzle to making Smith College more sustainable
and could not have been done, nor would have any weight, without the commitment and
dedication of people all over campus who share a vision of sustainability.
Specifically for this project, I extend many thanks to Pat Mahar, manager of Chapin and
Hubbard, for spending hours with Camila and me, pulling out records and brainstorming
solutions; to Roger Guzowski, Five College Recycling manager, for his invaluable knowledge
about all things wasteful and his sustained interest in student work; to Dano Weisbord,
Sustainability Director, for his advice, support and incredible work. Also many thanks to Tierney
Richi of Hubbard dining for making seemingly endless hours of interviewing so much better and
offering her insight into the operation (as well as putting out great food for hundreds of
Smithies!). I also want to thank Dining Services and Kathy Zieja for their hard work in juggling
student demands and their sincere interest in sustainability. And finally, thank you Professor
Smith for teaching a great class and fostering student awareness and involvement.
21
Appendix A:
Chapin: Number of swipes for 2009-2010 school year, taken from every Wednesday of March,
April, September, November, and December of 2009, and January and February of 2010. Swipes
are broken down by hour, followed by the total. Also, shown are average total swipes per month
and Standard Deviation.
Date
9/14/2009
9/21/2009
9/28/2009
10/19/2009
10/26/2009
11/2/2009
11/9/2009
11/16/2009
11/23/2009
11/30/2009
12/7/2009
12/14/2009
1/25/2010
2/1/2010
2/8/2010
2/15/2010
2/22/2010
3/4/2010
3/14/2010
3/24/2010
4/3/2010
4/13/2010
4/23/2010
AVG
STDEV
10:0011:00
116
124
143
155
172
192
188
213
189
173
203
192
136
170
222
224
242
116
124
143
155
172
192
172
36.26418
11:0012:00
82
114
109
135
110
107
126
112
137
113
112
121
83
106
104
102
122
82
114
109
135
110
107
110.956522
15.0165916
12:001:00
421
448
431
302
323
336
331
343
268
242
310
270
234
318
317
298
276
421
448
431
302
323
336
336.0435
65.69107
Total
619
686
683
592
605
635
645
668
594
528
625
583
453
594
643
624
640
619
686
683
592
605
635
619
53.11651002
Avg
STDEV
Sept:
663
38
599
9.2
614
55
604
453
29.69848481
0
625.25
22.4406625
March:
662.6666667
37.8461799
April:
610.6666667
22.05296654
Oct:
Nov:
Dec:
Feb:
22
Appendix B:
Hubbard: Number of swipes for 2009-2010 school year, taken from every Wednesday of March,
April, September, November, and December of 2009, and January and February of 2010. Swipes
are broken down by hour, followed by the total. Also, shown are average total swipes per month
and Standard Deviation.
Date
9/14/2009
9/21/2009
9/28/2009
10/5/2009
10/19/2009
10/26/2009
11/2/2009
11/9/2009
11/16/2009
11/23/2009
11/30/2009
12/7/2009
12/14/2009
1/25/2010
2/1/2010
2/8/2010
2/15/2010
2/22/2010
3/1/2010
3/8/2010
3/9/2010
3/23/2010
3/30/2010
4/6/2010
4/13/2010
4/20/2010
4/27/2010
AVG
STDEV
11:0012:00
26
16
54
28
57
62
53
57
55
51
62
54
63
33
58
55
73
58
55
73
74
53
67
59
48
53
45
53.40741
13.926343
12:00-1:00
136
77
163
48
144
145
174
167
152
149
146
177
150
114
164
192
181
160
170
156
195
160
173
171
179
187
133
154.185185
32.60962227
Total
162
93
217
76
201
207
227
224
207
200
208
231
213
147
222
247
254
218
225
229
269
213
240
230
227
240
178
207.5926
43.875049
AVG
STDEV
Sept:
157.3333333
62.13158081
Oct:
161.3333333
73.9617018
Nov:
213.2
11.69187752
222
147
12.72792206
235.25
17.91414711
235.2
21.21791696
218.75
27.72934667
Dec:
Feb:
March:
April:
23