The food environment at a South African university campus- an exploratory case study
1
SAMRC/Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science – PRICELESS SA, University of the Witwatersrand, School of Public Health, Parktown, Johannesburg, South Africa
Popul. Med. 2026;8(Supplement Supplement 1):A1325
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
Food environments are the physical and social spaces that structure individual food practices which influence the risk of obesity and nutrition-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Creating healthy food environments is one way that universities can achieve their public good mandate and contribute to achieving sustainable development goals (e.g. Zero Hunger, Health) and targets (e.g. end all forms of malnutrition).
METHODS:
We conducted a mixed method study, aimed at characterising the food environment of a South African university campus. Student co-researchers participated throughout the process. We collected data using key informant interviews with university management staff and food retailers, focus group discussions with students, ethnographic observations of food environments and a survey of food store inventories. Data were analysed using descriptive statistical and thematic approaches, informed by a framework which conceptualises food environments around six elements- availability, affordability, convenience, quality, promotion and sustainability.
RESULTS:
Unhealthy foods and drinks, especially fried potatoes and sugary drinks, were more prominently available and promoted, compared to healthier alternatives. Healthy foods were perceived to be less tasty and satiating (both aspects of perceived “quality”) and less convenient and more expensive to access than unhealthy foods. University management relied on general policies (e.g. sustainability or student success frameworks) to guide their work, in the absence of national or institutional policies focused on institutional food environments. They invoked student preferences for unhealthy options, and economic constraints, to justify the availability and promotion of unhealthy foods on campus.
CONCLUSIONS:
The university campus food environment was characterised by widespread availability, affordability, convenience and promotion of unhealthy foods associated with obesity and nutrition related NCDs. An institutional policy, which sets standards to guide and govern a campus food environment that is more conducive to health, would contribute to the university’s achievement of SDGs and its public good mandate.
Food environments are the physical and social spaces that structure individual food practices which influence the risk of obesity and nutrition-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Creating healthy food environments is one way that universities can achieve their public good mandate and contribute to achieving sustainable development goals (e.g. Zero Hunger, Health) and targets (e.g. end all forms of malnutrition).
METHODS:
We conducted a mixed method study, aimed at characterising the food environment of a South African university campus. Student co-researchers participated throughout the process. We collected data using key informant interviews with university management staff and food retailers, focus group discussions with students, ethnographic observations of food environments and a survey of food store inventories. Data were analysed using descriptive statistical and thematic approaches, informed by a framework which conceptualises food environments around six elements- availability, affordability, convenience, quality, promotion and sustainability.
RESULTS:
Unhealthy foods and drinks, especially fried potatoes and sugary drinks, were more prominently available and promoted, compared to healthier alternatives. Healthy foods were perceived to be less tasty and satiating (both aspects of perceived “quality”) and less convenient and more expensive to access than unhealthy foods. University management relied on general policies (e.g. sustainability or student success frameworks) to guide their work, in the absence of national or institutional policies focused on institutional food environments. They invoked student preferences for unhealthy options, and economic constraints, to justify the availability and promotion of unhealthy foods on campus.
CONCLUSIONS:
The university campus food environment was characterised by widespread availability, affordability, convenience and promotion of unhealthy foods associated with obesity and nutrition related NCDs. An institutional policy, which sets standards to guide and govern a campus food environment that is more conducive to health, would contribute to the university’s achievement of SDGs and its public good mandate.
| eISSN: | 2654-1459 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
