The Greening of a School District

Hahn, Nancy I.

doi:10.1016/s0002-8223(97)00088-6

Cited by 2 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most studies (n = 14) encompassed the entire school (including administrative offices, classrooms, and restrooms in addition to school foodservice locations), thereby increasing the amount and type of food packaging waste and more general school MSW analyzed [19,20,35,[37][38][39][40][41][42][44][45][46][47][48][49], such as silt, soil, and mud [38], textiles [39], or leather [40]. The other 10 studies occurred in school foodservice locations only (e.g., cafeterias) [7,15,18,34,36,43,[50][51][52][53].…”

Section: Settings Participants Designs and Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In both objective and subjective methodologies, there were study participants; in studies with objective methods, study participants generated the waste, while in subjective methods, they participated in the questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups. Students were the sole study participant in 7 of the studies [7,15,20,35,38,50,52]. Staff and administrators were the study participants in 5 studies [18,34,36,48,51].…”

Section: Settings Participants Designs and Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 24 studies included, 14 were observational (no intervention tested) and 10 were experimental (tested an intervention). Twenty studies were cross-sectional and 4 used a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design [15,19,45,50]. In addition to the 4 pretestposttest studies, 6 cross-sectional studies evaluated an intervention [44,47,49,[51][52][53].…”

Section: Settings Participants Designs and Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interventions included implementing a program aimed to reduce waste generation or increase recycling (such as training and informal peer-based education) [15,19,44,51,52], formal education (such as classroom-based or curriculum-oriented programs) [47,50,53], or both [45,49]. Intervention studies involved data collection both before and after the invention was implemented (pretest-posttest) and one-time data collection (cross-sectional).…”

Section: Settings Participants Designs and Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the fact that research began several decades ago on food packaging waste from school foodservice and produced substantive recommendations on how to reduce it, limited success has been achieved in reducing food packaging waste in school foodservice settings. A 1992-1993 study in a Louisiana school district determined that transitioning school foodservice milk packaging from cartons to individual mini-pouches could cut waste volume by 70% and save USD 30,000 annually in operation costs [15,16]; yet milk remains served in cartons in most schools across the U.S. [16,17]. A 2003 study of institutional foodservice (including schools) demonstrated the high expense of comingling organic waste with nonorganic waste in landfill bins, which also resulted in negative environmental impacts [18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluating Food Packaging Waste in Schools: A Systematic Literature Review

Lee

Thompson

Gosliner

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public schools in the U.S. generate about 14,500 tons of municipal solid waste daily, and approximately 42% of that is food packaging generated by school foodservice, contributing significantly to the global packaging waste crisis. This literature review summarizes methods used to evaluate food packaging waste in school foodservice. This review has two objectives: first, to understand which methodologies currently exist to evaluate food packaging waste generation and disposal in school foodservice; and second, to describe the creation of and share a practical standardized instrument to evaluate food packaging waste generation and disposal in school foodservice. A systematic review was conducted using the following search terms: solid waste, school, cafeteria and food packaging, waste, and school. The final review included 24 studies conducted in school environments (kindergarten through twelfth grade or college/university), 16 of which took place in the U.S. Food packaging waste evaluations included objective methods of waste audits, models, and secondary data as well as subjective methods of qualitative observations, questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups. Large variation exists in the settings, participants, designs, and methodologies for evaluating school foodservice packaging waste. Lack of standardization was observed even within each methodology (e.g., waste audit). A new instrument is proposed to support comprehensive and replicable data collection, to further the understanding of school foodservice food packaging waste in the U.S., and to reduce environmental harms.

show abstract