A case study of changes in the healthiness, equity, and environmental sustainability of an Australian university food environment: Findings from two audits using the Uni-Food Tool (2022–2025) — ASN Events
  1. Schedule
  2. Lunch, Networking, Exhibition Viewing & Poster Presentations
  3. A case study of changes in the healthiness, equity, and environmental sustainability of an Australian university food environment: Findings from two audits using the Uni-Food Tool (2022–2025)

A case study of changes in the healthiness, equity, and environmental sustainability of an Australian university food environment: Findings from two audits using the Uni-Food Tool (2022–2025) (129764)

Kaycee Hassarati 1 , Karen KW Yuen 1 , Bill Lam 2 , Natalie Chiew 3 , Amanda L Grech 3 , Margaret Allman-Farinelli 1 4 , Alice Gibson 4 5 , Rajshri Roy 1 4
  1. Nutrition and Dietetics, Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia
  2. School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
  3. The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  4. Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia
  5. Leeder Centre for Health Policy, Economics and Data, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia

This case study aimed to benchmark the healthiness, equity, and environmental sustainability of a large, urban Australian university food environment using two cross-sectional audits conducted in 2022 and 2025. The audits were undertaken across two campuses using the Uni-Food tool, a validated framework comprising 68 best-practice indicators spanning three components: policy, campus facilities, and food retail outlets (1). Four assessors independently completed the audits, achieving excellent inter-rater reliability (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.89) (2). Each indicator was scored and weighted to generate final component and overall scores out of 100. Descriptive and inferential statistics, including non-parametric tests, were used to compare outcomes across the two time points (3). The university’s overall score improved modestly from 48% in 2022 to 52% in 2025. The policy component remained low (48%), with strengths in 'Leadership and Planning' (85%) but continued gaps in 'Policies for Food Retail Environments' (36%) and 'Monitoring and Reporting' (40%). The campus facilities component scored 63%, performing well in 'Personal and Community Development' (82%) and 'Environmental Impact' (76%), but poorly in 'Advertising and Sponsorship' (45%). Food retail scored lowest overall at 36%, with 'Nutrition Information' being the weakest domain (19%). The findings highlight incremental progress in food environment improvements, alongside persistent shortfalls in policy coverage and food retail practices. Continued investment in policy development, campus-wide strategies, and retail innovations is essential to foster healthier, more equitable, and environmentally sustainable food environments in tertiary education settings.

  1. Mann D, et al. (2021) Int J Environ Res Public Health 18, 11876
  2. Cohen J (1960) Educ Psychol Meas 20, 37–46
  3. Harris JE, et al. (2008) J Am Diet Assoc 108, 1488–96