







































Aresty Rutgers Undergraduate Research Journal, vol. 1, issue 1, Spring 2020 

 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 

An Assessment of the Food and Physical 

Activity Environment on a University Campus   
 

Kayla Castellitto and Nurgul Fitzerald 

Kayla Catellitto conducted this study as a part of her George H. Cook Honors Thesis research, 

while she was an undergraduate student at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, School 

of Environmental and Biological Sciences. Dr. Nurgul Fitzerald is an Associate Professor / 

Extension Specialist at the Department of Nutritional Sciences at Rutgers University. 

 

Abstract 

 

Large percentages of college students are reported to be overweight and sedentary and do not 

consume the recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables. These outcomes can be 

influenced by the students’ environment. The purpose of this study was to determine the level 

of healthfulness and environmental supports on Rutgers University’s Cook Campus (RU)—one of 

the five Rutgers campuses—by examining campus food and physical activity environment, and 

related policies. As a part of the nationwide Get Fruved study on over 90 college/university 

campuses, the Healthy Campus Environmental Audit (HCEA) instrument was used to assess 

dining establishments, vending machines, recreational environment, and policies at RU. RU 

scores were compared to the original scales and to the average of the other Get Fruved 

universities/colleges. RU’s healthfulness scores for dining halls/cafeterias, recreational 

environment, vending machine supports, and stimulants policy were on the higher end of the 

scales and above the averages of other Get Fruved schools. However, RU’s scores indicated 

limited healthfulness in fast-food/sit-down restaurants; walking/biking supports; availability of 

healthy snacks and beverages in vending machines; healthy eating policies; and policies 

encouraging physical activity and chronic disease prevention. This study identified the 

strengths and weaknesses in RU’s campus environment and in RU’s policies for healthy eating 

and active living. These results can be used to support a healthier campus environment. 

 

Key Terms: active environment, audit, built environment, environmental assessment, food 

environment, health/wellness promotion, healthy eating, nutrient density, policy, 

university/college campus, vending machines  

 

Introduction 

 

Emerging adulthood (18 to 25 years of age) is considered an important stage for maintaining 

long-term health behavior patterns (Nelson, Story, Larson, Neumark-Sztainer, & Lytle, 2008). 

Yet, the lifestyle changes college students experience can make establishing healthy long-term 

behaviors difficult and put them at risk of gaining weight. These changes may include moving 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/


Aresty Rutgers Undergraduate Research Journal, vol. 1, issue 1, Spring 2020 

2 

 

out of the family home; changes in financial responsibilities; unhealthy food options on 

campus; and unhealthy food habits like late-night, alcohol-related, or stress-related eating 

(Nelson, Kocos, Lytle, & Perry, 2009). Additionally, large proportions of college students 

experience stress. In a national survey of college students, 45% reported “more than average” 

level of stress, and 13% reported high levels of stress (American College Health Association, 

2018). Chronic stress may be linked to weight gain (Torres & Nowson, 2007). Gaining weight 

during college years can have long-term effects: being moderately overweight in early 

adulthood and gaining weight in adulthood have both been shown to increase risks of 

developing major chronic diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and certain 

cancers (de Mutsert, 2014). Therefore, it is important that college students have easy access to 

healthy food options and physical activities on campus.  

 

Previous research has shown that many college students are at high risk of being overweight or 

obese. According to the American College Health Association ([ACHA], 2018) National College 

Health Assessment, which surveyed 88,178 students, large proportions of the participants were 

overweight (23.8%) or obese (16.2%). In a study of 67 first-year college students, it was 

reported that almost 75% of the students had gained weight during their first year in college. 

Over the seven-month study period, their average weight gain was 3.1 kilograms (7 pounds), 

and average percentage of body fat gained was 0.9% (Hoffman, Policastro, Quick, & Lee, 2006). 

The exact causes of such weight gain were uncertain, but it was speculated to be because of 

decreased physical activity (Butler, Black, Blue, & Gretebeck, 2004) and lifestyle changes like 

decreased leisure time and increased alcohol consumption (Hoffman et al., 2006).  

 

The ACHA assessment also revealed low levels of fruit and vegetable intake among college 

students. Only 4.8% reported eating the recommended levels of five or more servings of fruits 

and vegetables a day. College campuses can affect food and beverage intake patterns through 

dining halls, restaurants, convenience stores, markets, food courts, and vending machines. 

Because the environment plays a role in what students consume (Stokols, 1992), it is important 

to examine the types of foods these venues provide. An assessment of dining establishments 

on 15 college campuses across the United States indicated that campus restaurants offered 

healthier food and beverage options in comparison to off-campus restaurants; still, they 

offered large portion sizes and “combo” meals that encouraged overeating (Horacek et al., 

2012). Campus food environment is also likely to influence students who commute to campus. 

A study of 1,059 off-campus students in two Minnesota colleges found that 45% of the 

students reported purchasing foods or beverages from at least one campus venue more than 

three times per week. Students who frequently purchased foods from these venues reported 

buying foods that were high in fat and added sugar; they also reported eating breakfast less 

frequently and purchasing more fast-food on campus. Students who brought their own lunch 

from home had healthier dietary intake patterns (Pelletier & Laska, 2013).  

 

Vending machines are a convenient way for students to obtain snacks throughout their school 

day. In an assessment of 2607 vending machines at 11 colleges, it was found that the most 



Aresty Rutgers Undergraduate Research Journal, vol. 1, issue 1, Spring 2020 

3 

 

commonly available snacks were chips, pretzels, other salty snacks, and sweet treats like candy 

(Byrd-Bredbenner et al., 2012). Most of these snacks were low in fiber and high in calories and 

fat; about half of the snacks were high in sugar. A majority of the available beverages were high 

in calories and sugar (Byrd-Bredbenner et al., 2012). These studies suggest that food and 

beverages available in vending machines limit healthy choices and promote low nutrient, 

energy-dense snacks as the easy choice.   

 

Physical activity, a key component of preventing unwanted weight gain, can be impacted by the 

availability of recreation programs and facilities on campus. The ACHA (2018) assessment 

reported low levels of physical activity among college students. More than half (53%) of the 

students did not meet the physical activity recommendations of moderate-intensity (at least 30 

minutes on five or more days/week) or vigorous-intensity exercises (at least 20 minutes on 

three or more days/week). In a study completed at 13 colleges/universities, researchers 

concluded that while the programs, classes, and equipment available at the recreation facilities 

supported healthy lifestyles, the facilities’ policies (equipment accessibility, safety features, 

weather accommodations, transportation, and fees) and the built environment (bike rack 

availability and accessibility, presence of health promotion signs, and accessibility and 

cleanliness of stairwells) did not support healthy lifestyles (Horacek et al., 2014). There were 

very few recreational screening policies for at-risk students and promotional signs for daily 

activities like taking the stairs. Exercise classes were not offered on weekends when students 

had most of their spare time. Exercise spaces were rated insufficient for use during peak hours, 

and secondary facilities (smaller versions of primary recreation facilities) lacked the quality of 

primary facilities. Researchers also reported good walkability but low bikeability across the 

campuses.  

 

In summary, the literature indicates that college is a period marked by changes, which can put 

students at risk of becoming overweight or obese. College campus environments can influence 

students’ eating and physical activity patterns through eating establishments, vending 

machines, recreation centers, and policies related to these facilities. The objective of this study 

was to comprehensively evaluate the healthfulness of the food and physical activity 

environment on a university campus through environmental and policy assessments. These 

assessments could serve as a basis for identifying policy and environmental changes that 

promote health on campus.  

 

Methodology 

 

Study Location and Setting 

 

This study was conducted at the Cook Campus of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in 

New Brunswick, NJ during the 2017-2018 school year. It was a part of the Get Fruved study, 

which included more than 90 universities and colleges across the United States. The original 

Get Fruved study was funded by United States Department of Agriculture (award number 2014-



Aresty Rutgers Undergraduate Research Journal, vol. 1, issue 1, Spring 2020 

4 

 

67001-2185) and administered by University of Tennessee (UT) to promote healthier lifestyles 

on college campuses (Get Fruved, 2017). The current study location was limited to only one 

(Cook Campus) of Rutgers’ five campuses.   

For the environmental audits, the campus area was defined as the space within a 1.5 mile 

radius of the Cook Campus Center. This was chosen to be the center of the campus because it 

is a place where many students gather, and it is located near student life facilities (multiple 

residence halls, dining hall, recreation center, laundry and postal services, and bus stops). The 

website “Draw Radius Circles on a Map” was used to draw the radius from the campus center 

using Google maps (Draw Radius Circles on a Map, 2017). 

 

Assessment Methods 

 

The Healthy Campus Environmental Audit (HCEA) was used to help determine aspects of the 

campus environment that might affect students’ health behaviors. The HCEA is composed of 

five audits focusing on campus environmental demographics (CA), dining environment (FRESH 

audit), recreation facilities (PACES audit), policies (POINTS audit), and vending machines 

(VENDing audit) (See Supplemental Materials for details). These audits have been validated in 

studies completed on various campus environments (Horacek et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2019c).  

The audits were conducted by teams of two student researchers. The student researchers 

underwent audit-specific online training prior to collecting data.  This training included reading 

the audit-specific protocol, completing the training videos, and passing quizzes with an 80% or 

higher score. Collected data were directly entered into UT’s online survey portal, de-identified 

by the Get Fruved administrative team at UT, and sent back to Rutgers for use. The study was 

approved by the Institutional Review Boards of UT and Rutgers. 

 

Statistical Analyses 

 

The environmental audit data were received from UT in a de-identified format. Results from 

each audit included Rutgers’ scores as well as descriptive statistics—minimum, maximum, 

mean scores and standard deviations—from the national sample (that is, all of the participating 

Get Fruved schools that completed the same audits). For the interpretation of Rutgers’ data, the 

results were compared to both the maximum possible audit scores and the national average 

data. The HCEA scores do not currently include specific cutoff points like low versus high or 

failure versus success.  Therefore, the interpretations of the scores are based on the 

comparisons to the national average and the maximum possible score within each scale.   

 

Results 

 

Campus Environmental Demographic Audit 

 

More than half of the campus population (n=3,428) in this study were female (62.1%; 37.9% 

male). Slightly more than a half of them were reported to be White (51.1%), 14.1% were 



Aresty Rutgers Undergraduate Research Journal, vol. 1, issue 1, Spring 2020 

5 

 

Hispanic, 7.0% were Black, and 27.8% were listed as Other. A small proportion (10.2%) of the 

students were out-of-state residents. In terms of food access in the city of New Brunswick, 

there were 0.1-0.2 grocery stores per 1,000 population and 0.8-1.0 restaurants per 1,000 

population. 

 

FRESH audit 

 

Food score, measured on a scale of 60, indicates the variety of the available foods. Rutgers 

received a food score of 20.8 (34%) for restaurants and 45.3 (76%) for dining halls/cafeterias 

(Figure 1). Restaurants received lower scores because they had more energy-dense food 

options, less whole grains, and fewer lean meat options. Dining halls, meanwhile, had healthier 

options such as a salad bar, low-fat desserts, healthier beverages, and lower-fat entrées/sides. 

Rutgers’ food score for restaurants was similar to the national average (20.3), but the food 

score for dining halls/cafeterias was higher than the national mean score of 35.9.  

Support score, measured on a scale of 40, includes the environmental supports to make healthy 

food choices. Rutgers received a support score of 19.1 (48%) for restaurants and 25.3 (63%) for 

dining halls/cafeterias. Restaurants scored lower because their healthy supports were limited; 

they charged extra for healthy substitutions, charged higher prices for healthier foods, and did 

not offer nutrition information at some locations. Additionally, some restaurants were found to 

have practices encouraging overeating. These included larger portion sizes for entrees and 

beverages; and signs, deals, or promotions for less healthy options. Similarly, audited dining 

halls included all-you-can-eat buffets, which encourages overeating. However, dining halls also 

offered supportive strategies for healthy eating. They priced healthier and less healthy options 

similarly. Further, the dining halls implemented trayless dining service, where students take 

their food using one plate at a time rather than fitting multiple items on a tray. This service is 

designed to promote sustainability and discourage overeating. In addition, dining halls offered 

smaller cup sizes for beverages, which can help discourage overconsumption. Rutgers’ support 

scores for restaurants were similar to the national mean, while Rutgers’ support scores for 

dining halls/cafeterias were slightly higher than the national average.  



Aresty Rutgers Undergraduate Research Journal, vol. 1, issue 1, Spring 2020 

6 

 

 

PACES audit 

 

The facility support score indicates a facility’s accessibility and the quality of its staff. Rutgers’ 

score was 9.0 (60%), which was higher than the national sample’s average score of 6.4 (Figure 

2). Recreation facility staff’s availability and competence contributed to the higher scores. The 

equipment score, measuring the quality of exercise equipment itself, was 16.0 (80%) for 

Rutgers, compared to the national sample average of 12.4. Availability of a wide variety of 

equipment, including aerobic and strength training equipment, contributed to this higher score. 

For its walk/bike score—a measure of facility support for walking and biking—Rutgers received 

an 8.0 (53%), whereas the national average was 7.0. The audit detected that Rutgers recreation 

facility only had one bike rack available for use, which had about 41-60% of its spots open. The 

facility total score, a sum of all the subscores, was 33.0 (66%) for Rutgers and 25.8 for the 

national sample. The campus score, which included the quality and extensiveness of health and 

fitness programs, was 46 (66%) for Rutgers in comparison to the national sample’s mean of 

45.0. Among the contributing factors for higher Rutgers campus score were the wide variety of 

indoor and outdoor amenities (e.g. pool, basketball courts, roller hockey rink, racquetball 

court), several intramural sports, health/wellness activities and fitness classes.  



Aresty Rutgers Undergraduate Research Journal, vol. 1, issue 1, Spring 2020 

7 

 

 

POINTS audit 

 

Rutgers received a score of 100% for support to limit drugs and alcohol (stimulants), compared 

to the national sample mean of 84% (Figure 3). Rutgers received a 0% for both chronic disease 

prevention support and active environment support, while the national sample averages were 

7.0% and 14.9%, respectively. The audit did not detect any chronic disease prevention and 

active environment policies, such as chronic disease online education or physical activity during 

work hours. Rutgers’ score for supporting healthy eating was 34%, higher than the national 

sample score. The overall score for student support (in relation to employees) was also 34%, 

ranking Rutgers slightly above the national sample. This audit also evaluated other policies that 

were not detected at the audit sites, such as minimum and maximum nutrition standards, 

healthy food labeling programs, and food taxes/subsidies. Rutgers’ score for the 

comprehensiveness of policy—that is, how well policies are monitored and enforced—was 21% 

in comparison to 19% for the national sample. This suggests some, but not all, policies were 

enforced. 



Aresty Rutgers Undergraduate Research Journal, vol. 1, issue 1, Spring 2020 

8 

 

 

 

VENDing audit 

 

Of the items in the audited snack machines at Rutgers, 38% were unhealthy, 34% were 

somewhat healthy, and 28% were healthy (Figure 4). The total snack nutrient density score was 

3.3 (out of 7), which was similar to the national sample mean of 3.02. Snacks that were 

considered unhealthy included candies, chocolates, regular chips, and cookies. Healthy snacks 

included baked/kettle chips, fruit snacks, granola bars, and unsalted nuts. Of the items in the 

audited beverage machines at Rutgers, 55% were unhealthy, 22% were somewhat healthy, and 

23% were healthy. Rutgers’ total beverage nutrient density score was 1.2 (out of 4), with the 

national sample mean being 1.09.  Beverages such as regular sodas, iced tea, lemonade, and 

energy drinks were considered unhealthy. Water (flavored and unflavored) was considered 

healthy.  



Aresty Rutgers Undergraduate Research Journal, vol. 1, issue 1, Spring 2020 

9 

 

 

 

The VENDing supports score for Rutgers was 72%, which was higher than the national sample’s 

score. Availability of vending machines and the fact that many of the machines contained 

specific nutrition information for each product weighed positively on Rutgers’ score. On the 

other hand, healthier products were often more expensive than unhealthy products, which 

weighed negatively on the score. 

 

Discussion 

 

The purpose of this study was to determine the healthfulness of the food and physical activity 

environment on Rutgers University’s Cook Campus. Compared to the audit scales, Cook 

Campus scores showed limited healthfulness in some categories. These included food quality 

and environmental support at fast-food and sit-down restaurants; healthy snack and beverage 

availability in vending machines; walking and biking supports; and policy supports (with the 

exception of policies about stimulants). However, Rutgers scored higher than the national 

sample average for dining hall and cafeteria foods and supports; recreation facility and fitness 

programs; policies about stimulants and healthy eating; and supportive messaging in vending 

machines. 



Aresty Rutgers Undergraduate Research Journal, vol. 1, issue 1, Spring 2020 

10 

 

The CA audit illustrated the diversity of Rutgers’ Cook Campus. A diverse background among 

students can play a role in their food and beverage intakes, levels of physical activity, and 

health outcomes (U.S. Department of Agriculture & U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 2015). Students can have different food preferences, attitudes about their weight, and 

beliefs about physical activity. In addition, the campus environment is likely to influence the 

students’ choices, social norms, and values by controlling the availability of food, beverage and 

physical activity options. The CA audit found that the City of New Brunswick had a high number 

of restaurants per capita when compared to the audit scale, and that many of these restaurants 

were outside the campus but within the 1.5 mile radius from the campus’ student center. This 

study analyzed the healthfulness of 22 (close to 30%) of these restaurants in order to determine 

how they may influence the overall healthfulness of the food environment for the students. 

Thus, it is important to look at the campus demographics and environment to examine the 

needs that can be addressed in future health promotion interventions. 

 

The FRESH audit data indicated that Rutgers’ dining halls and cafeterias showed a higher level 

of healthfulness (76% on the food scale and 63% on the support scale) than the fast-food and 

sit-down restaurants (34% on the food scale and 48% on support scale). The dining halls and 

cafeterias had significantly higher scores compared to the national sample, while the 

restaurants’ scores were similar to the national average. Dining halls and cafeterias offered 

healthful food options and provided environmental supports like signage (e.g. vegan, Meatless 

Monday), appropriate portion sizes, and nutrition information. Still, there appears to be room 

for improvement in supporting healthier options. Placing consistent and attractive signage next 

to the healthier meal options could make it easier for students to make better food choices; this 

strategy has been successfully implemented by some of the other schools in the Get Fruved 

study. Restaurants’ lower healthfulness scores were consistent with previously published 

research that found restaurants offered large portion sizes and combo meals, thus encouraging 

overeating (Horacek et al., 2012). Other Get Fruved schools marketed healthy foods and cost-

effective meal deals at point of selection. Additionally, they provided tastings of healthy food 

choices to tempt patrons to buy these products. Such strategies could improve the food 

environment at Rutgers as well. 

 

The PACES audit data indicated that Rutgers’ recreational facilities moderately supported 

healthfulness. The facilities’ staff, equipment, and campus recreation programs showed 60% to 

80% healthfulness and environmental support. The facility support and equipment scores were 

above the national averages; these results concur with previous data that showed high ratings 

for overall facilities and equipment available to students (Horacek et al., 2014). Rutgers’ scores 

can be further improved by adopting strategies from other Get Fruved schools. For instance, 

Rutgers could increase the number and variety of fitness classes, provide free fitness 

assessments to encourage the use of programs and facilities, and offer “Late Night at the Gym” 

(open between 10pm and 2am) as an alternative to partying. In addition, Rutgers’ walk/bike 

features, like bike racks and stairwells, showed room for improvements: its score was 53%, 

which was similar to the national sample’s score. These findings are somewhat consistent with 



Aresty Rutgers Undergraduate Research Journal, vol. 1, issue 1, Spring 2020 

11 

 

published research, which found very few policies to help prevent obesity and very few 

promotional signs for daily activities like taking the stairs (Horacek et al., 2014). 

 

The POINTS audit indicated that Rutgers’ drug and alcohol policy was excellent (100% score) 

and was above the national average. However, this study did not find any policies for chronic 

disease prevention and active environment, and these results were below the Get Fruved 

schools’ averages. Other Get Fruved schools with higher scores have implemented strategies 

such as advocating for a walkable campus and banning cars from campus. Policies for 

encouraging healthy eating (score of 34%), monitoring/enforcement (21%), and the average 

student policy scores (34%) were on the lower end of the scales for Rutgers, although the 

healthy eating policy score was above the national average. Some of the other Get Fruved 

schools have set nutrition guidelines to standardize healthier dining options and have pledged 

to use local and community-based sources. 

 

The VENDing audit indicated that the snack and beverage machines have limited healthful 

options but promising environmental supports (e.g., good product pricing, nutrition 

information). The mean snack and beverage nutrient density scores were only in the “somewhat 

healthy” category, but the environmental support score was 72%. The snack and beverage 

nutrient density scores were generally similar to the scores from the national sample. More than 

half of the beverages in the audited vending machines were considered unhealthy, thus limiting 

students’ healthy choices. This is consistent with previous research that found majority of the 

beverages in vending machines were sugary, calorie-dense beverages that limits students’ 

healthy choices (Byrd-Bredbenner et al., 2012). To further improve these scores, Rutgers could 

post signage highlighting healthier choices. For example, one of the Get Fruved schools has 

been using “healthy-choice selection buttons” for snacks with less than 200 calories, less than 

10 percent of calories from saturated fat, less than 60 mg cholesterol, no trans fat, and less 

than 230 mg sodium.  

 

This study presents the results of the comprehensive campus environmental assessments that 

were not previously published. The study methods, developed by a collaborative team from 

eight universities, have been validated through testing in multiple university campuses across 

the country. The original collaborative team collected and managed data from the participating 

universities and colleges centrally, allowing for comparisons between local data and the 

national sample’s averages. However, because national data were not collected by the Rutgers 

research team, the authors were unable to conduct further statistical analyses to test whether 

the differences between Rutgers’ and other universities’ scores were statistically significant. 

Therefore, the other universities’ scores were only used as a relative benchmark to narratively 

compare Rutgers’ scores. Another limitation of this study was its restriction to only one of 

Rutgers’ five campuses (Cook Campus) due to time and budget constraints. Therefore, this 

study is not a representative sample of other Rutgers campuses or Rutgers University as a 

whole. In the future, including other Rutgers campuses could allow researchers to perform 

statistical analyses on the scores from different campuses. This would help determine the 



Aresty Rutgers Undergraduate Research Journal, vol. 1, issue 1, Spring 2020 

12 

 

differences between various locations on campus. In addition, the beverage machine audits 

were limited to a small sample size because many of the machines had covered front panels 

and therefore, accurate data could not be collected from all. Lastly, the POINTS audit did not 

assess university policies about facilitating stress relief, even though stress may have an impact 

on weight gain.  

 

In summary, Rutgers’ healthfulness scores for dining halls and cafeterias, recreational 

environment (facilities, equipment, supports, and campus programs), and the vending machine 

supports were on the higher end of the environmental audit scale; the drug and alcohol policy 

scored particularly well. These scores were also above the averages of the national sample of 

Get Fruved schools. However, Rutgers scores were lower in categories like fast-food and sit-

down restaurants; healthy snacks and beverages available in vending machines; walking and 

biking supports; and the policies to support healthy eating. This study also detected 

weaknesses in the policies for encouraging physical activity and preventing chronic diseases: 

these scores were lower compared to the national sample.  

 

These audits comprehensively determined areas of strengths and weaknesses that can help 

direct further efforts toward a healthier food and physical activity environment on campus. 

These audit scales are not meant to classify campus environments into good versus bad or 

success versus failure. The audit scores provide a baseline for each school as well as a 

benchmark average score from a wide variety of schools across the United States. It is possible 

that additional benchmarks can be developed by gathering the best practices from all 

participating schools. These results can be good starting points for students, campus 

organizations, and administrators hoping to implement environmental and policy changes and 

seeking to explore additional strategies for supporting healthy lifestyles on campus.  

 

Acknowledgements 

 

This material is based upon work that was supported by the National Institute of Food and 

Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2014-67001-21851 (Get 

Fruved Study PI: Sarah Colby, University of Tennessee). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or 

recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We would like to thank the 

original Get Fruved study team, and especially the administrative team at the University of 

Tennessee and HCEA group at Syracuse University for their guidance; Haifa Matos (Rutgers 

Institutional Research and Academic Planning), Dave Donlon (Rutgers Dinning Services), Nathan 

Johnson, Brain Cousin (Campus Residence Departments), and Dr. Judith Storch (Cook Campus 

Deans Office) for their assistance during the environmental audits; Kappa Omicron Nu Honor 

Society members Radwa Nassar, Yulissa Pereira, Nada Ismail, Jamie Schroeder, Nadine 

Glowzenski, and Kim Manna for their assistance during the audits and reporting, and Dr. 

Worobey for his review of K. Castellitto’s research thesis, which is the basis of this paper. Partial 



Aresty Rutgers Undergraduate Research Journal, vol. 1, issue 1, Spring 2020 

13 

 

results of this research have been presented as a poster at the New Jersey Academy of Nutrition 

and Dietetics Annual Meeting in May 2018. 

 

References 

 

American College Health Association. (2018). National College Health Assessment II: Reference 

Group Executive Summary Spring 2018. Handover, MD. Retrieved from 

https://www.acha.org/documents/ncha/NCHA-

II_Spring_2018_Reference_Group_Executive_Summary.pdf.  

Butler, S.M., Black, D.R., Blue, C.L., & Gretebeck, R.J. (2004). Change in diet, physical activity, 

and body weight in female college freshman. American Journal of Health Behavior, 28, 

24-32. 

Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Johnson, M., Quick, V.M., Walsh, J., Greene, G.W., Hoerr, S., … Horacek, 

T.M. (2012). Sweet and salty. An assessment of the snacks and beverages sold in 

vending machines on US post-secondary institution campuses. Appetite, 58, 1143-

1151. 

Country Health Rankings & Roadmaps (2017). Key Finding Report. Retrieved from 

http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/ 

de Mustert, R., Sun, Q., Willett, W.C., Hu, F.B., Van Dam, R.M. (2014). Overweight in early 

adulthood, adult weight change, and risk of type 2 diabetes,card iovascular diseases, 

and certain cancers in men: a cohort study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 179 (11): 

1353-1365. 

Draw Radius Circles on Map. (2017). Retrieved from http://obeattie.github.io/gmaps-

radius/?lat=51.500358&lng=-0.125506&z=10&u=mi&r=5. 

Get Fruved. (2017). Fruved = more than fruits and vegetables. Retrieved from 

http://fruved.com/what-2/. 

Hoffman, D.J., Policastro, P., Quick, V., & Lee, S.K. (2006). Changes in body weight and fat mass 

of men and women in the first year of college: a study of the “freshman 15”. Journal of 

American College Health, 55, 41-45. 

Horacek, T.M., Erdman, M.B., Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Carey, G., Colby, S.M., Greene, … White, A.B. 

(2012). Assessment of the dining environment on and near the campuses of fifteen 

post-secondary institutions. Public Health Nutrition, 16, 1186-1196.  

Horacek T.M., Simon M., Dede Yildirim E., White A.A., Shelnutt K.P., Riggsbee K.,…Brown O. 

(2019a). development and validation of the policies, opportunities, initiatives and 

notable topics (POINTS) audit for campuses and worksites. International Journal of 

Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 778. 

Horacek, T.M., White, A.B, Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Reznar, M.M., Olfert, M., Morrell, J.S., 

…Thompson-Synder, C.A. (2014). PACES: A physical activity campus environmental 

supports audit on university campuses. American Journal of Health Promotion, 28, 105-

117.  

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Horacek%20TM%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=30836633
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Simon%20M%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=30836633
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Dede%20Yildirim%20E%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=30836633
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=White%20AA%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=30836633
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Shelnutt%20KP%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=30836633
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Riggsbee%20K%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=30836633
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Brown%20O%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=30836633
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30836633
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30836633


Aresty Rutgers Undergraduate Research Journal, vol. 1, issue 1, Spring 2020 

14 

 

Horacek T.M., Yildirim E.D., Matthews Schreiber M., Byrd-Bredbenner C., Colby S., White 

A.A., … Kattelmann K. (2019b). Development and validation of the vending evaluation 

for nutrient-density (VEND)ing audit. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 16, 514.  

Horacek T.M., Yildirim E.D., Seidman D., Byrd-Bredbenner C., Colby S., White A.A., 

… Kattelmann K. (2019c). Redesign, field-testing, and validation of the physical activity 

campus environmental supports (PACES) audit. Journal of Environmental and Public 

Health, 2019, 1-13. 

Nelson, M.C., & Kocos, R., Lytle, L.A., Perry, C.L. (2009). Understanding the perceived 

determinants of weight-related behaviors in late adolescence: a qualitative analysis 

among college youth. Journal of Nutritional Education and Behavior, 41, 287-292. 

Nelson, M.C., Story, M., Larson, N.I., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Lytle, L.A. (2008). Emerging 

adulthood and college-aged youth: an overlooked age for weight-related behavior 

change. Obesity Journal, 16, 2205-2211. 

Pelletier, J.E., & Laska, M.N. (2013). Campus food and beverage purchases are associated with 

indicators of diet quality in college students living off campus. American Journal of 

Health Promotion, 28, 80-87. 

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. (2017). Facts & Figures. Rutgers University-New 

Brunswick. Retrieved from http://newbrunswick.rutgers.edu/about/facts-figures. 

Stokols, D. (1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy environments toward a social ecology 

of health promotion. American Psychologist, 47, 6-22.  

Torres, S.J., & Nowson, C.A. (2007). Relationship between stress, eating behavior, and obesity. 

Nutrition, 23, 887-894. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2017). Go to the Atlas. Retrieved 

from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-environment-atlas/go-to-the-

atlas.aspx 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2015). Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans 2010-2015. Retrieved from 

https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/chapter-3/social-ecological-

model/.  

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Horacek%20TM%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31236118
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Yildirim%20ED%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31236118
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Matthews%20Schreiber%20M%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=30759796
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Byrd-Bredbenner%20C%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31236118
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Colby%20S%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31236118
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Kattelmann%20K%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31236118
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30759796
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Horacek%20TM%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31236118
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Yildirim%20ED%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31236118
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Seidman%20D%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31236118
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Byrd-Bredbenner%20C%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31236118
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Colby%20S%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31236118
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=White%20AA%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31236118
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Kattelmann%20K%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=31236118
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31236118
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31236118

