2025 Dining Services Report

  • by Keren Skariah, Hannah Wen, Phuong-Thy Nguyen, Sophia Peng

Introduction & Objectives

Student Housing and Dining Services (SHDS) is a core part of the student experience at UC Davis, shaping daily life through campus housing, dining programs, and community initiatives. In addition to providing meals and residential spaces, SHDS leads efforts focused on sustainability, cultural programming, and student engagement. With many ongoing initiatives, it is important to understand how aware students are of these programs and how they perceive them. This project aimed to assess student awareness and attitudes toward SHDS initiatives, and to identify areas where communication and outreach can be improved. The findings help highlight what students know, what they may be missing, and where there are opportunities to strengthen engagement.

Project Objectives

The primary objective of this project was to evaluate student awareness and perceptions of key SHDS initiatives. Specifically, the analysis aimed to measure students’ familiarity with SHDS programs/media/locations, assess attitudes toward dining-related efforts, and explore how awareness and perceptions vary across different student demographics. These insights are intended to inform future communication strategies and enhance student engagement with SHDS services and initiatives.

Methodology

Data Collection

Data was collected through a Qualtrics survey administered during in-person tabling at the Segundo and Tercero Dining Commons on February 11th, 19th, and 20th. A total of 103 responses were collected, with the majority of data points originating from two lunchtime sessions held at the Tercero location. To maximize engagement, participants were offered an incentive to spin a prize wheel for rewards such as ASUCD stickers, keychains, trading cards, or $5 CoHo gift cards.

Data Processing

To ensure data accuracy, the raw survey data underwent a multi-step cleaning process in R, which included removing incomplete responses, duplicate IP addresses, and records with a duration of less than 60 seconds. Additionally, blank rows were excluded, resulting in a final dataset of 76 responses.

Methods of Analysis

The analysis followed a structured approach, beginning with univariate analysis to establish frequency distributions and descriptive statistics for each individual survey question. This was followed by bivariate analysis to explore relationships between key variables, such as the correlation between a student's residential location and their awareness of specific dining facilities. By synthesizing these findings, the study identified broader patterns in how different student demographics interact with and perceive the university's dining communication strategies.

Data Analysis

Summary of Responses

A total of 76 responses were used for the survey, representing a highly targeted demographic of first-year students (80%) who primarily reside in on-campus residence halls. The survey responses reveal that Instagram is the most influential media platform for student awareness, while approximately 79% of participants reported feeling well-informed about the campus dining services and locations. Additionally, nearly 19% of respondents indicated having food allergies, highlighting a significant subgroup within the dining community.

Research Questions and Statistical Analysis

Based on exploratory analysis, the primary research categories and questions considered were:

  1. Which social media platforms do student Dining Commons attendees use and are aware of? 
  2. Which platforms do student Dining Commons attendees use to check for Student Housing and Dining Services updates?
  3. Do students who use more platforms attend more dining locations?
  4. How do students feel about locally sourced foods and speciality days?
  5. Are students aware of where their food comes from?
  6. Are students who attend more dining locations aware of more campaigns?

Findings

Finding 1: The majority of respondents live in on-campus residence-halls.

Among 76 respondents, over 90% of respondents all live on-campus. Of the on-campus residents, over 90% of them live in residence-halls. 

Bar chart showing small Living-Learning Community bar and large Residence Hall bar (n=70)
Figure 1: Distribution of Where Students Live On-Campus
Table: Residence type — 4 on-campus apartments (5.7%), 66 on-campus residence halls (94.3%)
Table 1: Counts and Percentages by On-Campus Location

Finding 2: Almost 20% of respondents have a food allergy. Students without food allergies appeared slightly more likely to report feeling well informed than students with food allergies.

Among 74 respondents for this question, over 80% do not have a food allergy. Students with food allergies appeared slightly more likely to report feeling well informed about where their food comes from compared to students without food allergies. However, this difference was not statistically significant (χ² = 1.13, p = 0.29), suggesting that food allergy status does not meaningfully affect whether students feel informed about the source of their food.

Stacked bar chart: allergic ~70% feel informed, ~30% not; non‑allergic ~95% informed, ~5% not
Figure 2: Distribution of Well-Informed VS Allergy Status
Table: 'Yes' 9 (64.3%) vs 5 (35.7%); 'No' 49 (81.7%) vs 11 (18.3%) for feeling informed.
Table 2: Counts and Percentages of Well Informed VS Allergy Status

Finding 3: Majority of respondents care that the food they eat is from locally sourced Davis farmers / businesses.

Among 72 respondents, a majority of them (62.5%) agree that they care about where their food is sourced from. 

Bar chart: most Agree, many Neutral, fewer Strongly agree, very few Disagree or Strongly disagree.
Figure 3: Distribution of Disagrees/Agrees on Locally Sourced Foods
Table: survey responses — SD1(1.2%), D3(4.2%), N23(31.9%), A42(44.8%), SA13(18.1%)
Table 3: Counts and Percentages of Disagrees/Agrees on Locally Sourced Foods

Finding 4: The majority of respondents enjoy the specialty days hosted by SHDS (ex: Surf’s Up, Plant-forward, Cultural, Star Wars, etc).

Among 73 respondents, a majority of them (69.9%) either agree or strongly agree that they enjoy the speciality days.

Bar chart showing five colored bars increasing from low to high preference for specialty days.
Figure 4: Distribution of Disagrees/Agrees on Speciality Day Enjoyment
Table: responses counts & % — SD 2 (2.7%), D 8 (11%), N 12 (16.4%), A 23 (31.5%), SA 28 (38.4%)
Table 4: Counts and Percentages of Disagrees/Agrees on Speciality Day Enjoyment

Finding 5: The majority of respondents are neutral or not aware of where their food comes from.

Among 72 respondents, 47.2% disagree, 27.8% are neutral, and 25% are aware of where their food comes from. Thus, 75% do not agree that they are aware of where their food is from. 

Bar chart (n=72): Disagree highest; Neutral high; Strongly agree medium; Strongly disagree and Agree low
Figure 5: Distribution of Disagrees/Agrees on Food Sourcing Awareness
Table: responses — SD 9 12.5%, D 25 34.7%, N 20 27.8%, A 5 6.9%, SA 15 18.1%
Table 5: Counts and Percentages of Disagrees/Agrees on Food Sourcing Awareness

Finding 6: Majority of respondents are aware of the food locations local to residence halls.

Among 76 respondents, at least ⅔ of respondents were aware of all dining hall locations and their respective markets. It is noted that while 68% (52) were aware of the Cuarto dining hall, 58% (44) were aware of the associated market. However, the sample size is relatively small so this difference represents only 8 respondents. Overall, respondents appear to be significantly less aware of food locations in residence hall areas, possibly due to the fact that the majority of respondents were first-years living in the residence halls. 

Bar chart showing percent aware of campus food locations, descending dark-to-light blue bars
Figure 6: Distribution of campus food location awareness by resources.
Graphic table of campus locations and frequencies (N=76)
Table 6: Awareness counts and percentages by resource.

Finding 7: Respondent attendance patterns reflect their awareness of campus food locations.

It’s observed that the campus food location attendance reflects respondents’ knowledge of campus food resources, with the attendance rate closely following the awareness rate in the same order. 

Blue bar chart of percent attendance at campus food locations, highest bars at left.
Figure 7: Distribution of campus food location attendance by resources.
Table listing campus locations with numeric counts and percentages
Table 7: Attendance counts and percentages by resource.

Finding 8: Approximately 56% of respondents were aware of Student Housing & Dining Services’ Instagram accounts.

Out of 76 respondents, 53 (56%) reported being aware of SHDS Instagram platforms, followed by 17 (18%) being aware of none, 14 (15%) being aware of TikTok, and 10 (11%) being aware of YouTube. These findings align with each platform’s individual followings.

Bar chart: Twitter 80.4%, Facebook 34.6%, Instagram 14.6%, YouTube 24.6% awareness
Figure 8: Distribution of awareness of SHDS social-media platforms.
Bar chart: Twitter 23%, Facebook 21%, None 20%, Instagram 14%, TikTok 12%.
Table 8: Social-media platform awareness counts and percentages by platform.

 

Finding 9: Approximately 35% of respondents check Instagram to see SHDS updates, followed by 29% who check for updates in-person at the locations.

Out of 76 respondents, 38 (32%) reported that they checked for SHDS updates on Instagram, followed by 31 (26%) respondents reporting checking for updates In-Person at the locations.

Bar chart of platforms used for SHS updates: 60.2%, 36.0%, 29.5%, 15.0%, 5.1%
Figure 9: Distribution of platforms students use to check for SHDS updates.
Graphic table showing survey results for platforms used to check SHDS updates, with counts
Table 9: Checking updates counts and percentages by platform.

Finding 10: Students who utilize more media platforms attended more dining locations, on average.

Respondents who used more media platforms, reported attending more dining locations on average. On average, those who reported using one media platform attended 6.02 locations, those who reported using two media platforms attended 6.95 locations, and those who reported using three media platforms or more attended 7.80 locations.

Bar chart: average locations attended increases from 6.02 to 7.80 across 1–4 media platforms
Figure 10: Average amount of locations attended by number of media platforms used.
Table: average locations attended by media platforms used; 1: 6.02, 2: 6.95, 3: 7.45; N=76
Table 10: Average amount of locations attended by number of platforms used.

Finding 11: Instagram was the most utilized platform across all years, followed by in-person at the locations.

This finding is most relevant for first-year respondents since the sample contained mostly first-year students. But the trend follows upperclassmen students. However, that sample is rather limited.

Bar chart graphic comparing media platform usage percentages across four years
Figure 11: Distribution of media platform usage percentages by year.
Table showing media platform preferences by year with counts and percentages
Table 11: Counts and percentages of media platform usage by year.

Finding #12: Students are overall unaware of SDHS campaigns.

When comparing responses across the dining resources shown in the chart, a higher proportion of students report being unaware of several programs compared to those who are aware. For example, awareness was low for programs such as Supporting Local, where 86% of respondents (66 students) reported being unaware and only 14% (11 students) reported being aware. Similarly, for Text and Tell and Try A Taste, only 22% of respondents (17 students) indicated awareness, while 78% (59 students) reported being unaware. These results suggest that while some dining resources have moderate recognition among students, several programs remain largely unknown to the majority of respondents.

Graphic: bar-chart grid titled Awareness of Dining Resources showing yes/no respondent counts
Figure 12: Distribution of respondents for Campaign Awareness.
Table listing campaign names with Yes/No vote counts (e.g., Aggie Cash 55/21)
Table 12. Respondent counts and percentages by response.

Finding #13: Of all the SDHS campaigns listed in the survey, students were most aware of Aggie Cash.

When comparing awareness across the SDHS campaigns included in the survey, Aggie Cash had the highest level of recognition among respondents. A total of 55 students (approximately 72%) reported that they were aware of Aggie Cash, while 21 students (28%) indicated they were not aware of the program. Along with Aggie Cash, the only other campaign where respondents were more aware than they were unaware of was Online Menus. These results suggest that Aggie Cash is the most widely recognized SDHS campaign among survey respondents relative to the other dining resources included in the study.

Bar chart "Aggie Cash Awareness" — No: 21 respondents; Yes: 55 respondents
Figure 13: Distribution of respondents for Aggie Cash Awareness.

Finding #14: The majority of respondents reported being aware of at least one SDHS campaign.

When examining overall awareness of SDHS campaigns, most respondents indicated that they were familiar with at least one initiative. Specifically, 70 respondents (approximately 92%) reported being aware of one or more SDHS campaigns, while only 6 respondents (about 8%) indicated that they were not aware of any campaigns. This suggests that although awareness of individual campaigns varies, most students have at least some exposure to SDHS outreach efforts.

Bar chart graphic: 73 aware vs 5 unaware respondents of SDHS campaigns.
Figure 14: Distribution of respondents for SDHS Campaign Awareness

Finding #15: Student suggestions primarily focused on improving food variety, visibility of dining options, and providing more information about meals.

When reviewing the open-ended responses, many student suggestions centered on food variety and menu improvements within campus dining. Several respondents requested specific food items or expanded menu offerings, including acai bowls for lunch, more burger bar options, more Mexican food, rice at Tercero, and tiramisu. Some students also suggested reducing certain options, such as less Mongolian BBQ, while others recommended broader improvements like offering better food and more universally liked dishes.

In addition to menu changes, respondents suggested increasing the visibility and communication of dining services. For example, students recommended putting informational posters across campus and including images of what the food looks like to better promote dining options. A smaller number of responses also highlighted dietary needs, such as the request for wheat-free soy sauce, indicating that accommodating dietary restrictions remains an important consideration for some students. Overall, these suggestions suggest that students are interested in both greater menu variety and clearer communication about available dining options.

Graphic table of food suggestions and counts — "Rice at Tercero" 2, all others 1
Table 15. Respondent counts by suggestion.

Conclusion & Recommendations

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Prioritize Instagram as the primary communication channel. 
Survey results indicate that Instagram is the most widely recognized SHDS social media platform and the most commonly used platform for checking SHDS updates. Because students are already engaging with SHDS information on Instagram, continuing to prioritize this platform for announcements, promotions, and campaign messaging will likely maximize reach and effectiveness.

Recommendation 2: Use Instagram to promote SHDS information across multiple platforms.
Analysis shows that students who utilize more media platforms tend to attend a greater number of dining locations on average. To increase engagement, SHDS could use Instagram as a central hub to promote additional communication channels (e.g., website updates, in-person signage, or other social platforms). Encouraging students to follow multiple information sources may reduce the likelihood that they miss updates, promotions, or events.

Recommendation 3: Continue supporting locally sourced food initiatives.
A majority of respondents (62.5%) reported that they care about whether the food they eat is sourced from local Davis farmers or businesses. Maintaining and highlighting locally sourced ingredients aligns with student values and may positively influence perceptions of dining quality and sustainability.

Recommendation 4: Continue hosting specialty dining events.
Nearly 70% of respondents reported that they enjoy specialty dining events hosted by SHDS, such as themed dining experiences and cultural food days. Given this strong positive response, continuing these events can help maintain student engagement and enhance the dining commons experience.

Recommendation 5: Increase communication about where SHDS food is sourced from.
While many students care about food sourcing, only about 25% of respondents reported that they are aware of where their food comes from. This suggests a gap between student interest and current awareness. SHDS may benefit from more clearly communicating food sourcing information through signage, menus, social media, or promotional materials to help students better understand the origins of their food.

Recommendation 6:  Increase promotion and visibility of lesser-known SDHS campaigns.

Because a large proportion of respondents reported being unaware of several dining initiatives, SDHS should strengthen promotional efforts for these programs. Based on the previous recommendations and analysis, promotion through Instagram would be the most effective method of doing so. In addition, since Aggie Cash and Online Menus had the highest levels of recognition among respondents, these well-known platforms could be used to promote lesser-known programs. 

Appendix

Appendix A: Additional Tables

Table showing class-year distribution with counts and percentages; majority First-year.
Table 1: Counts and Percentages of Class Years 
Table graphic showing on-campus status — Yes: 70 (92.1%), No: 6 (7.9%)
Table 2: Counts and Percentages of On-Campus Status
Table showing food allergy counts: Yes 14 (18.4%), No 62 (81.6%)
Table 3: Counts and Percentages of Food Allergy Status

Appendix B: Additional Figures

Bar chart showing most respondents are First-year; few sophomores, juniors, seniors (n=76)
Figure 1: Distribution of Class Years
Bar chart showing most respondents off-campus and few on-campus (n=78)
Figure 2: Distribution of On-Campus Status
Bar chart: food allergy status (n=75) — large maroon "Yes" bar, small blue "No" bar.
Figure 3: Distribution of Food Allergy Status

Appendix C: Survey Questions

Demographics

  1. What year are you?
    1. First
    2. Second
    3. Third / Transfer
    4. Fourth +
  2. Do you live on-campus?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  3. [IF YES] Where do you live on-campus?
    1. On-campus residence halls
    2. On-campus apartment
  4. Do you have a dietary restriction / food allergy?
    1. Yes
    2. No

Awareness

  1. Which of the following Student Housing & Dining Services social-media platforms are you aware of? (check)
    1. YouTube
    2. TikTok
    3. Instagram
    4. None
  2. Which of the following platforms do you check to see SHDS updates on? (check)
    1. YouTube
    2. TikTok
    3. Instagram
    4. Website
    5. In-Person at the locations
    6. None
  3. Which of the following SHDS locations are you aware of?
    1. Segundo Dining Commons
    2. Segundo Market
    3. Tercero Dining Commons
    4. Tercero Market
    5. Cuarto Dining Common
    6. Cuarto Market
    7. Latitude
    8. Latitude Market
    9. Sage Street Market and Cafe
    10. Scrubs Cafe
    11. Peet’s Coffee (6 locations)
    12. The Gunrock
    13. Silo Market
    14. Spokes
    15. Campus Food Trucks (Multiple locations)
    16. None
  4. Which of the following SHDS locations have you been to within the past year?
    1. Segundo Dining Commons
    2. Segundo Market
    3. Tercero Dining Commons
    4. Tercero Market
    5. Cuarto Dining Common
    6. Cuarto Market
    7. Latitude
    8. Latitude Market
    9. Sage Street Market and Cafe
    10. Scrubs Cafe
    11. Peet’s Coffee (6 locations)
    12. The Gunrock
    13. Silo Market
    14. Spokes
    15. Campus Food Trucks (Multiple locations)
    16. None
  5. Which of the following SHDS campaigns are you aware of?
    1. Try a Taste (sample any dish in the dining commons before committing to a full serving)
    2. Just Ask (Ask for garnishes and other ingredients to be removed)
    3. Online Menus (menus available on website)
    4. Supporting Local (buying produce from local farmers and the student farm)
    5. Dietary Icons (Icons (i.e., “V” or “H” next to specific dishes to signify dietary restrictions) 
    6. Aggie Cash (UCD-specific dollars accepted at SHDS locations)
    7. Text and Tell (send instant feedback directly to chefs and managers in the dining commons via text)
    8. Calfresh accepted (EBT accepted at all markets)
    9. None
  6. Do you feel like you are well informed on dining resources?
    1. Yes 
    2. No
  7. Rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statement: I care that the food I eat is from locally sourced Davis farmers / businesses.
    1. 1 - 5 
  8. Rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statement: I enjoy the speciality days hosted by SHDS (ex: Surf’s Up, Plant-forward, Cultural, Star Wars, etc)
    1. 1 - 5
  9. Rate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statement: I am aware of where my food comes from.
    1. 1 - 5
  10. Please provide any future suggestions you have for SHDS
    1. Short-Response

 

Primary Category

Research Projects