Resources, Conservation & Recycling 153 (2020) 104586

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Full length article

Factors affecting household food waste among young consumers and actions T
to prevent it. A comparison among UK, Spain and Italy
Laura Bravia,*, Barbara Francionib, Federica Murmuraa, Elisabetta Savellia
a
Department of Economics, Society, Politics, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Via Saffi 42, 61029 Urbino, Italy
b
Department of Communication Sciences, Humanities and International Studies, Cultures, Languages, Literatures, Arts, Media, Via Saffi, 15, 61029 Urbino, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Food waste is a critical issue with multiple ethical, environmental and economic consequences. The aim of this
Food waste study is to investigate which factors most affect food waste and determine what actions are undertaken to
Household leftovers prevent it at the household level. The study, while privileging a behavioural perspective, focuses on the overall
Young consumers consumption process, from purchasing through final food consumption, thus assuming a broad perspective. The
Food consumption
data for this study were collected among Italian, Spanish and English populations using three public online
questionnaires administered from January to September 2017. This resulted in a total of 3323 usable ques-
tionnaires referring to a sample population aged between 18 and 35 years. As for the main motivation to waste
food, the research findings provide strong evidence of the importance of in-store behaviour and food manage-
ment at home in reducing the frequency of food waste in all the three countries examined. As for the actions
preventing food waste, the consumption of leftovers appears as a relevant determinant in minimising food waste.
The findings confirm that food waste is a complex issue that requires a broad approach of analysis considering
several factors simultaneously. The study also provides further insights regarding the relationship between
eating outside the home and food waste, which is a topic of debate in the extant literature. Finally, the study
improves the overall knowledge about actions that prevent food waste, which have previously been poorly
investigated.

1. Introduction (FAO, 2013). Finally, food waste represents monetary losses, both for
individuals and national economies (Ponis et al., 2017).
Because of its magnitude, relevance and complexity, food waste has Thus, food waste appears as a societal challenge that needs to be
received increasing attention over the last decade, both in economic seriously addressed.
and social contexts. According to the European Commission (2015), Despite the fact that research on this topic has grown consistently
around 88 million tonnes of food are wasted annually in the EU. This during the past decade (Dreyer et al., 2019), academic observers still
equates to 173 kg of food waste per person, with associated costs esti- call for further studies (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2018), especially at
mated at 143 billion euros. It represents a very relevant issue, leading to the household-consumer level (Parizeau et al., 2015). Indeed, food
severe ethical, environmental and economic consequences (HLPE, waste can occur at all stages of the supply chain, from production to
2014; Roodhuyzen et al., 2017). First, food waste is a moral issue when distribution, and through to final consumption (Mirabella et al., 2014;
870 million people in the world are suffering from chronic under- Muriana, 2017). A number of studies, especially focused in North
nourishment (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2012). Thus, America, highlighted the large amount of food waste generated by in-
food waste could be used to alleviate the worldwide hunger problem. stitutions, such as schools, universities, hospitals, hotels, etc. (Hodge
Second, food waste generates a huge amount of greenhouse gases, es- et al., 2016; Milbrandt et al., 2018) and several programmes have been
timated to about 3.3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Moreover, em- recently proposed in US in order to reduce the food waste at this level
phasis must be placed on the large quantities of fertilizers and limited (Galvan et al., 2018; Thyberg and Tonjes, 2016). Nevertheless, to date,
resources (e.g., water, soil, manpower) used in the production of food the food waste from residents appears higher than that of businesses (Ai
that contributes to climate change (Food and Agriculture Organization and Zheng, 2019; Hebrok and Heidenstrøm, 2019) and consumers are

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Bravi), [email protected] (B. Francioni), [email protected] (F. Murmura),
[email protected] (E. Savelli).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104586
Received 8 July 2019; Received in revised form 30 September 2019; Accepted 5 November 2019
0921-3449/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
L. Bravi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 153 (2020) 104586

often considered the main cause of food waste in high-income countries towards preventing behaviours (Clark and Manning, 2018). All this
(Ponis et al., 2017; Vanham et al., 2015). suggests that the young generation needs to be monitored carefully
Notwithstanding the recognition of including households in food (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2012) to understand whe-
waste reduction efforts, the existing literature still reveals potential ther and how its attitudes towards food waste is changing and to de-
limits. In particular, prior research on household food waste is rather velop ad hoc educational programmes that can contribute to limiting
fragmented, given the variety of approaches, categories, measures and food waste (Mondéjar-Jiménez et al., 2016; Quested et al., 2013).
methods of presentation, thus comparing studies and drawing general Concerning the area of investigation, this study compared data from
conclusions on household food waste is very challenging (Koivupuro three European countries, Italy, Spain and the UK. This makes visible
et al., 2012; Parfitt et al., 2010; Roodhuyzen et al., 2017). More spe- the complexity of the food waste problem providing evidence of the
cifically, two main gaps have been highlighted in previous research. phenomenon, even in countries normally considered as some of the
The first one concerns factors affecting household food waste. In this global leaders in environmental responsibility and highlighting differ-
respect, a recent literature review by Roodhuyzen et al. (2017) stressed ences between them.
two main problems concerning the lack of a comprehensive perspec- Overall, the research provides several insights into the literature on
tive, since studies have often focused on single or few factors affecting food waste management and prevention. First, it adopted a broad ap-
the food waste at the household level and the existence of contradictory proach to the analysis by considering several factors simultaneously
findings in prior research. For example, low shopping frequency has influencing the food waste phenomenon among young people. Thus, it
been associated with both high and low levels of food waste (Jörissen provides a comprehensive investigation of young consumer behaviour,
et al., 2015). starting from the pre-purchase stage through the final phase of food
The second gap is related to actions preventing food waste in which consumption, setting the analysis at a household level, where further
both methodological (e.g., Cristóbal et al., 2018) and conceptual (e.g., knowledge is needed. Second, the study went deep into the relationship
Liu et al., 2016) gaps have been observed. Shaw et al. (2018: 9) pointed between eating out and food waste, which has previously produced
out that prior research has mainly focused on ‘householders’ recycling contradictory results. Third, this study adds knowledge on food waste
behaviour as opposed to their waste prevention behaviour’, without preventing behaviours that were poorly reported in the literature
considering that recyclers are not necessarily waste minimisers while (Quested et al., 2013; WRAP, 2013), while they are considered critical
those who prevent food waste do not necessarily recycle. Moreover, for avoiding waste generation.
studies on food waste prevention have been much focused on the as- The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 re-
sessment of food waste composition rather than on finding solutions views the literature on food waste management, generally and speci-
(Shaw et al., 2018). Overall, Graham-Rowe et al. (2014) noted the fically focused on the young population and identifies the research
existence of a lack of understanding of the nature of household food hypotheses. Section 3 depicts the methodology, including detailed de-
waste minimisation behaviour, which requires an in-depth investiga- scriptions about measures and data processing. Section 4 presents the
tion both to design effective intervention aimed at addressing the food outcome of primary data collection and analysis and discusses the
waste problem (Graham-Rowe et al., 2014) and reducing the ‘attitude- primary findings. Section 5 provides the conclusions and the main
behaviour’ gap (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006) that could explain why the theoretical and practical implications. Section 6 highlights the limita-
intention to reduce food waste doesn’t always turn into less food waste tions of the study and identifies further research potential.
(Schanes et al., 2018; Barone et al., 2019).
The aim of this study was to address the above gaps by investigating 2. Literature review
which factors most affect the household food waste and the main ac-
tions undertaken to prevent it. In doing so, the study, while privileging The phenomenon of food waste has received growing attention
a behavioural perspective, puts the attention on the overall consump- during the last decades, and a variety of studies examined the topic by
tion process, from purchasing to final consumption, thus assuming a adopting different definitions and approaches (Roodhuyzen et al.,
broad perspective. 2017). As for definitions, various authors used different terms, such as
Two further peculiarities that make this research unique is its focus ‘food waste’ (Garrone et al., 2014; Monier et al., 2011), ‘food wastage’
on people aged between 18 and 35 years and its cross-country in- (Grandhi and Appaiah Singh, 2015) and ‘food loss(es)’ (Beretta et al.,
vestigation. The target group was chosen because there are indications 2013; Gustavsson et al., 2011; Kummu et al., 2012), according to the
that young people have a greater propensity to waste food than older research’s objective and scope. Similarly, quantity-oriented studies fo-
people (Mallinson et al., 2016; Principato et al., 2015; Quested et al., cused on food waste reduction (e.g., Abdulla et al., 2013; Griffin et al.,
2013; WRAP, 2008). This is understandable considering that older 2009) occurred along with quality-oriented researches focused on nu-
people have most likely experienced food shortage situations, such as tritional value or sensory quality of food waste (e.g., Buzby and Hyman,
during World War II, and have greater levels of education on food 2012; HLPE, 2014). Moreover, studies investigating actual food loss (in
management and cooking (Visschers et al., 2016). Thus, an increasing terms of quantity or quality) (e.g., Beretta et al., 2013; Silvennoinen
number of studies on food waste measurement have been directed to et al., 2014) coexisted with impact-focused studies drawing attention to
the younger populations over the last few years (Barone et al., 2019; the effects of food waste on society and the environment (e.g., Kummu
Clark and Manning, 2018; Davenport et al., 2019; Rajan et al., 2018). et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2013; Venkat, 2011). As summarised by
Prior studies also focused on specific habits of the young, such has Roodhuyzen et al. (2017), further approaches can be distinguished
eating out, which can produce important effects on the food waste according to the stage-oriented focus (early stages vs. final stages of the
generation (e.g., Ellison et al., 2019; Ozcicek-Dolekoglu and Var, 2019; supply chain), voluntary and involuntary food waste, and/or the extent
Quinn et al., 2018; Stapleton and Cole, 2018). However, extant research to which food waste is conceived.
also reveals contradictory results. It has been found that young people Because consumers, specifically households, are responsible for the
are increasingly aware of the importance of recycling (Comber and majority of food waste in high-income countries (e.g., Beretta et al.,
Thieme, 2013) and the negative consequences of food waste both en- 2013; Hartikainen et al., 2014; Jörissen et al., 2015; Koivupuro et al.,
vironmentally and monetarily (Zepeda and Balaine, 2017). Hence, they 2012;), the present study will assume the concept of ‘household food
tend to be less food ‘wasters’. Further differences have been found waste’, that is, ‘… the food brought home or prepared at home but not
among the young population itself. While the younger generation (i.e., consumed’ (Grandhi and Appaiah Singh, 2015, p. 5). A quantitative
ages 18–24) usually appear less educated in terms of food, food storage approach will be preferred by focusing on factors affecting and pre-
and food waste, young adults, such as students, have shown a greater venting food waste. Table 1 summarises the main literature used in this
awareness of the monetary value of food waste and are more oriented section along with cited references.

2
L. Bravi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 153 (2020) 104586

Table 1
Synthesis of the literature review.
Constructs analysed Main publications cited in the paper Use for this study

Household food waste

Beretta et al., 2013; Garrone et al., 2014; Grandhi and Appaiah Singh, 2015; Gustavsson et al., Different definitions of food waste
2011; Kummu et al., 2012; Monier et al., 2011
Abdulla et al., 2013; Buzby and Hyman, 2012; Griffin et al., 2009; HLPE, 2014; Kummu et al., Different research approach on food waste
2012; Liu et al., 2013; Silvennoinen et al., 2014; Venkat, 2011
Beretta et al., 2013; Grandhi and Appaiah Singh, 2015; Hartikainen et al., 2014; Koivupuro et al., Focus on food waste at the household/
2012; Jörissen et al., 2015 consumer level
Bernstad Saraiva Schott and Andersson, 2015; Beretta et al., 2013; Buzby and Hyman, 2012; De Food waste measuring methods
Laurentiis et al., 2018; Elimelech et al., 2018; Katajajuuri et al., 2014; Kummu et al., 2012;
Monier et al., 2011; Parizeau et al., 2015; Ponis et al., 2017; Reynolds et al., 2014; Stefan et al.,
2013; Venkat, 2011
Motivations to food waste
In-store behaviour Di Talia et al., 2019; Mattar et al., 2018 Use of a shopping list
Romani et al., 2018; Wansink, 2018 Importance of planning meals
Clark and Manning, 2018; Ponis et al., 2017 Influence of in-store promotions
Storage practices Di Talia et al., 2019; Richter and Bokelmann, 2017; Romani et al., 2018; Stangherlin and de Overall importance for food waste
Barcellos (2018); Zepeda and Balaine (2017) reduction
Davenport et al., 2019; Zepeda and Balaine (2017) Incorrect storage practice at individual
level
Lemaire and Limbourg, 2019; Richter and Bokelmann, 2017; Wikström et al., 2019 Incorrect storage practice due to exogenous
factors
Food management in the home Djekic et al., 2019; Girotto et al., 2015; Papargyropoulou et al., 2014 Correct use of expiration date of food
Davenport et al., 2019; Evans, 2011; Farr-Wharton et al., 2014; Griffin et al., 2009; Quested et al., Overcooking issues
2013; Visschers et al., 2016
Actions preventing food waste
Reuse of leftovers Bell et al., 2011; Brook, 2007; Leverenz et al., 2019; Porpino et al., 2015; Principato et al., 2015; Overall importance for food waste
Quested and Johnson, 2009; Quested et al., 2013; Silvennoinen et al., 2014; Stancu et al., 2016; prevention
Stefan et al., 2013; Williams et al., 2012; WRAP, 2013
Planning and cheking Amirudin and Tommy Gim, 2019; Bell et al., 2011; Mondéjar-Jiménez et al., 2016; Chandon and Overall importance for food waste
Wansink, 2006; Principato et al., 2015; Stefan et al., 2013; Chandon and Wansink, 2006; WRAP, prevention
2007
Mirghotbi and Pourvali, 2013 Focus on the attention towards date-labels
Habit of eating out Díaz-Méndez and García-Espejo, 2017; Evans, 2011; Parizeau et al., 2015; Warde and Martens, Increasing diffusion of eating out, especially
2000 among the youngs
Evans, 2011; McCarthy and Liu, 2017; Parizeau et al., 2015; Quested et al., 2011; WRAP, 2013 Literature debate on the relationship
between eating out-food waste

2.1. Measuring household food waste research suggests that ‘food waste drivers are multiple and interrelated,
characterizing the problem as wide and multifaceted’ (Grainger et al.,
In recent years, several studies have investigated the amounts and 2018, p. 3). In this respect, some studies emphasised the increasing
composition of household food waste (e.g., Bernstad Saraiva Schott and necessity to develop a good comprehension of factors influencing
Andersson, 2015; Katajajuuri et al., 2014; Reynolds et al., 2014), em- household food waste (Graham-Rowe et al., 2014), while others rea-
phasising the importance of quantifying it, especially for setting policies lised systematic literature reviews (Roodhuyzen et al., 2017; Hebrok
and waste reduction goals (Elimelech et al., 2018; De Laurentiis et al., and Boks, 2017; Schanes et al., 2018) for mapping and summarizing the
2018). However, there is a consensus in affirming that ‘differences in main factors affecting food waste.
definition systems and classification methods make it difficult, if not Moreover, confused results sometimes emerge as certain factors
impossible, to compare food waste studies’ (Elimelech et al., 2018, p. have been considered differently (Buzby and Hyman, 2012). Hence,
69). In this respect, measures vary according to types of data collection, there is a need for further investigation to develop comprehensive
including self-reporting procedures (e.g., Stefan et al., 2013) and re- models that can provide useful recommendations for managers and
searcher-performed ones (e.g., Katajajuuri et al., 2014). Direct mea- practitioners (Mallinson et al., 2016; Visschers et al., 2016). Placing the
surement was also used (Beretta et al., 2013; Stefan et al., 2013) to- reasons for food waste in the household context, similarly to previous
gether with indirect measures based on secondary data (Buzby and research (e.g., Principato et al., 2015), this study assumed a beha-
Hyman, 2012; Parizeau et al., 2015). Finally, measurements differ in vioural perspective and established three main practices related to
terms of parameters and units, as some studies used weight (kilogram, consumer food waste, namely, in-store behaviour, storage activities,
tonne) (e.g., Monier et al., 2011), while others focused on the caloric and food management in the home.
value (Kummu et al., 2012) or the cost price or retail price (currency) of
wasted food (Buzby and Hyman, 2012; Venkat, 2011). Consequently,
the research outcomes change according to the different measurement 2.2.1. In-store behaviour
approaches. This study decided to adopt a self-reporting procedure In-store behaviour refers to all activities occurring before and
based on interviews, particularly focused on the frequency of waste of during food purchasing. Recent studies (Di Talia et al., 2019; Mattar
specific types of foods (Ponis et al., 2017). et al., 2018) showed that using a shopping list could make food pur-
chasing a planned (rather than impulsive) activity, thus mitigating food
waste. Similarly, planning meals can lower the consumer’s exposure to
2.2. Motivations to food waste overbuying (Romani et al., 2018; Wansink, 2018). This is particularly
relevant in light of the great amount of marketing promotions to which
The literature on factors affecting food waste is fragmented, as it is the consumer is exposed daily that encourages repeating purchases and
mainly focused on few or specific variables (Koivupuro et al., 2012; bulk buying (Ponis et al., 2017). In this respect, through a qualitative
Parfitt et al., 2010; Barone et al., 2019). At the same time, prior study Clark and Manning (2018) created a thematic map demonstrating

3
L. Bravi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 153 (2020) 104586

that one of the main factors influencing UK student food waste beha- substance, material, or product has become waste’. This issue has be-
viour is related to the temptation of special in-store offers. Conse- come a priority during the last years, and several efforts have been
quently, it can be assumed that negative in-store behaviour - including developed to provide possible solutions (Leverenz et al., 2019). No-
impulsive or exaggerated purchases due to unplanned meals, failure to tably, Graham-Rowe et al. (2014) showed that such analysis is parti-
use a shopping list and high interest towards in-shop special offers - cularly important to design effective interventions aimed at reducing
could negatively impact the frequency of household food waste. the overall amount of food waste. Preventing actions can result in en-
Therefore, the first hypothesis can be formulated as follows: vironmental, social and economic benefits (Papargyropoulou et al.,
2014); thus, it should be addressed at all levels, from international to
H1. Negative in-store behaviour is positively related to the frequency of
national and from regional to local (Diaz-Ruiz et al., 2019). They re-
household food waste.
quire a fundamental re-thinking of the current practices and systems in
place, on both the demand and the supply sides. Nevertheless, to date,
2.2.2. Storage practices the issue of food waste prevention has been under investigated
Storage practices are mainly related to the consumers’ abilities to (Quested et al., 2013; WRAP, 2013).
correctly store and preserve food after having purchased it; when Mondéjar-Jiménez et al. (2016), precisely focusing on the youth
consumers store food incorrectly (including bad freezing practices, in- segment, pointed out three main activities that have been labelled as
sufficient space allocation for foods, improper storage of cooked food, ‘positive’ behaviours towards food waste, namely, consuming house-
etc.), there is a high probability that the food will go bad (Richter and hold leftovers, understanding the date-labels on food and planning food
Bokelmann, 2017; Zepeda and Balaine, 2017; Stangherlin and de purchases. Similar findings emerged from other researches (e.g.,
Barcellos, 2018). According to Romani et al. (2018, p. 216), ‘food sto- Abeliotis et al., 2014; Koivupuro et al., 2012; Silvennoinen et al., 2014),
rage routines emerged as one of the most significant drivers influencing which considered such activities as relevant practices suggested for
food waste’. Similarly, through a qualitative study in an Italian rural reducing food waste. Starting from these contributions, this study fo-
area, Di Talia et al. (2019) found that one of the main factors affecting cused on two main activities for avoiding food waste: reuse of leftovers
domestic food waste is indirectly connected with incorrect storage and planning and checking food stocks.
practices. Such practices can be associated with both individual beha-
viours, such as the consumer knowledge concerning what type of foods 2.3.1. Reuse of leftovers
can go in the freezer, how to maintain freezer temperature (Davenport Leftovers are usually recognised as one of the main reasons for
et al., 2019; Zepeda and Balaine, 2017), and exogenous factors not discarding food, since their reuse requires high flexibility in menu
directly controllable by the consumer, such as the use of packages that planning (Quested and Johnson, 2009; Silvennoinen et al., 2014;
are not easy to reclose (Wikström et al., 2019) or unsuitable for proper Williams et al., 2012). Moreover, consumers ‘might avoid them due to
food storage (Richter and Bokelmann, 2017) as well as cold-chain in- psychological contamination bias or simply because they want to show
terruptions or short-term weather changes (Lemaire and Limbourg, others that they can afford to eat always fresh food’ (Porpino et al.,
2019). 2015). Nevertheless, the reuse of leftovers was among the most im-
Consistent with the above literature, it is likely to suppose that in- portant determinants of food waste minimisation in prior literature
correct storage practices lead to a higher frequency of household food (Stancu et al., 2016; Stefan et al., 2013). Thus, researches deeply in-
waste, as proposed by the second research hypothesis: vestigated strategies to recover and reuse food at the consumer level
H2. Incorrectly stored food positively affects the frequency of (Quested et al., 2013; WRAP, 2013; Leverenz et al., 2019), revealing the
household food waste. positive influence of some factors, such as good freezing practices and
cooking skills (Quested et al., 2013). Taking inspiration from prior
studies, the present research argues that the reuse of leftovers could
2.2.3. Food management in the home contribute to lower levels of food waste (Bell et al., 2011; Brook, 2007;
Food management in home relates to the overall eating habits and Principato et al., 2015; Stefan et al., 2013), as proposed in the following
consumers’ abilities in preparing and consuming meals. A first concern research hypothesis:
in this area regards the expiration date of food (Djekic et al., 2019).
People often ignore the expiration dates and confuse ‘best before’ and H4. The reuse of leftovers reduces the frequency of household food
‘use by’ dates (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014), thus leading to large waste.
amounts of waste (Girotto et al., 2015). Another issue concerns over-
cooking, which can make food inedible and forces storage and/or re-
2.3.2. Planning and checking food stocks
combining leftovers into new meals (Farr-Wharton et al., 2014; Griffin
The extant research demonstrated that correct check of food stocks
et al., 2009; Quested et al., 2013). Younger people may struggle with
and good planning of food purchases, based on an adequate shopping
this issue, as older people are more skilled and experienced in using
list, can result in food waste reduction (Chandon and Wansink, 2006;
leftovers and foods that are approaching their ‘use-by’ date safely
WRAP, 2007; Amirudin and Tommy Gim, 2019). In this respect, an
(Evans, 2011; Visschers et al., 2016; Davenport et al., 2019).
important issue concerns the attention towards date labels. As sug-
Based on these assumptions, the present study argues that improper
gested by Mirghotbi and Pourvali (2013), understanding that the ‘best
food management, that can be described as an unconscious and im-
before’ date is related to quality, while the ‘use by’ date is related to
proper way to manage food at home, resulting in practices like over-
safety, certainly could help consumers to make more informed choices.
cooking, incorrect use of date-labels and failure to reuse leftovers, could
Mondéjar-Jiménez et al. (2016) included food planning routines among
reduce the food waste problem. Therefore, a third hypothesis has been
the three main activities that consumers can employ to develop ‘posi-
formulated:
tive’ behaviours towards food waste. Similar to prior studies (Bell et al.,
H3. Food not properly managed in the home positively affects the 2011; Chandon and Wansink, 2006; Principato et al., 2015; Stefan
frequency of household food waste. et al., 2013), they argued that such routines can reduce food waste,
since failure to check food stocks prior to shopping and neglecting to
prepare an adequate shopping list increase the probability that food
2.3. Actions preventing food waste
will spoil and have to be thrown out. In the current study, the above
assumptions were tested through the following hypothesis:
The European Waste Framework Directive/2008 (Article 3, Clause
12) defined food waste prevention as the ‘measures taken before a H5. Proper management of food planning and checking existing stocks

4
L. Bravi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 153 (2020) 104586

reduces the frequency of household food waste. low incidence events or characteristics (i.e. owners of luxury cars). The
procedure used for data collection did not allow information on the
number of possible subjects contacted for participating in the survey,
2.4. The habit of eating out but only the number of those who voluntarily decided to join (Baker
et al., 2010; www.aapor.org).
Eating outside the home has become a common practice that helps The CAWI methodology was adopted since the study focuses on
people overcome certain mismatches in their working life, as well as a young consumers and the literature has found that ‘younger people
leisure practice that satisfies those who engage in it (Díaz-Méndez and have a stronger preference of joining the CAWI survey’ (Zmud et al.,
García-Espejo, 2017). What matters in this study is that the develop- 2013, p. 303). Moreover, following ‘the social desirability hypothesis’
ment of eating-out habits particularly applies to the younger segment of proposed by the AAPOR report, respondents may be more honest and
the population. The earlier research of Warde and Martens (2000) de- accurate when reporting confidentially on a computer than when pro-
monstrated that younger people tend to be more likely to eat out than viding reports orally to an interviewer (Baker et al., 2010). Several
older people and that those with both higher incomes and higher levels studies, such as those of Link and Mokdad (2005a, 2005b), have ex-
of education are more likely to eat out. Given the importance of this plored the idea that computer self-completion yields more honest re-
practice among young people, eating out has been investigated as a porting of embarrassing attributes or behaviours and less exaggeration
separate independent variable in this study, while previous research of admirable ones.
often considered it among other behavioural factors affecting food Participants were asked to complete an online questionnaire struc-
waste (Evans, 2011; Parizeau et al., 2015). tured into two sections. The first one collected the socio-demographic
McCarthy and Liu (2017) explored the cause-effect relationship characteristics of respondents (i.e., age, education, profession, address)
between eating out and food waste, and determined that it is still open and their overall food habits (i.e., foods and drinks mainly consumed,
to debate. In fact, eating out might increase household food waste if daily meal regularity, store choice for food purchasing). The second
food is left uneaten in the home, while it can also reduce waste if eating section gathered information about the food waste attitudes and be-
out results in less grocery shopping. Hence, the topic calls out for fur- haviours of the respondents. The online procedure resulted in a total of
ther analyses. Notwithstanding the above discussion, some studies 3323 usable questionnaires. Specifically, 1941 questionnaires were
found a significant (and positive) relationship between eating out and collected from the UK, 503 from Spain and 879 from Italy. Table 2
the probability of wasting food (Parizeau et al., 2015; Quested et al., provides a brief description of the samples.
2011; Evans, 2011; WRAP, 2013). Similarly, in this study, a positive
relationship between eating out and the frequency of household food 3.2. Measures
waste was expected, as proposed in the following research hypothesis:
H6. The high frequency of eating outside home positively influences the The aim of the research was to develop an exploratory analysis
frequency of household food waste. (Malhotra and Grover, 2018) using a deductive research approach
(Hyde, 2000) in order to analyse young consumers behaviour regarding
food waste. Four main constructs were thoroughly investigated: fre-
3. Methodology quency of household food waste, motivations to food waste, (3) actions
to prevent food waste and habits of eating out (see Appendix A).
3.1. Sampling and data collection Similar to previous studies (e.g., Ponis et al., 2017), the frequency of
household food waste was captured through the following question: ‘In
The data for this study were collected in a sample of Italian, Spanish your family how often do you throw still edible food away?’ Responses
and UK populations. Italy and Spain were chosen mainly for the simi- were reported using a five-point Likert scale (1=never; 5= always),
larities in their dietary patterns. In these two countries, there is a high considering a list of foods widely consumed. For selecting food types, a
adherence to the Mediterranean diet, which is also recognized as an reduced version of the list provided by Mondéjar-Jiménez et al. (2016)
environmentally-sustainable diet, characterised by high levels of per- was adopted. At the same time, one item was added to the original list
ishable foods that require correct storage and consumption (Mondéjar- of the authors, and that was rice, which is widely used in both Spain
Jiménez et al., 2016). The UK was selected mainly for its high volume and the UK as an alternative to pasta (Parfitt et al., 2010; Whitton et al.,
of food waste annually (Mallinson et al., 2016) as well as for its in- 2011).
creasing engagement in food waste prevention programmes (WRAP, Motivations to household food waste were divided into three sub-ca-
2013). tegories, focused on behavioural factors (Roodhuyzen et al., 2017): in-
Data were collected using a structured questionnaire survey dis-
tributed via computer-assisted web interviewing (CAWI) administered Table 2
from January to September 2017. The online survey was created using Description of the samples.
Google Forms, and was distributed on the main social networks UK (n = 1941) Spain (n = 503) Italy (n = 879)
(Facebook and Twitter) in Great Britain, Spain and Italy. Therefore, the
survey sample was obtained, following the definition given by the % n % n % n
American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), by using a
Age
nonprobability-based panel, that is, a ‘panel which involves a voluntary
18-21 12.5 243 14.9 75 21.1 186
self-selection process on the part of the person wanting to become a 22-25 23.8 462 42.9 216 50.5 444
member…. Anyone seeing the panel offering may choose to join and 26-30 30.7 596 24.3 122 23.0 202
become a panel member provided they meet requirements specified by 31-35 33.0 640 17.9 90 5.4 47
Education
the panel builder’ (Baker et al., 2010, p. 10; www.aapor.org). Two main
High school diploma 58.5 1135 64.2 323 49.1 432
criteria were adopted for sample inclusion: the individual’s age and Bachelor’s degree 30.9 600 14.7 75 33.4 293
place of residence. All the respondents were between 18 and 35 years of Master’s degree 9.4 182 18.7 95 16.2 142
age, and their nationality was British, Spanish or Italian. The obtained PhD or doctorate 1.2 24 2.0 10 1.4 12
sample belongs to the most familiar type of online panel defined by Profession
Student 16.9 328 43.9 221 74.0 650
AAPOR, namely, a general population panel. This typically includes
Worker 59.0 1145 49.9 251 19.6 172
hundreds of thousands to several million members, and it is used for Unemployed 24.1 468 6.2 31 6.4 57
general population research as well as for reaching respondents with

5
L. Bravi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 153 (2020) 104586

Table 3
Motivations to household food waste among Italian, Spanish and English consumers.
UK (n = 1941; 58.41%) Spain (n = 503; 15.14%) Italy (n = 879; 26.45%) ANOVA

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F Sig.

In-store behaviour – – – – – – – –
It.10 Buying too much food in general 2.11b 1.138 2.02 1.057 1.97a 1.083 4.849 .008
It.11 Impulsive buying behaviour (especially because shops are full of 2.05b 1.275 1.74a 0.969 1.60a 0.973 49.499 .000
offers)
Storing practices – – – – – – – –
It.12 Food goes bad because it is not stored correctly 1.77b 1.133 1.76b 0.952 1.54a 0.880 15.143 .000
Food management in home – – – – – – – –
It.13 Food not used before going past “use by” or “best before” date 2.26b 1.325 2.13b 1.172 1.81a 1.114 40.063 .000
It14. Preparing meal portions that are too large 2.03a 1.202 2.24b 1.165 2.04a 1.172 6.663 .001
It15. Uneaten leftovers 2.44b 1.253 2.18a 1.117 2.05a 1.149 34.146 .000
It16. too frenetic rhythms of life 2.46b 1.362 2.49b 1.293 2.23a 1.277 9.824 .000
Cronbach Alpha 0.833

Score within the same statement followed by different letters are significantly different (i.e. “a” is different from “b” but not from “ab”). Bonferroni Post Hoc Test was
applied. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

store behaviour, storage practices, and food management in the home. For (Hilton and Armstrong, 2006). Furthermore, in order to verify whether
in-store behaviour, two items previously adopted in other studies (Brook, there were significant relationships between the main motivations to
2007; Zepeda and Balaine, 2017) were selected, asking if food waste food waste and young consumers’ food waste frequency, separate re-
derived from buying too much food in general or from impulsive buying gression models for the UK, Spain and Italy were applied, performing
behaviours (especially because stores are full of special offers). For three hierarchical multiple regression analyses.
storage practices, respondents were asked if their food usually goes bad During the data processing, two control variables were considered
because it is not stored correctly (Zepeda and Balaine, 2017). Finally, for the analysis, as suggested in a previous contribution by Koivupuro
for evaluating food management in home, adaptations from previous et al. (2012). These are related to socio-demographic characteristics of
studies by Brook (2007); Parfitt et al. (2010) and Zepeda and Balaine the respondents, namely age and education. For preventing potential
(2017) were done. Each questionnaire item was evaluated on a five- biases, two main tactics were used, as recommended by methodologists,
point Likert scale (1 = not at all important; 5 = very important). such as Podsakoff (2003). First, for minimising memory failure and
Actions preventing household food waste were investigated through a distortion problems, participants were asked to focus on their house-
revised version of items proposed by Mondéjar-Jiménez et al. (2016). hold food waste behaviour. Second, on the first page of the ques-
Notably, preventing actions were divided into two sub-categories: reuse tionnaire, the anonymity and confidentiality of responses was guaran-
of leftovers and planning and checking stocks. Regarding the former, re- teed, and participants were assured that there were no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’
spondents were asked to indicate how often their family leftovers are answers (Miller, 2008). In addition, Harman (1967) single-factor test
reused. Responses were based on a five-point Likert scale (1 = never; was performed. A principal-components factor analysis on the items
5 = always), considering the same list of products previously used in revealed that factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, together ac-
the questionnaire for evaluating the frequency of household food waste. counted for 51.6, 55.2 and 52.9 per cent of the total variance respec-
Regarding planning and checking of food stocks, participants were asked tively for Italy, Spain and the UK. Moreover, in all cases the first
the following question: ‘Before planning a meal, how much effort do (greatest) factor did not account for the majority of the variance.
you put in these actions?’ The four items considered in this question Therefore, the findings show that common method bias is not of great
were related to regularly planning purchases by writing a shopping list, concern in this research. All data were processed using SPSS 23.0 sta-
regularly checking the ‘use by’ and ‘best before’ dates, buying only tistical software package.
necessities and organising the food in order to view the products were
about to expire. Items were evaluated on a five-point Likert scale
(1 = not at all; 5 = a lot). Finally, following McCarthy and Liu (2017), 4. Results and discussion
respondents’ habits of eating out were investigated asking about the
frequency of eating outside the home. Answers were collected using a 4.1. Motivations and actions to prevent food waste: A comparison of
frequency five-point Likert scale, with the following intervals: countries
1 = never, 2 = 2–3 times a month, 3 = once a week, 4 = 2–3 times per
week, 5 = at least 1 time per day. The main motivations for food waste (Table 3) were low on the
Appendix A summarises the variables used in the study, along with Likert scale, showing that respondent behaviour seems to be waste
their indicators and their main references. aversive; this is in line with the studies of Bolton and Alba (2012) and
Descriptive analysis was performed to describe the sample profile. Parizeau et al. (2015). Analyzing which are the main motivations for
To verify the reliability of the constructs, Cronbach’s alpha values were food waste and comparing them among Italy, Spain and the UK, it can
computed, taking into account only alpha values greater than 0.60, as be seen that the food management in home is the most relevant factor.
suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein (2004). Reliability was calculated Specifically, a too-frenetic rhythm of life was the first variable con-
for the items as set of variables and not as a single value for each item tributing to food waste in all the three countries, even if this is per-
(Santos, 1999). ceived as significantly more relevant in Spain and the UK, followed by
The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed using F-tests to the habit of leaving leftovers uneaten, especially in the UK and pre-
statistically test the equality of means (Markowski and Markowski, paring too-large portions, highlighted more in Spain. This confirms
1990) to analyze differences and similarities among Italian, Spanish prior research findings related to young people, which revealed their
and British consumer motivations to food waste and their main actions low abilities to manage food in the home due to their lower skills and
to prevent it. Different letters (a, b, c) in tables indicate significantly experience in reusing leftovers and cooking appropriate portions
different average scores using ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc tests (Evans, 2011; Farr-Wharton et al., 2014; Quested et al., 2013; Visschers
et al., 2016). This also provides the first empirical evidence for

6
L. Bravi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 153 (2020) 104586

Table 4
Actions preventing household food waste and habits of eating out among Italian, Spanish and English consumers.
UK (n = 1941; 58.41%) Spain (n = 503; 15.14%) Italy (n = 879; 26.45%) ANOVA

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Reuse of leftovers – – – – – – – –
It18. Fruit and vegetables 3.22a 1.324 3.02b 1.344 3.28a 1.331 6.108 .002
It19. Pasta/rice 3.25b 1.320 3.37 1.245 3.49a 1.182 11.089 .000
It20. Bread 2.54c 1.344 3.11b 1.328 3.58a 1.219 162.094 .000
It21. Red and white meat 3.40b 1.316 3.18a 1.325 3.23a 1.329 8.138 .000
It22. Fish 2.47b 1.460 2.83a 1.393 2.88a 1.445 30.160 .000
It23. Cheese and eggs 2.98a 1.399 2.70b 1.401 2.90a 1.414 7.758 .000
It24. Precooked foods 1.83b 1.266 2.34a 1.356 2.3a 1.438 55.364 .000
It25. Sausages/condiments 2.67 1.389 2.62 1.380 2.55 1.458 2.157 .116
Planning and checking – – – – – – – –
It27. Regularly planning purchases by writing a shopping list 3.28b 1.475 3.75a 1.141 3.76a 1.187 49.730 .000
It28. Regularly checking the “use by” and “best before” dates 3.20c 1.396 3.71b 1.220 4.13a 1.061 166.447 .000
It29. Buying only the necessary 3.33b 1.385 3.67a 1.015 3.71a 1.047 35.441 .000
It30. Organize the food in order to see all the products which are going 2.54c 1.501 3.69b 1.214 3.13a 1.408 147.245 .000
to expire in front of you
Habit of eating out – – – – – – – –
It31. Frequency of eating outside the home 2.37b 0.929 3.23a 0.994 3.30a 1.005 357.362 .000
Cronbach Alpha 0.850

Score within the same statement followed by different letters are significantly different (i.e. “a” is different from “b” but not from “ab”). Bonferroni Post Hoc Test was
applied. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

hypothesis H3, supporting the idea that food not properly managed in segment of the population (Heald, 1987; Warde and Martens, 2000).
the home positively affects the frequency of household food waste.
On the contrary it seems that storage practices do not affect food
waste behavior, not confirming H2, while in-store behaviors linked to the 4.2. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis
purchase of excess food are a bit more relevant in the British context,
supporting H1 in the UK and confirming the literature, which stated For evaluating some possible multicollinearity problems, we first
that the great amount of marketing promotions encourage repeating examined the correlations of the variables assessed in this study. In this
purchases and bulk buying (Ponis et al., 2017). respect, while no correlation coefficients were higher than 0.50 in the
Investigating the main action aimed at preventing food waste, and UK, for Italy, one correlation higher than 0.50 was found, and for Spain,
considering what type of food respondents in the three different three correlations exceeded the threshold value of 0.50. Therefore,
countries reuse most (Table 4), it can be seen that Italian consumers especially for Spain, but also for Italy, tests of collinearity diagnostics
frequently reuse pasta and rice; bread is widely reused in Italy and were performed to further evaluate possible multicollinearity problems,
Spain but not in the UK. British consumers pay much attention to not which are tolerance and variance inflation factors (VIF). Specifically,
discarding white and red meat, as well as fruit and vegetables. The same for all three countries, VIF values were between 1 and 2. Moreover, the
occurs in Italy, but they pay less attention to reusing fish compared to tolerance values for the regression variables were between 0.660 and
Italian and Spanish consumers. Results show that young Italian, Spanish 0.967 for Italy, 0.557 and 0.938 for Spain, and 0.521 and 0.976 for UK,
and British consumers are likely to reuse uneaten food, despite they which were significantly higher than 0.10. These results provided fur-
show different preferences according to their eating habits. However, as ther motives for eliminating the possibility of multicollinearity (Field,
suggested by Quested et al. (2013), results enhance the importance of 2005).
improving freezing ability as well as cooking skills, to help people Next, separate regression models for UK, Spain and Italy were ap-
properly reuse leftover foods, since the management of leftovers often plied, performing three hierarchical multiple regression analyses.
occurs as an everyday issue that people have to face (Cappellini, 2009). Table 5 illustrates the results.
As for planning and checking food stocks, Table 4 highlights that Frequency of food waste was the dependent variable of the regression
Italian and Spanish consumers seem to have more proactive behaviours model, while motivations to household food waste, actions preventing
than British consumers. Specifically, it seems that Italian consumers food waste and habits of eating out were the independent variables. Age
regularly check the ‘use by’ and ‘best before’ dates, followed by Spanish and education were used as control variables.
participants. As suggested by Mirghotbi and Pourvali (2013), such a As for the motivation to food waste, the findings provide strong
behaviour could help consumers to make more informed choices. Both evidence about the importance of in-store behaviour and food manage-
Italian and Spanish consumers regularly plan their purchases by writing ment in the home in reducing food waste in all the three countries, while
a shopping list, while this habit seems less frequent among British it seems that good storage practices perform a positive relation with the
consumers. What is more, Spanish consumers are more involved in reduction of the frequency of food waste only in the Spanish context.
organizing the food in order to consume in advance all the products that Therefore, H1 and H3 are confirmed since the model shows that both
are about to expire. negative in-store behaviour and bad management of the food are po-
Finally, considering the frequency of eating outside the home, while sitively related to the frequency of household food waste. These results
Italian and Spanish respondents seem to go out for lunch or dinner a are in line with the previous literature (Farr-Wharton et al., 2014;
little more than once a week, the British participants do so just over 2–3 Quested et al., 2013; Stefan et al., 2013). On the contrary, H2 is only
times a month (Table 4). Therefore, the results of this study seem to partially confirmed, since the model shows that in Italy and in the UK,
confirm for Italian and Spanish consumers what has been stated in the food not correctly stored doesn’t affect the frequency of household food
literature concerning the increasing tendency over the last decade to eat waste. This probably comes from the responsible food behaviour of
out (Díaz-Méndez and García-Espejo, 2017; Schollier, 2015) and that consuming food, even if it is not stored correctly.
the development of eating out habits particularly concerns the younger As for the actions preventing food waste, the model shows (Table 5)
that, as hypothesised in H3 and underlined in prior literature (Bell

7
L. Bravi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 153 (2020) 104586

Table 5
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis.
Model 1: UK (a) Model 2: Spain (b) Model 3: Italy (c)

β coefficient P-value β coefficient P-value β coefficient P-value

Age −.004 .824 −.075 .070 −.026 .421

Education .031 .123 .052 .212 −.041 .202
In-store behaviour .160 .000 .138 .008 .181 .000
Storage practices .022 .318 .150 .002 −.026 .435
Food management in the home .258 .000 .241 .000 .363 .000
Reuse of leftover −.152 .000 −.175 .000 −.113 .000
Planning and checking −.048 .021 −.018 .669 −.030 337
Habit of eating out .109 .000 .002 .955 .004 .899

Bold values are statistically significant with P-value < 0.10.

et al., 2011; Brook, 2007; Principato et al., 2015; Stancu et al., 2016; chain, that is, the household, which is reported in literature as being
Stefan et al., 2013), the reuse of leftovers is a relevant determinant of responsible for the highest food waste production (Beretta et al., 2013;
food waste minimisation. Indeed, a negative connection with food Hartikainen et al., 2014; Jörissen et al., 2015; Ai and Zheng, 2019;
waste has been detected in all the analysed contexts. Regarding plan- Hebrok and Heidenstrøm, 2019). As highlighted by the ANOVA, some
ning and checking, Table 5 shows a significant negative relationship variables among the main motivations and actions to prevent house-
only for the UK. Therefore, it can be said that H5 is only partially hold food waste are statistically relevant for the three analysed coun-
confirmed by the results and that food planning routines, although they tries, while others are relevant only within a specific context. Notably,
are indicated by Italian and Spanish consumers as actions carried out the results of the current study show that negative in-store behaviours
frequently and carefully, are not always relevant actions that reduce (linked to unplanned food purchasing and the large amount of mar-
food waste. This is in line with prior research revealing that educating keting promotions) usually cause consumer to overbuy food products,
youths to plan their purchases and to reuse leftovers usually limits food thus raising the level of food waste. This tendency is a little bit more
waste, even if it strictly depends on personal attitudes, intentions, relevant in the UK, confirming the literature and supporting H1. What is
household habits and contexts in which the food is purchased and more, food not properly managed in the home positively affects the
consumed (Mondéjar-Jiménez et al., 2016; Quested et al., 2013). household food waste intensity, while the habit of reusing leftovers
Finally, considering the habits of eating out, the findings of this emerges as a positive action to prevent and reduce food losses. This
study confirm the ongoing debate found in the literature (McCarthy and supports H3 and supposes a possible relationship between the two hy-
Liu, 2017), because a significant and positive relation between the habit potheses (H1 and H3), that is, overbuying food in the store can influ-
of eating out and the frequency of food waste has been found, again, ence the subsequent management of it at home. The results also high-
only in the British context, among those consumers who were targeted light that young consumers from the three countries are likely to reuse
as less used to going out to eat. Therefore, H6 is partially confirmed uneaten food, confirming that reusing food reduces food waste intensity
only for the UK where the consumers that have a high frequency of (H4), but there are different preferences determined by different eating
eating out positively influences the frequency of household food waste habits. However, adopting the right storing practices for food does not
(Parizeau et al., 2015), while this is not confirmed for Italy and Spain always reduce waste, and planning and checking actions are not always
where this habit seems to reduce food waste only if the eating out re- enough to reduce food waste. As for planning and checking actions,
sults in less grocery shopping. With specific regard to sociodemographic Italian and Spanish consumers seem to have more proactive behaviours
features, the findings show that there is not a significant relation be- than the British. Specifically, it seems that Italian consumers regularly
tween the educational level and food waste frequency; therefore, even if check the ‘use by’ and ‘best before’ dates, followed by the Spanish. Both
previous studies demonstrated that people with higher incomes and Italian and Spanish consumers regularly plan their purchases by writing
levels of education are more likely to eat out (Heald, 1987; Warde and a shopping list, while this habit seems less frequently done by British
Martens, 2000), this study did not confirm that. However, even if in the consumers, and in this case, incorrectly planned actions influence food
model, the education variable is not statistically significant for all the waste intensity (H5). Spanish consumers are also more involved in or-
three countries, looking at the beta coefficients (UK, β = .031; Spain, ganising the food in order to consume in advance all the products that
β = .052;, Italy, β = −.041), it can be seen from the positive signs that, are going to expire in a few days.
for both the British and Spanish contexts, the higher the level of edu- Habits of eating out remain contradictory. While in some cases it
cation is, the higher food waste frequency is. Subsequently, considering positively affects food waste intensity, that is not the case for the UK,
age as a control variable, the model shows a statistically significant and H6 is not supported. In the case of the UK, it is necessary to con-
negative relation between age and food waste frequency for Spain, and sider a possible relation between H5 and H6, that is, the habit of eating
in this case, the indications found in literature concerning the greater out without good planning and good control and management of food
propensity of younger people to waste food were confirmed (Mallinson could lead to greater food waste.
et al., 2016; Principato et al., 2015; Quested et al., 2013; WRAP, 2008). It can therefore be concluded that the country of origin of con-
The same propensity cannot be confirmed in the UK and Italy; there- sumers appears to be a discriminant variable in the management of food
fore, this seems to confirm the increasing awareness of young people waste; consumers from different countries show dissimilarities due to
about the importance of recycling defined by Comber and Thieme different cultural and behavioural aspects of the country itself.
(2013) and of the negative consequences of food waste both en- Differences mainly concern eating habits, in terms of what they eat,
vironmentally and monetarily (Zepeda and Balaine, 2017). Figs. 1–3 where they eat, and how food purchases are planned. Greater simila-
represent the regression model interactions of variables and hypotheses rities can be found among Italian and Spanish consumers, since the two
for each country. Mediterranean countries have an overall ‘cultural proximity’.
Several implications can be drawn from these findings both theo-
5. Conclusions and implications retically and practically. From a theoretical standpoint, this study adds
knowledge to the body of literature on food waste management in at
This study focused on the last downstream tier of the food supply least three ways. First, the findings confirm that food waste is a complex

8
L. Bravi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 153 (2020) 104586

Fig. 1. Visual representation of the hierarchical multiple regression model for UK.

issue that requires a broad approach of analysis by considering several sample, provides a comprehensive investigation of consumer behaviour
factors simultaneously. As previously noted, food waste is the result of a from the pre-purchase stage through the final phase of food consump-
variety of everyday actions, rather than a single behaviour (Evans, tion. Second, this study provides further insights about the relationship
2011; Quested et al., 2013; Watson and Meah, 2012). Endorsing this between eating out and food waste that is still open to debate in the
assumption, the present work, with all relative limits of the surveyed literature given the contradictory results of previous research. Finally,

Fig. 2. Visual representation of the hierarchical multiple regression model for Spain.

9
L. Bravi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 153 (2020) 104586

Fig. 3. Visual representation of the hierarchical multiple regression model for Italy.

the study contributes to the overall knowledge about actions preventing respect for natural resources.
food waste that were poorly investigated in the literature (Quested
et al., 2013; WRAP, 2013) and whose comprehension has been re-
cognised as critical for developing effective initiatives aimed at redu- 6. Limitations and future research directions
cing the waste phenomenon (Graham-Rowe et al., 2014).
From a practical point of view, results show that the most important Although interesting findings were observed, there is still much
action to reduce food waste is to have a well informed and organised research that can be carried out, especially in light of some of the
consumer. Indeed, people are often confused between the terms ‘best limitations of the present study. First, this study did not provide any
before’ or ‘use by’ when reading the expiration dates of foods suggestions for reducing food waste, which could be of great im-
(Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). The findings demonstrated that such portance in improving public awareness and knowledge of the waste
confusion could lead to a higher food waste intensity. Therefore, it problem and, therefore, to develop effective preventing actions.
could be important to educate the consumer regarding the right food Second, the results show some differences in sociodemographic char-
purchasing behaviour and the right shopping frequency, but also using acteristics of the samples related to food waste; thus, future investiga-
by a shopping list and planning meals in advance. Always considering tions should be made to further explore the role of such variables, and
that the obtained results are taken from a sample that does not allow to also consider other important ones such as income or type of
generalisations, it is possible to indicate some useful practical im- household, and the psychographic aspects of consumers that were not
plications of these results, with the warning not to take as law what is considered in this study.
recommended. First, it could be relevant to promote a more complete Other limitations concern the methodology. First, the CAWI meth-
information towards food labels, food consumption and the manage- odology leads to the creation of a self-selected sample, which could lead
ment of food, both in scholarly contexts and in everyday life by pro- to self-selection bias. This procedure does not allow information on the
viding, for example, public events, open seminars and/or laboratories dimension of the general population panel obtained, and therefore, it
aimed at improving overall individual awareness of waste concerns. does not allow the calculation of the participation rate or whether the
Information could be extended with regard to the potential for reuse of sample was statistically representative of the contacted population.
food waste, both in agriculture (production of compost) and socially However, as stated by the AAPOR report, the panels themselves were
(canteen for the poor and volunteers centres). Public and company not representative of the general population, and this is a limitation of
communication could promote consumer awareness of the issue of food this study and online surveys in general (Baker et al., 2010). In future
waste by reducing some taboos, such as the recovery of advanced foods studies, it would be important to consider the same research topics,
at the restaurants and spreading good reuse practices. Also, the collecting responses with traditional methods (telephone, mail, but also
packaging could be improved by adding more information about pos- direct interviews) and making a comparison of the results, discussing
sible alternatives for reuse of the product (i.e., adding recipes), or possible similarities and differences.
further articulate product formats to make them more suitable for the Second, the self-estimated measure of food waste frequency used for
consumption needs and the eating habits of young people. this study can bias individuals to under-estimate the overall amount of
Finally, distributors could also play a key role by finalising pro- food wasted. Thus, future research could consider objective measures of
motional initiatives not only to short-term economic objectives but also food waste, such as a food waste diary, which requires consumer ac-
to social goals, such as environmental protection, waste reduction and countability. In addition, for future studies, it could be important to test
these findings in either non-European countries or in emerging ones in

10
L. Bravi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 153 (2020) 104586

order to make a comparison with additional cultural and social con- interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
texts. ence the work reported in this paper.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

Appendix A. Variables and measures

Variable Items References α

UK Spain Italy

Frequency of household food waste (Dependent Frequency of food waste Mondéjar-Jiménez et al., 2016; Ponis .894 .914 .841
variable: Y) It1. Fruit and vegetables et al., 2017
It2. Pasta/rice
It3. Bread
It4. Red and white meat
It5. Fish
It6. Cheese and eggs
It.7 Precooked foods
It.8 Sausages/condiments
It.9 Drinks
Motivations to household food waste (Indepe- In-store behaviour Brook, 2007; Zepeda and Balaine, 2017 .638 .629 .568
ndent variable: X1) It.10 Buying too much food in general
It.11 Impulsive buying behaviour (especially because shops are full
of offers)
Storage practices WRAP, 2007; Zepeda and Balaine, 2017
It.12 Food goes bad because it is not stored correctly
Food management in the home Brook, 2007; Parfitt et al., 2010; Zepeda .782 .793 .695
It.13 Food not used before going past “use by” or “best before” date and Balaine, 2017
It14. Preparing meal portions that are too large
It15. Uneaten leftovers
It16. Too frenetic rhythms of life
Actions preventing household food waste (Ind- Reuse of leftovers Mondéjar-Jiménez et al., 2016 .910 .927 .921
ependent variable: X2) It17. Fruit and vegetables
It18. Pasta/rice
It19. Bread
It20. Red and white meat
It21. Fish
It22. Cheese and eggs
It23. Precooked foods
It24. Sausages/condiments
Planning and checking Mondéjar-Jiménez et al., 2016 .753 .694 .594
It25. Regularly planning purchases by writing a shopping list
It26. Regularly checking the “use by” and “best before” dates
It27. Buying only the necessary
It29. Organize the food in order to see all the products which are
going to expire in front of you
Habits of eating out (Independent variable: It29. Frequency of eating outside the home McCarthy and Liu, 2017
X3)
Age (Control variable) 18-21 years; 22-25 years; 26-30 years; 31-35 years Koivupuro et al., 2012.
Education (Control variable) high school diploma; bachelor's degree; master's degree; PhD or Koivupuro et al., 2012.
doctorate.

References intentions: when consumers’ goals inhibit the minimization of household food waste.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 149, 97–105.
Beretta, C., Stoessel, F., Baier, U., Hellweg, S., 2013. Quantifying food losses and the
Abdulla, M., Martin, R.C., Gooch, M., Jovel, E., 2013. The importance of quantifying food potential for reduction in Switzerland. Waste Manag. 33 (3), 764–773. https://doi.
waste in Canada. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 3, 137–151. https://doi.org/ org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.11.007.
10.5304/jafscd.2013.032.018. Bell, D.R., Corsten, D., Knox, G., 2011. From point of purchase to path to purchase: how
Abeliotis, K., Lasaridi, K., Chroni, C., 2014. Attitudes and behaviour of Greek households preshopping factors drive unplanned buying. J. Mark. 75 (1), 31–45. https://doi.org/
regarding food waste prevention. Waste Manag. Res. 32 (3), 237–240. https://doi. 10.1509/jmkg.75.1.31.
org/10.1177/0734242X14521681. Bernstad Saraiva Schott, A., Andersson, T., 2015. Food waste minimization from a life-
Ai, N., Zheng, J., 2019. Community-based food waste modeling and planning framework cycle perspective. J. Environ. Manage. 147, 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
for urban regions. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 9 (1), 1–20. jenvman.2014.07.048.
Amirudin, N., Tommy Gim, T.-H., 2019. Impact of perceived food accessibility on Brook, L., 2007. Food Behaviour Consumer Research: Quantitative Stage. WRAP,
household food waste behaviors: a case of the Klang Valley, Malaysia. Resour. Banbury, UK.
Conserv. Recycl. 151 104335. Bolton, L.E., Alba, J.W., 2012. When less is more: consumer aversion to unused utility. J.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., Giménez, A., Ares, G., 2018. Convenience or price orientation? Consum. Psychol. 22 (3), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.09.002.
Consumer characteristics influencing food waste behaviour in the context of an Buzby, J.C., Hyman, J., 2012. Total and per capita value of food loss in the United States.
emerging country and the impact on future sustainability of the global food sector. Food Policy 37, 561–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.06.002.
Glob. Environ. Change 49, 85–94. Cappellini, B., 2009. The sacrifice of re‐use: the travels of leftovers and family relations. J.
Baker, R., Blumberg, S.J., Brick, J.M., Couper, M.P., Courtright, M., et al., 2010. Research Consum. Behav. 8 (6), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.299.
synthesis: AAPOR report on online panels. Public Opin. Q. 74 (4), 711–781. https:// Chandon, P., Wansink, B., 2006. How biased household inventory estimates distort
doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq048. shopping and storage decisions. J. Mark. 70, 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1509/
Barone, A.M., Grappi, S., Romani, S., 2019. The road to food waste is paved with good jmkg.70.4.118.

11
L. Bravi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 153 (2020) 104586

Clark, J., Manning, L., 2018. What are the factors that an opportunity sample of UK Hodge, K.L., Levis, J.W., DeCarolis, J.F., Barlaz, M.A., 2016. Systematic evaluation of
students insinuate as being associated with their wastage of food in the home setting? industrial, commercial, and institutional food waste management strategies in the
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 130, 20–30. United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (16), 8444–8452.
Comber, R., Thieme, A., 2013. Designing beyond habit: opening space for improved re- Hyde, K.F., 2000. Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qual. Mark.
cycling and food waste behaviors through processes of persuasion, social influence Res. Int. J. 3 (2), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750010322089.
and aversive affect. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 17 (6), 1197–1210. https://doi.org/10. Jörissen, J., Priefer, C., Bräutigam, K.R., 2015. Food waste generation at household level:
1007/s00779-012-0587-1. results of a survey among employees of two European research centers in Italy and
Cristóbal, J., Castellani, V., Manfredi, S., Sala, S., 2018. Prioritizing and optimizing sus- Germany. Sustainability 7, 2695–2715. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032695.
tainable measures for food waste prevention and management. Waste Manag. 72, Katajajuuri, J.M., Silvennoinen, K., Hartikainen, H., Heikkilä, L., Reinikainen, A., 2014.
3–16. Food waste in the Finnish food chain. J. Clean. Prod. 73, 322–329. https://doi.org/
Davenport, M.L., Qi, D., Roe, B.E., 2019. Food-related routines, product characteristics, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.057.
and household food waste in the United States: a refrigerator-based pilot study. Koivupuro, H.K., Hartikainen, H., Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J.M., Heikintalo, N.,
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 150, 104440. Reinikainen, A., Jalkanen, L., 2012. Influence of socio‐demographical, behavioural
De Laurentiis, V., Corrado, S., Sala, S., 2018. Quantifying household waste of fresh fruit and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish
and vegetables in the EU. Waste Manag. 77, 238–251. households. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 36 (2), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-
Di Talia, E., Simeone, M., Scarpato, D., 2019. Consumer behaviour types in household 6431.2011.01080.x.
food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 214, 166–172. Kummu, M., De Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., Ward, P.J., 2012. Lost food,
Díaz-Méndez, C., García-Espejo, I., 2017. Eating out in Spain: motivations, sociability and wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater,
consumer contexts. Appetite 119, 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.03. cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 438, 477–489. https://doi.org/10.
047. 1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.092.
Diaz-Ruiz, R., Costa-Font, M., López-i-Gelats, F., Gil, J.M., 2019. Food waste prevention Lemaire, A., Limbourg, S., 2019. How can food loss and waste management achieve
along the food supply chain: a multi-actor approach to identify effective solutions. sustainable development goals? J. Clean. Prod. 234, 1221–1234.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 149, 249–260. Leverenz, D., Moussawel, S., Maurer, C., Hafner, G., Schneider, F., Schmidt, T., Kranert,
Djekic, I., Miloradovic, Z., Djekic, S., Tomasevic, I., 2019. Household food waste in M., 2019. Quantifying the prevention potential of avoidable food waste in households
Serbia–Attitudes, quantities and global warming potential. J. Clean. Prod. 229, using a self-reporting approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 150 104417.
44–52. Link, M.W., Mokdad, A.H., 2005a. Effects of survey mode on self-reports of adult alcohol
Dreyer, H.C., Dukovska-Popovska, I., Yu, Q., Hedenstierna, C.P., 2019. A ranking method consumption: a comparison of mail, web and telephone approaches. J. Stud. Alcohol
for prioritising retail store food waste based on monetary and environmental impacts. 66 (2), 239–245. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2005.66.239.
J. Clean. Prod. 210, 505–517. Link, M.W., Mokdad, A.H., 2005b. Alternative modes for health surveillance surveys: an
Elimelech, E., Ayalon, O., Ert, E., 2018. What gets measured gets managed: a new method experiment with web, mail, and telephone. Epidemiology 16 (5), 701–704. https://
of measuring household food waste. Waste Manag. 76, 68–81. www.jstor.org/stable/i20486107.
Ellison, B., Savchenko, O., Nikolaus, C.J., Duff, B.R., 2019. Every plate counts: evaluation Liu, J., Lundqvist, J., Weinberg, J., Gustafsson, J., 2013. Food losses and waste in China
of a food waste reduction campaign in a university dining hall. Resour. Conserv. and their implication for water and land. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 10137–10144.
Recycl. 144, 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1021/es401426b.
European Commission, 2015. EU Actions against Food Waste. (Accessed 13 June 2018). Liu, C., Hotta, Y., Santo, A., Hengesbaugh, M., Watabe, A., Totoki, Y., Bengtsson, M.,
http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu_actions/index_en.htm/. 2016. Food waste in Japan: trends, current practices and key challenges. J. Clean.
Evans, D., 2011. Blaming the consumer - once again: the social and material contexts of Prod. 133, 557–564.
everyday food waste practices in some English households. Crit. Public Health 21, Malhotra, M.K., Grover, V., 2018. An assessment of survey research in POM: from con-
429–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2011.608797. structs to theory. J. Oper. Manag. 16 (4), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-
Farr-Wharton, G., Foth, M., Choi, J.H.J., 2014. Identifying factors that promote consumer 6963(98)00021-7.
behaviours causing expired domestic food waste. J. Consum. Behav. 13 (6), 393–402. Mallinson, L.J., Russell, J.M., Barker, M.E., 2016. Attitudes and behaviour towards con-
https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1488. venience food and food waste in the United Kingdom. Appetite 103, 17–28. https://
Field, A., 2005. Regression. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2nd edition. SAGE doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.03.017.
Publications, London, UK. Markowski, C.A., Markowski, E.P., 1990. Conditions for the effectiveness of a preliminary
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2012. The State of Food and Agriculture 2010- test of variance. Am. Stat. 44 (4), 322–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.
2011. Women in Agriculture, Rome, Italy. 1990.10475752.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2013. Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Mattar, L., Abiad, M.G., Chalak, A., Diab, M., Hassan, H., 2018. Attitudes and behaviors
Natural Resources (Summary Report). Rome, Italy. . shaping household food waste generation: lessons from Lebanon. J. Clean. Prod. 198,
Galvan, A.M., Hanson, R., George, D.R., 2018. Repurposing waste streams: lessons on 1219–1223.
integrating hospital food waste into a community garden. J. Community Health 43 McCarthy, B., Liu, H.B., 2017. Food waste and the ‘green’ consumer. Australas. Mark. J.
(5), 944–946. (AMJ) 25 (2), 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.04.007.
Garrone, P., Melacini, M., Perego, A., 2014. Opening the black box of food waste re- Milbrandt, A., Seiple, T., Heimiller, D., Skaggs, R., Coleman, A., 2018. Wet waste-to-
duction. Food Policy 46, 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.03.014. energy resources in the United States. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 137, 32–47.
Girotto, F., Alibardi, L., Cossu, R., 2015. Food waste generation and industrial uses: a Miller, C.C., 2008. Decisional comprehensiveness and firm performance: towards a more
review. Waste Manag. 45, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.06.008. complete understanding. J. Behav. Decis.-Making 21 (5), 598–620. https://doi.org/
Graham-Rowe, E., Jessop, D.C., Sparks, P., 2014. Identifying motivations and barriers to 10.1002/bdm.607.
minimising household food waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 84, 15–23. https://doi. Mirabella, N., Castellani, V., Sala, S., 2014. Current options for the valorization of food
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.005. manufacturing waste: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Grainger, M.J., Aramyan, L., Piras, S., Quested, T.E., Righi, S., Setti, M., Vittuari, M., jclepro.2013.10.051.
Stewart, G.B., 2018. Model selection and averaging in the assessment of the drivers of Mirghotbi, M., Pourvali, K., 2013. Consumers’ attitude towards date marking system of
household food waste to reduce the probability of false positives. PLoS One 13 (2), packaged foods. J. Paramed. Sci. 4 (3), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.22037/jps.v4i3.
1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192075. 4661.
Grandhi, B., Appaiah Singh, J., 2015. What a waste! A study of food wastage behavior in Mondéjar-Jiménez, J.A., Ferrari, G., Secondi, L., Principato, L., 2016. From the table to
Singapore. J. Food Prod. Mark. 22, 471–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446. waste: an exploratory study on behaviour towards food waste of Spanish and Italian
2014.885863. youths. J. Clean. Prod. 138, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.018.
Griffin, M., Sobal, J., Lyson, T.A., 2009. An analysis of a community food waste stream. Monier, V., Mudgal, S., Escalon, V., O’Connor, C., Gibon, T., Anderson, G., et al., 2011.
Agric. Human Values 26, 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9178-1. Preparatory Study on Food Waste across EU 27. European Commission.
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Van Otterdijk, R., Meybeck, A., 2011. Global Muriana, C., 2017. A focus on the state of the art of food waste/losses issue and sug-
Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention. Food and Agriculture gestions for future researches. Waste Manag. 68, 557–570.
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy. Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H., 2004. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Harman, D., 1967. A single factor test of common method variance. J. Psychol. 35, Ozcicek-Dolekoglu, C., Var, I., 2019. Analysis of food waste in university dining halls: a
359–378. case study from turkey. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 28, 156–166.
Hartikainen, H., Roininen, T., Katajajuuri, J.M., Pulkkinen, H., 2014. Finnish consumer Porpino, G., Parente, J., Wansink, B., 2015. Food waste paradox: antecedents of food
perceptions of carbon footprints and carbon labelling of food products. J. Clean. Prod. disposal in low income households. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 39, 619–629. https://doi.
73, 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.018. org/10.1111/ijcs.12207.
Heald, G., 1987. Trends in eating out. In: Cottrell, R. (Ed.), Nutrition in Catering. Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J.K., Wright, N., bin Ujang, Z., 2014. The
Parthenon Publishing Group, Carnforth, Lancashire, UK. food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food
Hebrok, M., Boks, C., 2017. Household food waste: drivers and potential intervention waste. J. Clean. Prod. 76, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.020.
points for design–an extensive review. J. Clean. Prod. 151, 380–392. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S., 2010. Food waste within food supply chains:
Hebrok, M., Heidenstrøm, N., 2019. Contextualising food waste prevention-decisive quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. Biol. Sci. 365 (1554),
moments within everyday practices. J. Clean. Prod. 210, 1435–1448. 3065–3081. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0126.
HLPE, 2014. Food Losses and Waste in the Context of Sustainable Food Systems: A Report Parizeau, K., von Massow, M., Martin, R., 2015. Household-level dynamics of food waste
by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. High Level Panel production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph, Ontario. Waste
of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE), Rome, Italy. Manag. 35, 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.019.
Hilton, A., Armstrong, R.A., 2006. Statnote 6: post-hoc ANOVA tests. Microbiologist Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of
34–36. the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903. https://

12
L. Bravi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 153 (2020) 104586

doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879. behaviour: two routes to food waste. Appetite 96, 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Ponis, S.T., Papanikolaou, P.A., Katimertzoglou, P., Ntalla, A.C., Xenos, K.I., 2017. appet.2015.08.025.
Household food waste in Greece: a questionnaire survey. J. Clean. Prod. 149, Stangherlin, I.D.C., de Barcellos, M.D., 2018. Drivers and barriers to food waste reduction.
1268–1277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.165. Br. Food J. 120 (10), 2364–2387.
Principato, L., Secondi, L., Pratesi, C.A., 2015. Reducing food waste: an investigation on Stapleton, S.R., Cole, P., 2018. School lunch and student food insecurity: a teacher’s
the behavior of Italian youths. Br. Food J. 117, 731–748. https://doi.org/10.1108/ observations and reflections. In: Rice, S., Rud, A. (Eds.), Educational Dimensions of
BFJ-10-2013-0314. School Lunch. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Quested, T., Johnson, H., 2009. Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK: Final Report. Stefan, V., Van Herpen, E., Tudoran, A.A., Lähteenmäki, L., 2013. Avoiding food waste by
WRAP, Banbury, UK. Romanian consumers: the importance of planning and shopping routines. Food Qual.
Quested, T.E., Parry, A.D., Easteal, S., Swannell, R., 2011. Food and drink waste from Prefer. 28, 375–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.11.001.
households in the UK. Nutr. Bull. 36 (4), 460–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- Thyberg, K.L., Tonjes, D.J., 2016. Drivers of food waste and their implications for sus-
3010.2011.01924.x. tainable policy development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 106, 110–123.
Quested, T.E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D., Parry, A.D., 2013. Spaghetti soup: the complex world Venkat, K., 2011. The climate change and economic impacts of food waste in the United
of food waste behaviours. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 79, 43–51. https://doi.org/10. States. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2, 431–446. https://doi.org/10.18461/ijfsd.v2i4.247.
1016/j.resconrec.2013.04.011. Vermeir, I., Verbeke, W., 2006. Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer
Quinn, E.L., Johnson, D.B., Podrabsky, M., Saelens, B.E., Bignell, W., Krieger, J., 2018. “attitude–behavioral intention” gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 19 (2), 169–194.
Effects of a behavioral economics intervention on food choice and food consumption Visschers, V.H., Wickli, N., Siegrist, M., 2016. Sorting out food waste behaviour: a survey
in MiddleSchool and high-school cafeterias. Prev. Chronic Dis. 15, 170377. on the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in households.
Rajan, J., Fredeen, A.L., Booth, A.L., Watson, M., 2018. Measuring food waste and J. Environ. Psychol. 45, 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.007.
creating diversion opportunities at Canada’s Green UniversityTM. J. Hunger Environ. Vanham, D., Bouraoui, F., Leip, A., Grizzetti, B., Bidoglio, G., 2015. Lost water and ni-
Nutr. 13 (4), 573–586. trogen resources due to EU consumer food waste. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 084008.
Reynolds, C.J., Mavrakis, V., Davison, S., Høj, S.B., Vlaholias, E., Sharp, A., et al., 2014. Wansink, B., 2018. Household food waste solutions for behavioral economists and mar-
Estimating informal household food waste in developed countries: the case of keters. J. Food Prod. Mark. 24 (5), 500–521.
Australia. Waste Manag. Res. 32, 1254–1258. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Warde, A., Martens, L., 2000. Eating Out: Social Differentiation, Consumption and
0734242X14549797. Pleasure. Cambridge University Press.
Richter, B., Bokelmann, W., 2017. Explorative study about the analysis of storing, pur- Watson, M., Meah, A., 2012. Food, waste and safety: negotiating conflicting social an-
chasing and wasting food by using household diaries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 125, xieties into the practices of domestic provisioning. Sociol. Rev. 60 (S2), 102–120.
181–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12040.
Romani, S., Grappi, S., Bagozzi, R.P., Barone, A.M., 2018. Domestic food practices: a Whitton, C., Nicholson, S.K., Roberts, C., Prynne, C.J., Pot, G.K., Olson, A., Henderson, H.,
study of food management behaviors and the role of food preparation planning in 2011. National Diet and Nutrition Survey: UK food consumption and nutrient intakes
reducing waste. Appetite 121, 215–227. from the first year of the rolling programme and comparisons with previous surveys.
Roodhuyzen, D.M.A., Luning, P.A., Fogliano, V., Steenbekkers, L.P.A., 2017. Putting to- Br. J. Nutr. 106 (12), 1899–1914.
gether the puzzle of consumer food waste: towards an integral perspective. Trends Wikström, F., Williams, H., Trischler, J., Rowe, Z., 2019. The importance of packaging
Food Sci. Technol. 68, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.07.009. functions for food waste of different products in households. Sustainability 11 (9),
Santos, J.R.A., 1999. Cronbach’s alpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales. J. Ext. 2641.
37 (2), 1–5. Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Löfgren, M., Gustafsson, A., 2012. Reasons for
Schanes, K., Dobernig, K., Gözet, B., 2018. Food waste matters-a systematic review of household food waste with special attention to packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 24,
household food waste practices and their policy implications. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.044.
978–991. WRAP, 2007. Understanding Food Waste. March 2007. .
Shaw, P., Smith, M., Williams, I., 2018. On the prevention of avoidable food waste from WRAP, 2008. The Food We Waste. Banbury, UK. .
domestic households. Recycling 3 (2), 24. WRAP, 2013. Overview of Waste in the UK Hospitality and Food Service Sector. WRAP,
Schollier, P., 2015. Convenience foods. What, why and when. Appetite 94, 2–6. https:// Banbury, UK.
doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.017. Zepeda, L., Balaine, L., 2017. Consumers’ perceptions of food waste: a pilot study of US
Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J.M., Hartikainen, H., Heikkila, L., Reinikainen, A., 2014. students. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 41 (6), 627–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12376.
Food waste volume and composition in Finnish households. Br. Food J. 116, Zmud, J., Lee-Gosselin, M., Munizaga, M., Carrasco, J.A. (Eds.), 2013. Transport Survey
1058–1068. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2012-0311. Methods: Best Practice for Decision Making. Emerald Group Publishing Limited:
Stancu, V., Haugaard, P., Lähteenmäki, L., 2016. Determinants of consumer food waste Bingley, West Yorkshire.

13