Food for naught: Using the theory of planned behaviour to better understand household food wasting behaviour

Abstract

Key MessagesRespondent households threw out food 4.77 times/week and 5.89 food portions/week. Reducing monetary impact of food waste was identified as the most selected food waste reduction motivator.Perceived behavioural control was identified as an important determinant of food wasting behaviour.To better understand food wasting behaviour, the theory of planned behaviour was used to inform the development of a survey which was administered to households in London, Ontario, Canada. Respondent households (n ¼ 1,263) threw out avoidable food waste 4.77 times/week (SD ¼ 4.81, Mdn ¼ 4.0) and 5.89 food portions/week (SD ¼ 5.66, Mdn ¼ 4.0). When asked to choose one of three possible motivators to reduce food wasting behaviour, 58.9% selected reducing monetary loss as their first choice and this was significantly (p < 0.001) higher than both reducing environmental impact (23.9%) and reducing social impacts (17.2%). A linear hierarchical regression analysis (R 2 ¼ 0.30, p < 0.001) on intention to avoid food waste demonstrated that perceived behavioural control (p < 0.001) and personal norms (p < 0.001) had the greatest positive impact on intention. A linear hierarchical regression analysis (R 2 ¼ 0.32, p < 0.001) on self-reported food wasting behaviour showed that perceived behavioural control (p < 0.001) and personal attitudes (p < 0.01) resulted in less food wasting behaviour, while more children in a household (p < 0.01) resulted in more food wasting behaviour. Interventions that seek to strengthen perceived behavioural control and convey the monetary impact of food waste could help reduce its disposal.Keywords: household food waste, theory of planned behaviour, household survey, perceived behavioural control De la nourriture inutile : utiliser la th eorie du comportement ax e sur un objectif pour mieux comprendre le gaspillage de nourriture au sein des m enages Pour mieux comprendre le ph enom ene de gaspillage de nourriture, nous avons utilis e la th eorie du comportement ax e sur un objectif pour concevoir une enquête qui a et e r ealis ee aupr es de m enages a London, en Ontario, Canada. Les m enages r epondants (n¼1,263) jetaient des d echets de cuisine evitables 4.77 fois/semaine (SD ¼ 4.81, Mdn ¼ 4.0) et 5.89 portions de nourriture/semaine (SD ¼ 5.66, Mdn ¼ 4.0).Lorsqu'on leur a demand e de choisir l'un des trois el ements de motivation possibles pour diminuer le gaspillage de nourriture, 58.9% ont choisi l'aspect financier comme premier choix, ce qui etait sensiblement (p < 0.001) plus elev e que l'impact environnemental (23.9%) et les impacts sociaux (17.2%). Une analyse lin eaire avec r egression hi erarchique (R 2 ¼ 0.30, p < 0.001) de l'attitude envers le gaspillage de nourriture a d emontr e que le contrôle comportemental perS cu (p < 0.001) et les normes personnelles (p < 0.001) avaient une forte influence. En effet, une analyse lin eaire avec r egression hi erarchique (R 2 ¼ 0.32, p < 0.001) du gaspillage de nourriture d eclar e par les r epondants a montr e que le contrôle comportemental perS cu (p < ...

Socio-Demographic Predictors of Food Waste Behavior in Denmark and Spain

“…FWB in this study was measured by shopping routines, food preparation, and self-reported food waste, and thus, these socio-demographic factors predict the likelihood of respondents to buy and cook too much food, as well as throw out food. Similar to previous studies, socio-demographics only explained little of the variance of FWB in both countries [12,18]. Rather, attitudes, values, and other psychographic variables have been previously shown to be more closely related to behavioral outcomes [6,17].…”

“…However, evidence suggests that socio-demographic characteristics have weak predictive power of food waste [10,17]. Previous studies have found socio-demographics to explain only 7-13% of the variance regarding intention to reduce and perceived behavioral control to avoid household food waste [12,18]. Despite the limited predictive power, correlations between age, sex, employment status, income, household size and composition, and amount of food wastes have been found, but the strength and direction of the relationships vary between studies [7].…”

“Reduce Food Waste, Save Money”: Testing a Novel Intervention to Reduce Household Food Waste

“…This compares with 8.9 to 9.9 kg/household/week of pre-intervention garbage for London, Ontario households, of which 2.5 to 3.4 kg/household/ week was total food waste. This food waste range compares favorably with the estimated 2.6 kg/household/week of total food waste generated by southern Ontario households without access to a program to remove source-separated food wastes (van der Werf et al, 2018). As expected, this is higher than for households with such a program (i.e., diversion of mostly food waste to large-scale composting or anaerobic digestion facilities), which on average disposed 2.3 kg/household/week of food waste (van der Werf et al, 2018).…”

“…Food waste reduction motivators. The strongest potential food waste reduction motivators appear to be saving money (Abeliotis, 2014;Porpino, 2016;Tucker & Farrelly, 2016) and moral values (Bolton, 2012;Graham-Rowe et al, 2014;Neff, 2015;Quested, Marsh, Stunell, & Parry, 2013, van der Werf, Seabrook & Gilliland, 2019. For instance, the financial impacts of purchasing too much food is a driver that can reduce food waste (Graham-Rowe et al, 2014;Quested et al, 2013;Williams et al, 2012).…”

“…Although there are a growing number of survey-based studies that investigated the determinants of food wasting behaviors and measures of selfreported household food wasting (Stancu et al, 2016;Stefan et al, 2013;Visschers et al, 2016), and a few studies that have directly measured actual household food waste (Bernstad et al, 2013;Bernstad, La Cour Jansen, & Aspegren, 2012;Lebersorger & Schneider, 2011;Parizeau et al, 2015;van der Werf, Seabrook, & Gilliland, 2018;WRAP, 2013c), few researchers have directly measured food waste before and after a reduction intervention. Parizeau et al (2015) reported that the households they surveyed in Guelph, Ontario set out an average of 7.1 kg/household/week of garbage and 12.5 kg/household/week of organic waste (which consisted largely of food waste).…”