Abstract
Food waste is a stream that becomes increasingly important in terms of its prevention potential. There is a large number of behaviours that can be associated with food waste generation and the efforts towards food waste prevention. A questionnaire study was carried in order to study consumer behaviour related to food provision and wastage in Greece. Proper practices of the respondents that can prevent the generation of food waste were investigated using nine behavioural scales, which were defined on the basis of similar studies in other countries. A structured questionnaire was utilised in order to test those behaviours against the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents. The results of the study indicate that in terms of inferential statistical analysis, among the numerous variables examined, those that enhance food waste prevention are the involvement of the respondent in cooking, the annoyance towards food waste generation and the education level.
Introduction
Waste prevention is becoming a priority in many waste management policies worldwide (Zorpas and Lasaridi, 2013). It can be implemented in various stages of the consumer product supply chain, i.e. in industry, retail and households (Salhofer et al., 2008). Focusing on households, there are various waste prevention initiatives that can be enacted at home. Among them, food waste ranks as one of the streams with the highest prevention potential (Cox et al., 2010). Food waste is generated in each step from the food production in the field up to our plate (Griffin et al., 2009; Koivupuro et al., 2012). Besides the association of food waste generation with environmental impacts, such as waste management and climate change (Abeliotis et al., 2015), food waste prevention is also associated with economic impacts, such as business and consumer savings (Nahman et al., 2012). Moreover, food waste is related to social impacts, such as the global food and water security (Koivupuro et al., 2012; Kummo et al., 2012) and to the expanding dimensions of malnutrition, in both undernourishment (Nahman et al., 2012) or obesity terms (Parfitt et al., 2010).
Quantifying food waste, as well as investigating the causes of the ever-growing waste generation throughout the lifecycle of the food chain, brings out the environmental, economic and social impacts of food waste. The quantification of food waste constitutes a prerequisite for encompassing the food chain (production, supply, consumption and food waste treatment) into the context of sustainability. The fraction of food waste in households is the greatest fraction of food waste in the developed countries (Bräutigam et al., 2014). At the household level, food waste is associated with certain behaviours (Koivupuro et al., 2012; Stancu et al., 2016; Stefan et al., 2013; Thyberg and Tonjes, 2016; Visschers et al., 2016; WRAP, 2007, 2009). Thus, in order to prevent the generation of food waste, those behaviours must be identified and comprehended. Understanding these behaviours can also help to plan prevention campaigns: which groups of people to focus on; channels of engagement; and design of campaign material (Neff et al., 2015; WRAP, 2009).
There is a large number of behaviours that can have a positive impact on food waste generation and, consequently, to the efforts towards food waste prevention (WRAP, 2009). Such behaviours include meal planning, cupboard checking and list making before going for food shopping, proper storage of food items, use of food leftovers, cooking the perceived right amount of food and careful use of expiration date labels (Quested et al., 2013). As already mentioned, food waste is a potentially important field of waste prevention activities. The study of behavioural aspects towards waste prevention by households has appeared recently in the literature: for instance, Bortoleto et al. (2012) developed and tested a hybrid model for the prediction of household waste prevention. Focusing on food waste prevention, the generic theory of planned behaviour was applied by Stefan et al. (2013) in Romania; by Karim Ghani et al. (2013) in Malaysia; by Stancu (2016) in Denmark; and by Visschers et al. (2016) in Switzerland. Neff et al. (2015) studied the awareness, attitudes and behaviour on post-harvest food waste of consumers in the United States of America. Koivupuro et al. (2012) studied the influence of certain socio-demographical, behavioural and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish households. The authors showed that in Finnish households the amount of food waste is correlated with the size of the household, the gender of the person who is responsible for grocery shopping, the frequency of buying discounted products, the view of the respondent to food reduction and the habit of purchasing food packet sizes (Koivupuro et al., 2012).
Food waste generation by households in Greece has been experimentally quantified, by means of a diary, to 98.9 kg per person annually, of which 29.8 kg per person are avoidable (Abeliotis et al., 2015). This value is close to the respective value estimated for 2006 by a model by Bräutigam et al. (2014). In addition, there is a preliminary study on the attitudes of households in Greece regarding food waste generation (Abeliotis et al., 2014). This preliminary study revealed positive attitudes towards food waste prevention in Greece, driven by financial necessity; on the negative side, a high degree of misconception of food labelling was found (Abeliotis et al., 2014).
The aim of this article is (a) the identification of the extent of engagement in nine different everyday consumer behaviours, suggested by WRAP (Quested et al., 2013), that result to food waste prevention and (b) the exploration of the effect of the Greek households’ characteristics on the behaviours towards food waste prevention, via the use of a structured questionnaire. The use of questionnaires in the management of solid waste has been demonstrated by several authors (De Feo and De Gisi, 2010; Purcell and Magette, 2010; Refsgaard and Magnussen, 2009). The novelty of this manuscript lies in the fact that it presents explanatory statistical analysis of reported behaviours associated with food waste generation from a pilot study in the capital city of Greece, Athens.
Methodology
Research took place via the use of a structured questionnaire in the Athens metropolitan area during Spring of 2012. Therefore, the reader is clearly advised that the pilot survey presented here is not representative of the entire Greek population. Interviewees were randomly selected in shopping areas and the questionnaire was completed in a face-to-face interview with the researchers. A positive response was obtained from 255 shoppers. Of those, 231 shoppers fully completed the questionnaire themselves. Only people who were involved in food purchases and cooking in their household were asked to fill the questionnaire, since the behaviour of these people influence food waste generation according to literature (WRAP, 2007, 2009). This condition was further ensured by placing two relevant screening questions in the introductory section of the questionnaire.
The questionnaire comprised approximately 40 questions concerning, among others: self-reported food wastage, attitudes and causes; knowledge, habits and behaviour regarding shopping, storage, preparation and consumption of food; and demographics. Self-report questionnaires are a popular methodology in behavioural science because of their utility. However, there are certain issues that are challenging their reliability and validity, such as the questionable honesty, interpretation and understanding of the questions by the respondents.
As part of the present research, the completed questionnaires were analysed using inferential statistical analysis (mainly one-way between-group analysis of variance) of the research questions of the study. One-way between-groups analysis of variance is used when there exists one independent (grouping) variable and different cases in each one of the groups. The chi-square test for independence is used to determine if two categorical variables are related. Each of these variables can have two or more categories (Stevens, 1996). Regarding the assumptions, the lowest expected frequency in any cell was checked to be five or more. The SPSS version 19.0 program was used for all statistical analyses. The 5% level (p < 0.05) was selected as the breakpoint for statistical significance.
Income and household location were the first variables to be identified for the participating households. Income data were extracted from the official data of the Greek Ministry of Finance based on the postal code of each household. In order to check if there is a significant difference in the mean income for urban and semi-urban households, an independent-samples t-test was conducted. Regarding household location, urban is the population of municipalities and communes in which the largest population centre has 10,000 or more inhabitants. Semi-urban are municipalities with a population of less than 2000, but with no more than 20% of their economically active male population engaged in agriculture, and specific residential municipalities of commuters (United Nations, 2005).
Based on the original food-waste-related behaviours identified by WRAP (Quested et al., 2013), nine different behaviours that affect food waste generation were compiled for Greece (Table 1). As Quested et al. (2013) explain, such behaviours are proxies for a wider range of behaviours. Tracking these behaviours over time provides an indication of behaviour change, rather than an absolute measure (Quested et al., 2013). Each one of the behaviours is expressed as a dimensionless scale. The respective lower and higher values of each behaviour scale are presented in Table 1, along with the respective mean values and standard deviations.
Statistical data of food waste prevention related behaviours.
Shopping planning
Before going for food shopping, in order to reduce food waste, it is advisable to perform the following three actions (Quested et al., 2013): (i) check the cupboards and refrigerator at home; (ii) make a menu plan for the days that follow immediately; and (iii) write down a list of the food items that need to be purchased. The engagement in the three behaviours of shopping planning was reported by the respondents using a 5-point Likert-type scale. The choices of the scale were termed as ‘always’, ‘very often’, ‘sometimes’, ‘rarely’, ‘never’. The selection of ‘always’ gets the highest score (5), while ‘never’ scores the lowest (1).
Food storage
Storing of food under sub-optimal conditions leads to deterioration in its quality and therefore wastage increases (Koivupuro et al., 2012). Therefore, the next behaviour studied is about the use of refrigerators for the storage of food in each household: more specifically, the way that five items (meat, cheese, apples, carrots and food leftovers) are stored was checked. For each of the aforementioned items that is stored in the refrigerator, a score point was added in the scale. Thus, the scale now ranges from 0 to 5 (see Table 1).
Fresh products are much more vulnerable to decay. Thus, their storage in the refrigerator is necessary. Based on this fact, the next two scales are focused more specifically on the refrigeration of (i) meat and cheese and (ii) of fruits and vegetables. For each item that is kept in the refrigerator, a score point is added in the respective scale.
Leftovers
Not re-using leftovers is among the most common reasons for food wastage (Koivupuro et al., 2012). Thus, the next behavioural scale deals with the handling of food leftovers. Two questions constitute this scale: (a) ‘What do you normally do with the leftovers in your plate?’ and (b) ‘What do you normally do with the leftovers left in your cooking pot?’ If a respondent selected that he/she ‘keeps them for a next meal’, then they were asked to reply about the frequency of keeping the leftovers. The responses were ‘always/almost always’, ‘sometimes’ or ‘rarely/never’. If a respondent answered that he/she ‘keeps the leftovers for a next meal’ and they ‘always consume them’, three points were added in the scale. If they ‘consume them sometimes’ one point was added. Finally, if they ‘throw them away’ after refrigeration, no point was credited for this behaviour. Thus, a person who reported that he/she kept the leftovers from both his/her plate and cooking pot and always or almost always consumed them, scored the highest score (6). If he/she did not keep the leftovers, neither from the plate or the cooking pot, he/she scored the lowest score (0). In this way, the respondents were only credited for reusing the leftovers and not when they just refrigerated them. Refrigeration of food, as Evans (2012) cynically explained, is often the middle step before its wastage, a way to ameliorate anxieties and guilt of the members of the household.
Food portioning
Preparing or serving greater portions of food often yields to more food wasted. In order to address this behaviour, the next scale dealt with the amount of food prepared. The question was straightforward: ‘How often do you consider that the amount of food that you cook is the right one?’ Again, the engagement in this behaviour was reported by the respondents using a 5-point Likert-type scale. The choices of the scale were termed as ‘always’, ‘very often’, ‘sometimes’, ‘rarely’, ‘never’. The selection of ‘always’ got the highest score (5), while ‘never’ scored the lowest (1).
Food labelling
Another source of food waste is that of products past their ‘expiration’ or ‘best used before’ dates. Correct knowledge of the meaning of those two labels is required by the consumers in order to prevent unnecessary food wastage. In Greece, exactly like the rest of the European Union, perishable foods, such as cooked meat products, prepared foods and salads, display an ‘expiration’ date on the package and should not be eaten after this date, as this could present a health risk from a microbiological point of view (European Food Information Council, 2010). Other foods display a ‘best before’ date, which gives an indication of the period during which the food retains its specific properties when properly stored. In other words, a product whose ‘best before’ date has expired may still be safe to eat, but the manufacturer no longer guarantees the sensory properties of the product (e.g. taste, smell, appearance, etc.) (European Food Information Council, 2010).
Therefore, the ‘expiration’ date is a stricter regulatory limit compared with the ‘best used before’ date. Again, the actual nature of the food item may have an effect on the consumer’s awareness on the item’s expiration or ‘best used before’ labelling. The frequency of checking the various food storage places within the household, such as cupboards, refrigerator and freezer, determines the percentage of food wasted. Frequent checking can yield to better management of food items closer to their expiration or ‘best used before’ dates and consequently to lower amounts of food waste. If a consumer responded the correct definition for both food labels, the highest score was given (6); if only one correct definition was selected, the score was 3; if none was correct, the score was 0.
Effect of family characteristics
The family characteristics tested for statistically significant effects on the nine behavioural scales, via the use of one-way between-group analysis of variance, were: (a) level of involvement in food purchasing; (b) level of involvement in cooking; (c) level of annoyance towards food waste generation; (d) family structure; (e) educational level; (f) household location and income.
Results and discussion
In terms of the household location, approximately three out of four households are located in urban areas, while the mean income of the households is €24,853.42 (see Table 2). A significant difference in incomes was found for urban households (Mean = 25,561.90, SD = 6671.88) and semi-urban households (Mean = 22,913.80, SD = 6,083.79; t(226) = 2.69, p = 0.08). Thus, urban households have a higher income compared with semi-urban.
Location and income characteristics of the households.
Previous studies indicated that there is a significant association between food waste generation and the person who is mainly responsible for food purchasing and cooking in each household (Koivupuro et al., 2012). Thus, in the beginning of the questionnaire, there were two screening questions: 91.8% of the respondents are exclusively or mainly responsible or equally share the responsibility for the food supplies of their households. Moreover, 83.1% of them are exclusively or mainly responsible or equally share the responsibility for cooking in their households. The chi-square test of independence reveals than there is an association among those people who are exclusively or mainly responsible for food purchasing in their households, and those who are exclusively or mainly responsible for cooking in their households (p = 0.000). The questionnaires of those people that responded that they do not participate in either food purchasing or cooking were excluded from the analysis.
Behaviours examined
The results of consumer behaviour in the nine behavioural scales examined, are the following.
Shopping planning
Our results indicate that meal planning is the most frequently practiced shopping planning behaviour (Mean = 4.29) compared with list making (Mean = 3.87) and checking the food stocks (mean = 3.34). According to Stefan et al. (2013), planning routines, such as meal planning and consistent list making, have a negative effect on food waste generation, while shopping routines are positively associated with food waste. Moreover, in our case, the chi-square test of independence proves that meal planning is associated to list making (p = 0.000) and checking the food stocks (p = 0.000). This is in agreement with the reports by Quested et al. (2013) that there are strong positive correlations among the three aforementioned planning behaviours.
Food storage
Proper storage of meat and cheese is performed much more frequently (Mean = 1.96) compared with the refrigeration of fruits and vegetables (Mean = 1.41).
Leftovers
The results indicate that the frequency of proper use of leftovers for human consumption is slightly above the mean value of the scale (Mean = 3.13). However, this reported behaviour presents a very high standard deviation, as a result of the multiplicity of people’s behaviours. The use of leftovers is a food waste prevention behaviour, which is contradictory to the social finding that several authors have noted: Food waste is an outcome of food-related behaviour; this means that people who provide food for their households are more interested in the freshness or the nutritional quality of food items (Evans, 2012; Stefan et al., 2013). As a result, food that does not (or is not perceived to) meet the aforementioned criteria, including leftovers, ends up as waste.
Food portioning
Approximately 60% of the respondents replied that they were always or very often thinking that the amount of food that they cook in not the right one. In a similar survey in Austria, Schneider and Lebersorger (2009) reported that 27% of the respondents admitted that they often cooked more food than they could eat, but the majority of the respondents (89%) used these food residues later for other meals.
Food labelling
A total of 58% of the respondents replied correctly about the ‘best used before’ label, while 66.7% replied correctly about the definition of the ‘expiration date’ label (Abeliotis et al., 2014). In our case, the reported knowledge of food date labels is slightly below the mean value of the scale (Mean = 2.98), which indicates that there is plenty of room for education of the consumers regarding the proper meaning of the two food date labels.
Effect of family characteristics on behaviour
In the following section, the results of the effect of various family characteristics on the nine behavioural scales are reported. Only the results of those parameters that proved to be statistically significant for the various behavioural scales are presented. Interestingly enough, the gender of the respondent, the level of involvement in food purchasing and the family structure did not have any statistically significant effect on the nine behavioural scales. The parameters that proved to be statistically significant are the following.
Effect of involvement in cooking
The first research question examined was ‘Does the level of involvement in cooking have an effect on the nine behavioural scales examined?’ A one-way between-group analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of the level of involvement in cooking on the nine behavioural scales. Subjects were divided into three groups (Group 1: Those who are exclusively or mainly responsible for cooking; Group 2: Those who equally share responsibility; Group 3: Those who have a very small share in cooking or are not cooking at all). Among the nine scales, there was a statistically significant difference at the p < 0.05 level only for the use of leftovers scale for the three groups [F(2, 228) = 3.39, p = 0.035]. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) test indicated that the mean score for Group 1 (Mean = 3.37, SD = 2.14) was significantly different from Group 3 (Mean = 2.36, SD = 2.21). Group 2 (Mean = 3.02, SD = 2.31) did not differ significantly from either Group 1 or 3. Therefore, our results indicate that the use of leftovers decreases as the level of involvement in cooking of the respondent decreases. Or in other words, cooking, which is classified as a personal capability towards the provision of healthy and nutritional food for the whole family, contributes greatly to food waste prevention. Personal capabilities are identified among the causes that yield to waste prevention behaviour (Tucker and Douglas, 2007).
Effect of level of annoyance towards food waste
The next question was ‘Does the level of annoyance towards food waste generation have an effect on the nine behavioural scales examined?’. Again, a one-way between-group analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of annoyance towards food waste generation on the nine behavioural scales. Subjects were divided into three groups (Group 1: Those who report that they are very annoyed when they have to throw away food left or past its expiration date; Group 2: Those who are annoyed; Group 3: Those who report that they are little or not annoyed at all).
Among the nine behavioural scales, there was a statistically significant difference at the p < 0.05 level, in the use of the refrigerator for the three groups [F(2, 228) = 4.113, p = 0.017]. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 1 (Mean = 4.71, SD = 0.69) was significantly different from both Group 2 (Mean = 4.30, SD = 0.80) and Group 3 (Mean = 4.25, SD = 0.83). People who are more annoyed from throwing food away use the refrigerator more.
Also, there was a statistically significant difference at the p < 0.05 level, in the use of the leftovers scale for the three groups [F(2, 228) = 4.745, p = 0.01]. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 1 (Mean = 3.48, SD = 2.24) was significantly different from Group 3 (Mean = 2.16, SD = 1.98). Group 2 (Mean = 3.0, SD = 2.14) did not differ significantly from either Group 1 or 3. People who are very annoyed from wasting food use more their food leftovers.
And finally, there was a statistically significant difference at the p < 0.05 level among the people who report that they cook the perceived right amount of food [F(2, 228) = 4.03, p = 0.019]. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 1 (Mean = 3.78, SD = 1.07) was significantly different from Group 2 (Mean = 3.33, SD = 1.14). Group 3 (Mean = 3.48, SD = 1.23) did not differ significantly from either Group 1 or 2. People who are very annoyed from wasting food care more for cooking the perceived right amount of food.
Effect of the educational level of the respondent
In order to test the next research hypothesis ‘Does the educational level of the respondent have an effect on the nine behavioural scales examined?’, a one-way between-group analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of the educational level of the respondent on the nine behavioural scales. Subjects were divided into three groups (Group 1: Those who have completed either the elementary school and/or the compulsory educational level, i.e. three high school grades; Group 2: Those who have completed and the six high school grades; Group 3: Those who hold at least a bachelor and/or higher degree). Among the nine scales, there was a statistically significant difference at the p < 0.05 level only in the knowledge of the expiration and ‘best used before’ food labelling scale for the three groups [F(2, 228) = 3.28, p = 0.042]. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 1 (Mean = 2.06, SD = 1.64) was significantly different from Group 3 (Mean = 3.11, SD = 1.57). Group 2 (Mean = 2.90, SD = 1.83) did not differ significantly from either Group 1 or 3. Therefore, our results indicate that knowledge of the food labels increases as the education level increases.
Effect of the location of residence and income
A significant difference in the proportion of food waste in residual waste between urban and rural areas was reported by Lebersorger and Schneider (2011). Thus, the following research question was formulated ‘Does the household location and income have an effect on the nine behavioural scales examined?’, although there are no suitable comparison waste data currently for Greece. Again, a two-way between-group analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of household location and income category, examined as two independent variables, on the level of the nine behavioural scales examined in the current study. Households were divided into three groups according to their income (Group 1: Up to €21,000; Group 2: €21,001–€28,000; Group 3: More than €28,001) and two groups according to household location (Group 1: Urban; Group 2: Semi-urban). Among the nine behavioural scales, in the use of refrigerator (Scale 4) there was a statistically significant main effect for the household location [F(1, 222) = 4.024, p = 0.046]; however, this effect was small. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for the urban households (Mean = 4.28, SD = 0.81) was significantly different from the semi-urban households (Mean = 4.47, SD = 0.79), meaning that the use of refrigerator is more frequent in semi-urban households compared with urban.
Also for Scale 7, i.e. proper handling of leftovers, there was a statistically significant main effect for the income category [F(2, 222) = 4.06, p = 0.02], however, the effect was small. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for the lower income households (Mean = 2.67, SD = 2.17) was significantly different from the medium income counterparts (Mean = 3.72, SD = 2.07). The higher income households (Mean = 3.14, SD = 2.30) did not differ significantly from either of the other household income groups. Therefore, medium income households are handling leftovers in a better manner with respect to food waste prevention. This can probably be explained as follows: Lower income households do not generate considerable amounts of leftovers, while higher income households do not care for the handling of food leftovers.
Conclusions
The present research was undertaken as part of an ongoing project that aims at measuring food waste generation in Greece. A study on nine behaviours of households related to food waste has been conducted for the first time in Greece. The results of the current pilot study could serve as a baseline before the introduction of prevention measures and policies aiming at the reduction of food waste generation in Greece. The major limitation of our study is that the nine scales measuring the dependent variables contained self-reported items that may be biased estimates of true behaviour; moreover the non-representativeness of the sample is clearly an issue since it does not allow the generalisation of our findings.
Despite the aforementioned limitations, results indicate that very few parameters influence the outcomes of the behavioural scales. More specifically, according to this study, better cooking skills are associated with better handling of leftovers and therefore with food waste prevention; the increased level of annoyance towards food waste is also a strong motivational factor for food waste avoidance; and finally, the higher the educational level, the better the reported behaviour towards food waste prevention, as a straightforward outcome of the correct comprehension of food labels. In addition, the semi-urban and the middle-income households make better use of the refrigerator and better management of leftovers by cooking them, respectively.
Also, in order to prevent the generation of food waste, the knowledge on the ‘expiration date’ and ‘best used before’ food labels should be improved. In addition, the cooking skills of the population should also be improved, since better cooking skills lead to a reduction of food waste via the better handling of leftovers.
The outcome of the present study reveals that further research is required in order to identify the behavioural factors that lead to food waste generation in the households.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was supported by the LIFE10 ENV/GR/622 project ‘Development and Demonstration of a Waste Prevention Support Tool for Local Authorities – WASP Tool’, which is co-funded by the European Union LIFE+ programme.