Residents’ food waste is a key part of environmental sustainability and food security. This study investigates influencing factors in reducing food waste by constructing a conceptual model examining the relationship between network embeddedness (NE) and food waste behaviour (FWB), using questionnaire data from 853 urban residents in eastern China, as well as the moderating role of incentive measures (IMs). We find that NE consists of three dimensions: structural embeddedness, relational embeddedness and functional embeddedness. There is an inverted-U-shaped relationship between structural embeddedness and food waste reduction behaviour, whereas relational embeddedness and functional embeddedness positively correlate with food waste reduction behaviour. Furthermore, IMs significantly strengthen the inverted-U-shaped relationship between NE and food waste reduction behaviour. This article reveals the significance of NE and IMs in influencing FWB, expands the application fields of NE and provides valuable guidance for policymakers to better utilize policy interventions.
AbrahamseWStegL (2013) Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change23(6): 1773–1785.
2.
BaddeleyA (2012) Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology63: 1–29.
3.
BagozziRYiY (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science16(1): 74–94.
4.
BarberNA (2014) Profiling the potential ‘Green’ hotel guest: Who are they and what do they want?Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research38(3): 361–387.
5.
BarreraELHertelT (2021) Global food waste across the income spectrum: Implications for food prices, production and resource use. Food Policy98: 101874.
6.
BretterCUnsworthKLRussellSV, et al. (2022) Don’t put all your eggs in one basket: Testing an integrative model of household food waste. Resources Conservation and Recycling185: 106442.
7.
BrownJRIvkovićZSmithPA, et al. (2008) Neighbors matter: Causal community effects and stock market participation. Journal of Finance63(3): 1509–1531.
8.
ChenYGuoFWangJ, et al. (2020) Provincial and gridded population projection for China under shared socioeconomic pathways from 2010 to 2100. Scientific Data7: 83.
9.
ChengXWuFLongRY, et al. (2021) Uncovering the effects of learning capacity and social interaction on the experienced utility of low-carbon lifestyle guiding policies. Energy Policy154: 112307.
10.
ChengXYZhangJJYanL (2020) Understanding the impact of individual users’ rating characteristics on the predictive accuracy of recommender systems. Informs Journal on Computing32(2): 303–320.
11.
ChiuCMFanYWWangTG (2006) Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems42: 1872–1888.
12.
Cohen-ColeELiuXDZenouY (2018) Multivariate choices and identification of social interactions. Journal of Applied Econometrics33(2): 165–178.
13.
EdwardsJLambertL (2007) Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods12(1): 1–22.
14.
FeldSL (1997) Structural embeddedness and stability of interpersonal relations. Social Networks19(1): 91–95.
15.
FunkASütterlinBSiegristM (2021) Consumer segmentation based on stated environmentally-friendly behavior in the food domain. Sustainable Production and Consumption25: 173–186.
16.
GaoSBaoJLLiR, et al. (2021) Drivers and reduction solutions of food waste in the Chinese food service business. Sustainable Production and Consumption26: 78–88.
17.
GoelSBellGPierceJ (2005) The perils of pollyanna: Development of the over-trust construct. Journal of Business Ethics58(1–3), 203–218.
18.
GovindanKZhuangYChenG (2022) Analysis of factors influencing residents’ waste sorting behavior: A case study of Shanghai. Journal of Cleaner Production349: 131126.
19.
GranovetterM (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology91: 481–510.
20.
GranovetterM (2005) The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives19(1): 33–50.
21.
HansenMTMorsMLLøvasB (2005) Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal48: 776–793.
22.
HarringNJagersSCNilssonF (2018) Recycling as a large-scale collective action dilemma: A cross-country study on trust and reported recycling behavior. Resources, Conservation and Recycling140: 85–90.
23.
HayesBC (2001) Gender scientific knowledge and attitudes toward the environment: A cross -national analysis. Political Research Quarterly54(2): 657–671.
24.
HicksCDietmarREugsterM (2005) The recycling and disposal of electrical and electronic waste in China—legislative and market responses. Environmental Impact Assess Review25: 459–471.
25.
Hlpe AndersenPPRahmanianM, et al. (2014) Food Losses and Waste in the Context of Sustainable Food Systems: A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
26.
HooffBWeenenFSoekijadM, et al. (2010) The value of online networks of practice: The role of embeddedness and media use. Journal of Information Technology25: 205–215.
27.
HuHZhangJHChuG, et al. (2018) Factors influencing tourists’ litter management behavior in mountainous tourism areas in China. Waste Management79: 273–286.
28.
KhanRAThaheemMJAliTH (2020) Are Pakistani homebuyers ready to adopt sustainable housing? An insight into their willingness to pay. Energy Policy143: 111598.
29.
KongLYXuXDWangW, et al. (2021) Comprehensive evaluation and quantitative research on the living protection of traditional villages from the perspective of ‘Production–Living–Ecology’. Land10(6): 570.
30.
KristinaEPatrikS (2010) The devil is in the details: Household electricity saving behavior and the role of information. Energy Policy38(3): 1578–1587.
31.
KummuMMoelHDPorkkaM, et al. (2012) Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertilizer use. Science of the Total Environment438: 477–489.
LiWYTianLXBatoolH (2018) Impact of negative information diffusion on green behavior adoption. Resources Conservation and Recycling136: 337–344.
34.
LiBYinTLUdugamaIA, et al. (2020) Food waste and the embedded phosphorus footprint in China. Journal of Cleaner Production252: 119909.
35.
LinBQGuanCX (2021) Determinants of household food waste reduction intention in China: The role of perceived government control. Journal of Environmental Management299: 113577.
36.
LindenbergSStegL (2007) Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues63(1): 117–137.
37.
LineNDHanksLLiM (2017) Image Matters: Incentivizing green tourism behavior. Journal of Travel Research57(3): 296–309.
38.
LiuN (2007) An empirical study of the impact of social networks on the career success of enterprise managers. Nankai Business Review10(6): 69–77.
39.
LiuSHallingerPFengD (2016) Learning-centered leadership and teacher learning in China: Does trust matter. Journal of Educational Administration54(6): 661–682.
40.
LiuYYangDWXuHZ (2017) Factors influencing consumer willingness to pay for low-carbon products: A simulation study in China. Business Strategy and the Environment26(7): 972–984.
41.
LuHHsiaoK (2007) Understanding intention to continuously share information on weblogs. Internet Research17(4): 345–361.
42.
LuHLiuYZouJX, et al. (2020) Interactive effects of multiple motivations on Chinese residents’ pro-environmental behaviors. China Population, Resources and Environment30(11): 160–169.
43.
LuoXGXiLL (2012) On the opinion leader of customer word-of-mouth communication network based on the social network analysis approach. Management Review24(1): 75–81.
44.
LuoHZhaoLGZhangZJ (2020) The impacts of social interaction-based factors on household waste-related behaviors. Waste Management118: 270–280.
45.
MaciasTNelsonE (2011) A social capital basis for environmental concern: Evidence from Northern New England. Rural Sociology76(4): 562–581.
46.
NaismithLMCheungJJRingstedC, et al. (2015) Limitations of subjective cognitive load measures in simulation-based procedural training. Medical Education49(8): 805–814.
NeikaSJenniferMJAdamBM, et al. (2019) Social network characteristics and cognitive functioning in ethnically diverse older adults: The role of network size and composition. Neuropsychology33(7): 956–963.
49.
NguyenTTPZhuDJLeNP (2015) Factors influencing waste separation intention of residential households in a developing country: Evidence from Hanoi, Vietnam. Habitat International48: 169–176.
50.
NiuZTNgSJHanJC, et al. (2022) Food waste and its embedded resources loss: A provincial level analysis of China. Science of the Total Environment823: 153665.
ParkCSKayeBK (2017) The tweet goes on: Interconnection of Twitter opinion leadership, network size, and civic engagement. Computers in Human Behavior69: 174–180.
53.
ParkJYImISungCS (2017) Is social networking a waste of time? The impact of social network and knowledge characteristics on job performance. Knowledge Management Research and Practice15(4): 560–571.
54.
RuXJWangSYYanS (2018) Exploring the effects of normative factors and perceived behavioral control on individual’s energy-saving intention: An empirical study in eastern China. Resources Conservation and Recycling134: 91–99.
55.
Sanz-BlasSBuzovaDPérez-RuizP (2021) Building relational worth in an online social community through virtual structural embeddedness and relational embeddedness. Technological Forecasting and Social Change162: 120350.
56.
SmithWKTushmanML (2005) Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science16(5): 522–536.
57.
StangherlinSCThøgersenJBarcellosMD (2023) Behavioral spillover in the circular economy: The importance of consumer goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology91: 102123.
58.
Ter WalAAlexyOBlockJ, et al. (2016) The best of both worlds: The benefits of open-specialized and closed-diverse syndication networks for new ventures success. Administrative Science Quarterly61(3): 393–432.
59.
ThøgersenJ (2003) Monetary incentives and recycling: Behavioral and psychological reactions to a performance-dependent garbage fee. Journal of Consumer Policy26: 197–228.
60.
TrueloveHBYeungKLCarricoAR, et al. (2016) From plastic bottle recycling to policy support: An experimental test of pro-environmental spillover. Journal of Environmental Psychology46: 55–66.
61.
United Nations Environment Programme (2021) Food Waste Index Report 2021. http://www.unep.org/
62.
VeselySKlocknerCACarrusG, et al. (2022) Donations to renewable energy projects: The role of social norms and donor anonymity. Ecological Economics193: 107277.
63.
WangZDuanYRHuoJZ (2022b) The impact of government intervention measures on recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment in China considering consumer decision. Energy Policy160: 112697.
64.
WangJMHeAZ (2011) Psychological attribution and policy paths of consumers’ low carbon consumption behavior: An exploratory research based on grounded theory. Nankai Business Review14(4): 80–89.
65.
WangJHMaJWLiYZ (2022a) The impact of network embeddedness on the innovation performance of new generation of employees in the Post-COVID-19 Era – The mediating role of psychological contract. Frontiers in Psychology13: 737945.
66.
WangSYWangJPYangS, et al. (2020) From intention to behavior: Comprehending residents’ waste sorting intention and behavior formation process. Waste Management113: 41–50.
67.
WangZYYanZC (2019) Research of the influence of strong and weak tie in social network to the financing performance of internet entrepreneurships. Chinese Journal of Management16(4): 550–560.
68.
WangCZhangXYSunQ (2021) The influence of economic incentives on residents’ intention to participate in online recycling: An experimental study from China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling169: 105497.
69.
XieJHYangGQWangG, et al. (2021) How do network embeddedness and environmental awareness affect farmers’ participation in improving rural human settlements?Land10: 1095.
70.
XueLLiuXJLuSJ, et al. (2021) China’s food loss and waste embodies increasing environmental impacts. Nature Food2(7): 519–528.
71.
YangAXiangJShuL, et al. (2018) Sparse bayesian variable selection with correlation prior for forecasting macroeconomic variable using highly correlated predictors. Computational Economics51: 323–338.
72.
YangJHLongRYChenH, et al. (2022) Identifying what shapes the words and actions of residents’ environmentally friendly express packaging: Evidence from a two-stage payment model. Journal of Environmental Management307: 114496.
73.
YangX (2023) Conception and strengthening path of consumers’ social responsibility for food security under concept of general food security. Food and Nutrition in China29: 10–16.
74.
YehMCWuWP (2014) Clustering faces in movies using an automatically constructed social network. IEEE Multimedia21(2): 22–31.
75.
YinJHShiSQ (2019) Analysis of the mediating role of social network embeddedness on low-carbon household behavior: Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production234: 858–866.
76.
YinJHShiSQ (2021) Social interaction and the formation of residents’ low-carbon consumption behaviors: An embeddedness perspective. Resources Conservation and Recycling164(1): 105116.
77.
YuLWuSJiangL, et al. (2022) Do more efficient buildings lead to lower household energy consumption for cooling? Evidence from Guangzhou, China. Energy Policy168: 113119.
78.
ZhangYYuYFZouB (2011) Analyzing public awareness and acceptance of alternative fuel vehicles in China: The case of EV. Energy Policy39(11): 7015–7024.
79.
ZhaoPPZhangQQZhongYW, et al. (2022). Impact of social network embeddedness on the adoption of green control technologies by farmers: Mediating effects based on technology perception. Resource Science44(9): 1865–1878.
80.
ZhouXYZhouDQWangQW, et al. (2020) Who shapes China’s carbon intensity and how? A demand-side decomposition analysis. Energy Economics85: 104600.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
