Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In many Western countries, household food waste is by far the largest contributor to the overall total food waste and threatens the sustainability of the food system. In order to identify the factors that influence households’ food waste decisions and to predict behaviour towards food waste, the paper employs perspectives from the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and the expectation, motivation and attitude (EMA) model. This paper extends the TPB model by adding the construct of affective states, since there is strong empirical support for this. Data from respondents in the UK who were responsible for purchasing household food and making food-related decisions were analysed using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). The results indicate that for the TPB, an individual’s attitude, PBC and affect had a statistically significant direct association with consumers’ intention to reduce food waste. In addition, the results show a direct positive association between intentions to reduce food waste and actual food waste behaviour. For the EMA, expectation influences motivation and attitude. Compared to the EMA, the TPB proves to be relatively good predictive models for understanding determinants of food waste reduction. The TBP also supports incorporating elements such as affective states, considering that the additional construct in the model contributes to improving understanding of consumers’ intention to reduce food waste. Collectively, household food waste can be reduced by avenues that influence individuals’ positive attitudes, increases the expectation that food waste reduction behaviour is within one’s control and evokes a positive affective state when food waste is reduced in households.

JEL Classifications: D1, D12, F64, Q53

Keywords

Food waste reduce reuse recycle sustainable food systems

Introduction

Background to Household Food Waste

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations (SDG), underpinned by 169 targets, were adopted in 2015 by the 193 United Nations (UN) member states to stimulate action in areas of critical importance for humanity and the planet. To address sustainability as it pertains to consumption and production patterns, one of these goals, SDG 12, and specifically target 12.3, is to halve food waste at the retail and consumer level by 2030 (United Nations, 2017; United Nations General Assembly, 2015). This is because food waste is a global concern. Globally, more than a third of the food that is produced ends up being wasted (den Boer et al., 2023). Thus, food waste contributes to environmental pollution, burdens water and nitrogen resources, increases fossil fuel consumption and exacerbates food insecurity (Chapagain & James, 2013; Fami et al., 2021; Venkat, 2011).

In the United Kingdom (UK), just as with many Western countries, different actors and stakeholders are taking steps to prevent food waste from threatening the sustainability of the food system. However, these efforts largely depend on reducing household food waste as it is the biggest contributor to food waste. The household food waste collected in the UK amounts to 6.6 million tonnes, which is a staggering 70% of the total food waste produced in 2018 (Slorach et al., 2019; WRAP, 2020). This is against the backdrop of approximately 5 million adults and 2 million children not having sufficient food in the UK (Fareshare, 2019). The food waste hierarchy, which outlines steps for preventing and managing food waste, places waste reduction and waste redistribution atop the pyramid (Slorach et al., 2020; WRAP, 2017). Thus, this paper pays attention to this tier of the pyramid.

Across households, attitudinal characteristics affect the quantity of food waste the household generates and how it is managed (Aschemann-Witzel, et al., 2019; Mondéjar-Jiménez et al., 2016; Stangherlin et al., 2019). A change in attitudes¹ and putting into action behavioural intentions² to prevent or reduce waste are crucial if the household food waste issue is to be effectively addressed. However, it will be difficult to intervene and make effective changes without understanding household attitudes to food waste. Thus, this paper focuses on consumers’ attitudes, affect and behavioural intentions towards reducing, reusing and recycling food waste. Specifically, the objectives are to examine the household attitudes to food purchase and food waste, examine the affective components evoked when food is wasted, investigate the behavioural intentions towards reducing, reusing and recycling food waste and examine whether attitudes and affective factors are associated with the intentions to reduce food waste.

Links Between Food Waste and Attitudinal Factors, Norms and Affective States

The literature broadly categorizes the factors that determine the level of food waste among consumers as societal (historical, regulatory and supply chain), personal (demographic and psychological) and behavioural factors (Stangherlin & De Barcellos, 2018). However, this paper focuses on the personal and behavioural factors as these are likely to have the most significant influence on household food waste. Notably, attitudinal variables have been found to explain consumers’ behaviour towards food waste (Hebrok & Boks, 2017; Secondi et al., 2015). The consensus among several studies is that attitude towards food waste is mostly negative. However, the level of food waste varies with the extent of the consumer attitude. That is, a more negative attitude towards food waste results in lower food waste (Evans, 2012; Roodhuyzen et al., 2017; Stancu et al., 2016; van der Werf et al., 2021).

There is empirical evidence that actions and behaviours related to food waste reduction are influenced by norms (Qi & Roe, 2016; Stancu et al., 2016; Visschers et al., 2016). Norms, for example, social, moral and injunctive norms, act as guiding principles when making decisions and can be particularly effective where what constitutes correct behaviour is lacking. For example, failing to follow norms is associated with some sort of judgements (Higgs, 2015). However, there are also contradictory findings and propositions that because non-household members cannot observe food waste within a household is not visible to others, meaning they cannot be judged, subjective norms may not have as much impact on food waste behaviour or only modestly associated with the intention to reduce food waste (Graham-Rowe et al., 2015; Quested et al., 2013).

Few studies examined the association between affect (mood and emotion)³ and the intention to reduce food waste. Among these, Russell et al. (2017) found that emotion was fundamental to explaining consumers’ intentions to reduce food waste and their food waste behaviour. Specifically, negative emotions motivated the intention to reduce food waste. For example, Graham-Rowe et al. (2014), Attiq et al. (2021a) and Matharu et al. (2022) found that quest to avoid experiencing negative emotions drives a reduction in household food waste. Similarly, Attiq et al.’s (2021b) findings suggest that anticipated negative emotions significantly impact food waste reduction behaviours, albeit for consumers visiting restaurants. The limited number of studies examining this overlooked but important relationship has been highlighted (Matharu et al., 2022). There is even notable scarcity of studies that employ the expectation, attitude and motivation model to food waste. With the increase in attention given to the food waste issue on the research and policymaking agenda, methods that offer an avenue to investigate all factors that affect food waste will help shed light on household deals with food waste. We build on existing frameworks that examined similar relationships by presenting pathways through which attitudes and affect are linked with behavioural intentions.

In the rest of the paper, the theoretical framework is presented, followed by the materials and methods. The results are then presented and discussed before concluding the paper.

Theoretical Framework

The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TBP)

The TBP is a popular applied expectancy-value model of attitude–behaviour relationships. The TPB (Ajzen, 1991) builds on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1973, 1975). The TRA postulates a causal sequence linking beliefs with attitude, social norm, intention and behaviour. According to the TPB, people’s behaviour depends on their attitudes, subjective norms and descriptive norms through behavioural intention. Generally, it is conjectured that intentions (the closest antecedent of behaviour) are determined by both a person’s attitudes and the subjective norms associated with the perceived normative pressure (behavioural control) to embrace a specific behaviour. Correspondingly, each of these elements is determined by salient beliefs. In this paper, we test the potential of the original TPB model to predict behavioural intention by adding a measure of affect (emotion). The predictive validity of TPB with respect to food waste has been affirmed by previous studies (Coşkun & Yetkin Özbük, 2020; Graham-Rowe et al., 2015; Soorani & Ahmadvand, 2019; van der Werf et al., 2019). Following this premise, we aim to systematically identify factors influencing food waste intentions. Thus, we hypothesize that attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control and affect will be significant predictors of intention to reduce food waste (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Schematic Representation of the Factors that Influence Food Waste Intention and Behaviour from the Modified Theory of Planned Behaviour Perspective.

Specifically, the paper conjectures that:

H₁: Attitude towards food waste would predict intentions to reduce households’ food waste. That is, how much a person favourably evaluates their food waste behaviour will directly influence the intention to reduce their food waste (as found in Graham-Rowe et al., 2015; McCarthy & Liu, 2017; Stancu et al., 2016).

H₂: The affective components evoked when food is wasted would predict intentions to reduce households’ food waste. Negative emotions evoked after wasting food will directly influence the intention to reduce their food waste (based on past studies, e.g., Graham-Rowe et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2017).

H₃: Subjective norms towards food waste would predict intentions to reduce households’ food waste. That is, how much a person perceives what they believe others close to them expect of them with respect to food waste will directly influence the intention to reduce their food waste (drawing on previous findings in Graham-Rowe et al., 2015; McCarthy & Liu, 2017).

H₄: Perceived behavioural control towards food waste would predict intentions to reduce households’ food waste. That is, the perceived ease of taking actions to reduce food waste behaviour will directly influence the intention to reduce food waste (supported by Graham-Rowe et al., 2015; McCarthy & Liu, 2017; van der Werf et al., 2019).

H₅: Intentions to reduce households’ food waste would predict food waste behaviour. That is, actions taken to reduce food waste are directly influenced by positive food waste reduction intention (supported by Stancu et al., 2016; Aydin & Aydin, 2022).

H₆: Perceived behavioural control towards food waste would predict food waste behaviour. That is, the perceived ease of taking actions to reduce food waste will directly influence the actual food waste reduction behaviour (based on past studies, e.g., Aydin & Aydin, 2022).

The Expectation, Motivation and Attitude (EMA) model

From a related perspective, the EMA model (Gnoth, 1997) outlines the relationship between expectation, motivation and attitude (Figure 2). The EMA amalgamates perspectives from the behaviourist notion of drive-reduction and the cognitivist constructs of attitudes and value. Motives (a generic behavioural energizer) drive people to search the environment for objects that satisfy them, while people’s felt needs and value system determine their attitudes and expectations. After a need has been activated, the generated motivation is a major constituent in expectation formation and a person would choose certain behaviours to attain the expected results. Consequently, motivation affects how a person evaluates outcomes and thus impacts satisfaction formation (Gnoth, 1997). In other words, the EMA posits that attitudes are formed based on the interaction between a person’s expectations about a specific outcome and their motivation to achieve that outcome. Positive expectations and strong motivation typically lead to positive attitudes.

Figure 2.

Conceptual Model of the EMA Model.

In the EMA, expectation leads to motivation through shaping an individual’s internal beliefs and anticipations about the outcomes of their actions. Positive expectations create a sense of anticipation and desire for a particular result, which, in turn, fuels motivation and influences attitudes and behaviours. Motivation—a key component of the EMA model—has been used in previous studies to explain household food waste. Motivation could be contingent upon altering cues of a person’s expectation regarding the consequences of their action and (or) the incentive value of the consequences resulting the action. Accordingly, we focus on three main motivations salient in the literature. That is, moral motivations, which denote concerns about and feelings of guilt arising from the thought that others may not have enough food. Considering that food is essential for human survival, the thought of wasting food may evoke something inherently immoral about wasting food (Matharu et al., 2022; Ribbers et al., 2023). Savings motivation refers to a consumer’s preparedness to take actions to reduce food waste for the sake of reducing losses associated with food waste. Time and money savings notably relate to people’s aversion to food waste (Watson & Meah, 2012). Environmental motivations, on the other hand, drive behaviour, action and importantly persistence towards avoiding or reducing the negative impact food waste imposes on the environment. Previous studies (Meah & Watson, 2013) have highlighted the gaps in the literature on fewer studies that identify elements that motivate household food waste minimization compared to studies that have focused on detecting the types of food wasted, the characteristics of household that waste food and how the feeling that is evoked by food waste.

Accordingly, the paper tests the hypotheses that:

H₇: Household expectations of their food waste management actions have a direct effect on their attitude towards managing food waste.

H₈: Households’ expectation of reducing food waste has a direct effect on their motivation to managing food waste.

H₉: Household motivation has a direct effect on their attitude towards managing food waste.

Notably, hypotheses 1–6 are based on previous findings. However, these hypotheses have not been tested in the study in its extended form, that is, including H₂ to the rest of the TBP in food waste studies. As such, this paper adds to advancing the literature. Further, this empirical work extends the expectation, attitude and motivation hypotheses from non-food to food waste studies.

Materials and Methods

Data Collection

The data analysed in this paper are from an online crowdsourcing platform, Prolific Academic that links researchers with participants registered with Prolific to participate in online research. Prolific has a representative sample of UK participants and is reported to have high transparency and accountability in crowdsourced online research. The data is also of higher quality than other crowdsourced samples (Eyal et al., 2021; Kelly et al., 2021). Data was collected from 402 respondents in July 2022. The screening was based on the participants being at least 18 years old, solely or jointly responsible for purchasing household food and having lived in the UK for at least six months each for the last 2 years. The characteristics of the sample are discussed in the section Results.

Due to the difficulty in measuring specific attitudes and behaviour directly, several studies have used proxy variables (Mondéjar-Jiménez et al., 2016). Therefore, all items of the constructs used in this paper were extracted from related studies in the literature. The latent variables and the means of measurement are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Description of Variables.

Variable	Indicator	Measure
Positive behaviour to reduce food waste	Construct consisting of two indicators i Prepare (meal plan, shopping list) before shopping ii Check (quantity and food use-by dates) before shopping	Yes or No
Behavioural intention (reduce, reuse and recycle)	‘I intend to reduce my food waste’‘ I intend to reuse any leftover food in the future’‘ In the future, I intend to recycle any leftover food at home (e.g., as homemade compost, animal feed)’	Scale: 5=Strongly Agree, 4=Agree, 3= Neither agree nor disagree, 2=Disagree, 1=Strongly Disagree
Attitude	‘I would find it difficult to reduce food waste in my home’	5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree)
Subjective norm	‘People who are important to me find my attempts to reduce the amount of food wasted as unnecessary’	5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree)
Perceived behavioural control	‘Even if I wanted to, it would be impossible for me to reduce the amount of food waste in my household’	5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree)
Affect	‘Which of the following mood or emotions describe how you feel after uneaten food is thrown away?’	Ranging from unperturbed to frustrated
	Which of the following describe how you feel after reading the message on UK food waste (Figure A2)?	No feeling–a bit shocked–very shocked.
Estimated food waste	‘Of the food categories you buy/grow/are gifted, how much ... is thrown away in your household in a regular week’:	Proportion of total food per week
	‘Compared to 2 years ago, is your food waste higher or lower’	Higher–lower–same
Expectation	Conviction household has to successfully execute the food waste management behaviour – Set example – Satisfaction from not engaging in food waste – Action after nudge from food waste campaign	Composite score
Motivation	‘Which is/are the most important factors that will motivate you to reduce food waste?’	Ranging from environment, moral to financial/time savings

Analytical Method

We analyse the data using structural equation modelling (SEM), as it enables the development of complex path models with direct and indirect effects with the benefit of greater precision in the modelling of the causal mechanisms highlighted in the study hypothesis. The data is analysed using the bootstrap method of the partial least squares structural equations modelling PLS-SEM Stata Package, which tested the hypothesized relationships of this paper using 1,000 generated subsamples, thus ensuring randomly generated samples from the original data set to ensure consistency of results (Hair et al., 2017). Using the PLS-SEM approach, the model is estimated in two steps, that is, the measurement model (which reports the relationships between latent variables and their defining indicators) and the structural model (for the relationship between latent variables). The methodology is summarized in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Summary of Methodology.

Results

The sample comprised various age groups, with the modal age category being between 45 and 54 years. The majority (64%) were fully responsible for food shopping in their homes, and (69%) spent less than 30% of their household income on food. In addition, 82% reported the lowest category of food waste, that is, below 21%, with 56% reporting no change in food waste compared to 2 years before the survey (Table 2). Over half of the households in the sample either strongly agreed or agreed that they intended to reduce or reuse food in their households. Similarly, more than half of the households either strongly disagree or disagree that subjective norms and perceived behavioural control drive the decision to reduce the amount of food waste in their household. However, households did not show the same level of agreement with the proxy for attitude (Table 3).

Table 2.

Description of Households in the Sample.

Household Characteristics	Categories	%
Age range	18–24	1.00
	25–34	12.94
	35–44	25.87
	45–54	27.36
	55–64	23.63
	65 or older	9.20
Household food shopping responsibility	Fully responsible	64.18
Household food shopping responsibility	Partially responsible	35.82
Household dependant size	1	20.90
	2	40.55
	3	19.65
	>3	18.91
Location	City	29.10
	Town	48.51
	Village	22.39
Household expenditure on food*	Less than 30%	69.15
	30–40%	26.87
	40–50%	2.24
	50–60%	1.24
	60% or more	2.00
Combined food waste weekly	Less than 21%	82.09
	21–40%	14.43
	41–60%	1.49
	61–80%	1.00
	81–100%	1.00
Food waste compared to past	Higher	1.99
	Lower	41.04
	Same	56.97

Note: *As a proportion of the combined monthly income.

Table 3.

Summary of Responses Related to Behavioural Intention, Attitude, Subjective Norm and Perceived Behavioural Control.

Level of Agreement/Disagreement
Strongly Agree	Agree	Neither Agree nor Disagree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Mode
‘I intend to reduce my food waste’
42.79	38.81	12.44	2.33	2.74	Strongly agree
‘I intend to reuse any leftover food in the future’
43.28	36.57	13.68	3.48	2.99	Strongly agree
In the future, I intend to recycle any leftover food at home
33.58	16.67	24.62	11.69	13.43	Strongly agree
‘I would find it difficult to reduce food waste in my home’
11.19	15.17	18.66	25.12	29.58	Strongly disagree
‘People who are important to me find my attempts to reduce the amount of food wasted as unnecessary’
2.74	4.73	29.85	14.68	48.01	Strongly disagree
‘Even if I wanted to, it would be impossible for me to reduce the amount of food waste in my household’
8.21	8.71	15.18	22.64	45.27	Strongly disagree

Correlation of Latent Variables

Attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control were negatively and significantly correlated with food waste reduction intention, although the correlation was small for subjective norms (Table 4). This could suggest that greater levels of constraints limiting an individual’s ability to convert their intention into action are associated with lower intention to reduce food.

Table 4.

Correlation of TPB Latent Variables.

	Latent Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	Food waste behaviour	–
2	Food waste reduction Intention	0.180*	–
3	Attitude	−0.044	−0.362*	–
4	Affect	0.048	0.286	−0.095	–
5	Subjective norms	−0.018	−0.012*	0.136*	−0.045	–
6	Perceived behavioural control	−0.078	−0.361*	0.671*	−0.131*	0.164*	–

*p < .05, AVE = average variance extracted.

Note: As the items with multiple measure were not expected to be directly related, internal consistency was not measured.

Structural Model Evaluation and Hypotheses Tests of the TPB and EMA

The standardized path coefficients in Figure 4 summarize the findings of the structural model of the TBP. The results indicate that Attitude and Perceived behavioural control had a statistically significant direct negative association with households’ intention to reduce food waste. That is, the stronger the level of agreement a household reported towards difficulty in reducing food waste in their home, the less likely the intention to reduce food waste. Furthermore, subjective norm independently was correlated with intent, but in the SEM model, it was not an independent predictor of the intent to reduce food waste. On the other hand, regarding the additional constructs in the modified TPB model, that is, Affect, the results showed a statistically significant and direct positive association between a negative affective state after food is wasted and consumers’ intention to reduce food waste. This finding implies that the more intense the negative affect towards food waste, the greater the likelihood of having the intention to reduce food waste. Finally, intentions to reduce food waste are associated with positive food waste behaviour. Thus, hypotheses H₁, H₂ and H₄ are H₆ are supported (Table 5). In comparison, the results are similar to the original TBP.

Figure 4.

Structural Model for the Modified Theory of Planned Behaviour Model.

Table 5.

Structural Model: Standardized Path Coefficients and Hypothesis for the TPB.

Hypothesis	Path	Standardized Estimate (β)	p value	Significance
H ₁	Attitude ↓Intention	−0.219	.002	Supported
H ₂	Affect ↓Intention	0.243	.000	Supported
H ₃	Subjective norms ↓Intention	0.060	.265	Not supported
H ₄	Perceived behavioural control ↓Intention	−0.192	.007	Supported
H ₅	Perceived behavioural control ↓ Behaviour	−0.015	.845	Not supported
H ₆	Intention ↓ Behaviour	0.175	.007	Supported

For the EMA model, the results in Figure 5 indicate that Expectation had a statistically significant direct positive association with (environmental and moral) motivation and with attitudes. We did not find any evidence of motivation being associated with attitudes. As a result, the hypothesis H₉ is not supported (Table 6).

Figure 5.

Structural Model for the Modified Theory of Planned Behaviour Model.

Table 6.

Structural Model: Standardized Path Coefficients and Hypothesis for the EMA.

Hypothesis	Path	Standardized Estimate (β)	p value	Significance
H _7a	Expectation ↓Environment	0.347	.000	Supported
H _7b	Expectation ↓Financial/time	0.005	.934	Not supported
H _7c	Expectation ↓Moral	0.173	.000	Supported
H ₈	Expectation ↓Attitude	0.135	.000	Supported
H _9a	Environment ↓ Attitude	0.033	.700	Not supported
H _9b	Financial/time ↓ Attitude	0.079	.287	Not supported
H _9c	Moral ↓ Attitude	−0.001	.990	Not supported

Discussion

This paper aims to broaden our understanding of the factors that drive a reduction in food waste in households. Thus, the paper tested an extended framework of the TBP to explain the intentions to reduce food waste. The explanatory and predictive power of the TBP increased with the inclusion of affect to the model, thereby highlighting the need to consider other factors when the TBP model is used to investigate food waste behaviour. This suggestion aligns with past studies (Aydin & Aydin, 2022; Chen, 2022; Pakpour et al., 2014) that have extended the TBP in identifying the determinants of household food waste behaviour.

The finding that attitude has a significant and positive effect on the intention to reduce food waste in the household aligns with previous findings that households may only have a positive attitude to food waste reduction if they believe it will result in a positive outcome. This may also result from a high value being placed on food in a household and a better level of awareness influencing food waste behaviour (Hebrok & Boks, 2017). Based on these premises, the suggestion is that strategies that motivate positive attitudes and make salient the rewards or a positive outcome of reducing waste will be more effective in encouraging less food waste in households.

The finding that subjective norms did not significantly predict behavioural intention does not align with several past findings globally, which reported actions and behaviour related to food waste reduction are influenced by norms (Qi & Roe, 2016; Stancu et al., 2016; Visschers et al., 2016). It could be contested that subjective norms alone may not be sufficient to motivate the intention to reduce food waste. In line with Quested et al. (2013) and Graham-Rowe et al. (2015), this paper conjectures that because non-household members cannot observe food waste within a household is not visible to others, meaning they cannot be judged, subjective norms may not have as much impact on food waste behaviour or only modestly associated with the intention to reduce food waste.

The empirical evidence in this paper corroborates Russell et al. (2017), Attiq et al. (2021a) and Matharu et al. (2022) that food waste evokes a strong moral guilt-related affect, and this moral aspect is important in driving food waste reduction in households. This paper also provides further direct evidence and contributes to the literature by supporting the proposition that the intention to reduce food waste drives positive behaviour towards food waste reduction. This finding supports previous studies, which found an association between positive perceived behavioural control and intention to reduce food waste (McCarthy & Liu, 2017; van der Werf et al., 2019). Efforts targeted at ensuring the intent to cut food waste by the majority of households are transformed to action, and that obstacles that make households to postpone actions are removed would be steps in the right direction towards accomplishing SDG target 12.3.

The findings that expectation had a statistically significant direct positive association with environmental and moral motivations on the one hand, and with attitudes on the other hand are new in food waste studies. In its application to food waste, it is evident that the EMA model is more relevant to the prevention aspect of food waste. Assuming the expectation of all households is to avoid food waste, the greater the differences between expectation and actual behaviour, the greater the food waste levels. With high expectations, the thought of wasting food may evoke an uncomfortable feeling (Matharu et al., 2022; Ribbers et al., 2023), thus, motivating households to meet the expectation. However, that motivation does not drive attitudes directly may suggest the existence of confounding variables.

From a wider perspective and in line with Evans (2011) and Ellison and Lusk (2018), the paper takes the position that households do not deliberately or carelessly waste food. In some cases, households may genuinely have the intention of reducing food waste. However, several external constraints may limit transforming the intention to action. For example, incentives such as offering value through oversized portions, bulk sales and food sold at discounted prices from near-to-expiry contribute to household food waste. Previous studies also provide evidence that fruits and vegetables, for example, are mainly wasted because of poor quality at purchase (Graham-Rowe et al., 2014; Porpino et al., 2015). Hence, the paper recommends that interventions that recognize and accommodate both internal and external factors will be more effective in discouraging food waste. For example, this could be achieved by targeted messages that strengthen beliefs that wasting food is bad or campaigns that arouse positive feelings from reducing food waste together with advice on portion sizes and extending product life effectively combined with options for loose food dispensers for certain foods.

Policy Implications

The paper provides evidence of the significant impact that individual attitudes and emotions have on food waste behaviours. Food waste can be reduced by avenues that influence individuals’ positive attitudes, increase the expectation that food waste reduction behaviour is within one’s control and evokes a positive affective state when food waste is reduced in households. Tailored awareness campaigns could also play a pivotal role in reducing household food waste. For instance, emphasizing the environmental benefits and personal savings associated with reducing food waste can motivate individuals to act. Additionally, behavioural interventions that enhance perceived behavioural control, such as providing practical information on food storage, understanding food labels and cooking with leftovers, can support consumers to minimize waste.

Limitations and Future Recommendations

There are aspects of this paper that could be improved upon in future studies. For example, not limiting the examination to attitudes to that of the respondent representing the household only but surveying household members collectively to account for the attitudes of all household members with food decision-making responsibilities. Notably, a simplistic definition of food waste was provided to respondents, thus, one can argue that if their self-knowledge about food waste is utterly different, their responses may be less comparable. Also, certain confounders not accounted for may affect the indicators in this paper. For example, preparing before shopping represents positive behaviour to reduce food waste. However, the absence of such preparation does not definitively indicate the opposition. Thus, the efficiency of the indicators used in this paper could be improved in future studies.

Future studies can also aim to collect data from samples with more heterogeneity and tailor the measures of the behavioural intention, attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control to better fit the context and improve the relevance to the target population. Finally, time series data and reliance on approaches (e.g., food diaries and waste audits) that reveal attitudes over self-report measures would provide better predictive strength. Also, the paper acknowledges that persons’ emotions could vary based on the situation, for example, when the food waste is generated from their own food, children’s food, food served at a restaurant or even stale items. This could have led to responses from different individuals may arise not due to differing emotions for the same situation but rather because they considered varying contexts.

Conclusion

The paper aims to predict behaviour towards household food waste from a modified TPB perspective. Structural equation modelling is estimated to assess the inter-correlations among the proposed constructs. The findings are that a favourable attitude, a high perceived behavioural control and a negative affective state after food is wasted positively impact the intention to reduce food waste. Thus, the findings validate the usefulness of the TPB and its extended form. However, the extension of the TBP predicted household food waste intentions better than the original TPB. This paper also introduces the EMA model to understanding the prevention of household food waste. The EMA suggests that when households expect to avoid food waste, but their actual behaviour differs from these expectations, food waste levels increase. High expectations might lead to discomfort at the thought of wasting food, thereby motivating households to align their behaviour with these expectations. Interestingly, the findings in the paper suggest that motivation does not directly influence attitudes, which could be due to the presence of other factors affecting the relationship. Collectively, reducing household food waste can be achieved through various approaches that impact individuals’ positive attitudes, raise their expectations of controlling food waste reduction behaviour and elicit a positive emotional state when successfully reducing food waste at home.

Appendix

Figure A1.

Example of Information Shown to Subjects to Elicit Affect.

Figure A2.

Structural Model for the Original Theory of Planned Behaviour Model.

Figure A3.

Structural Model for the Original EMA Model.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Ningxin Zhao: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review & Editing.

Toritseju Begho: Conceptualization, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision.

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 received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

ORCID iD

Toritseju Begho

References

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 50(2), 179–211.

Ajzen

, & Fishbein

(1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior . Prentice Hall.

Aschemann-Witzel

, Giménez

, & Ares

(2019). Household food waste in an emerging country and the reasons why: Consumer’s own accounts and how it differs for target groups. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 145, 332–338.

Attiq

, Habib

M. D.

, Kaur

, Hasni

M. J. S.

, & Dhir

(2021a). Drivers of food waste reduction behaviour in the household context. Food Quality and Preference , 94, 104300.

Attiq

, Chu

A. M.

, Azam

R. I.

, Wong

W. K.

, & Mumtaz

(2021b). Antecedents of consumer food waste reduction behavior: Psychological and financial concerns through the lens of the theory of interpersonal behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18(23), 12457.

Aydin

, & Aydin

(2022). Investigating consumers’ food waste behaviors: An extended theory of planned behavior of Turkey sample. Cleaner Waste Systems , 3, 100036.

Brown

H. K.

, Ouellette-Kuntz

, Lysaght

, & Burge

(2011). Students’ behavioural intentions towards peers with disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities , 24(4), 322–332.

Browne

M. W.

, & Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

and Long

J. S.

(Eds). Testing structural equation models (Vol. 154, p. 136), Sage Publications.

Chapagain

, & James

(2013). Accounting for the impact of food waste on water resources and climate change. Food industry wastes: Assessment and recuperation of commodities (pp. 217–236). Academic Press, Elsevier.

10.

Chen

M. F.

(2022). Integrating the extended theory of planned behavior model and the food-related routines to explain food waste behavior. British Food Journal , 25(2), 645–661.

11.

Coşkun

, & Özbük

R. M. Y.

(2020). What influences consumer food waste behavior in restaurants? An application of the extended theory of planned behavior. Waste Management , 117, 170–178.

12.

den Boer

, Kobel

, den Boer

, & Obersteiner

(2023). Food waste quantities and composition in Polish households. Waste Management and Research , 41(8), 1318–1330.

13.

Ellison

, & Lusk

J. L.

(2018). Examining household food waste decisions: A vignette approach. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy , 40(4), 613–631.

14.

Evans

(2011). Blaming the consumer–once again: The social and material contexts of everyday food waste practices in some English households. Critical Public Health , 21(4), 429–440.

15.

Evans

(2012). Beyond the throwaway society: Ordinary domestic practice and a sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology , 46(1), 41–56.

16.

Eyal

, David

, Andrew

, Zak

, & Ekaterina

(2022). Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behavior Research Methods , 54, 1643–1662.

17.

Faiers

, & Neame

(2006). Consumer attitudes towards domestic solar power systems. Energy Policy , 34(14), 1797–1806.

18.

Fami

H. S.

, Aramyan

L. H.

, Sijtsema

S. J.

, & Alambaigi

(2021). The relationship between household food waste and food security in Tehran city: The role of urban women in household management. Industrial Marketing Management , 97, 71–83.

19.

Fareshare. (2019). Food waste and hunger in the UK. https://fareshare.org.uk/what-we-do/hunger-food-waste/

20.

Fishbein

, & Ajzen

(1973). Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 27(1), 41.

21.

Fishbein

, & Ajzen

(1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior . Addison-Wesley.

22.

Gnoth

(1997). Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of Tourism Research , 24(2), 283–304.

23.

Graham-Rowe

, Jessop

D. C.

, & Sparks

(2014). Identifying motivations and barriers to minimising household food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 84, 15–23.

24.

Graham-Rowe

, Jessop

D. C.

, & Sparks

(2015). Predicting household food waste reduction using an extended theory of planned behaviour. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 101, 194–202.

25.

Hair

J. F.

, Hult

G. T. M.

, Ringle

C. M.

, & Sarstedt

(2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) . Sage Publications.

26.

Hebrok

, & Boks

(2017). Household food waste: Drivers and potential intervention points for design–An extensive review. Journal of Cleaner Production , 151, 380–392.

27.

Higgs

(2015). Social norms and their influence on eating behaviours. Appetite , 86, 38–44.

28.

Kelly

J. W.

, Cherep

L. A.

, Lim

A. F.

, Doty

, & Gilbert

S. B.

(2021 March). Who are virtual reality headset owners? A survey and comparison of headset owners and non-owners. In IEEE virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR) , 2021 (pp. 687–694). IEEE.

29.

Kotler

(2003). Marketing management (11th ed.). Prentice Hall.

30.

McCarthy

, & Liu

H. B.

(2017). Waste not, want not’ Exploring green consumers’ attitudes towards wasting edible food and actions to tackle food waste. British Food Journal , 119(12), 2519–2531.

31.

Matharu

, Gupta

, & Swarnakar

(2022). Efforts are made but food wastage is still going on: A study of motivation factors for food waste reduction among household consumers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration , 14(2), 244–264.

32.

Meah

, & Watson

(2013). Cooking up consumer anxieties about ‘Provenance’ and ‘Ethics’ why it sometimes matters where foods come from in domestic provisioning. Food, Culture and Society , 16(3), 495–512.

33.

Mondéjar-Jiménez

J. A.

, Ferrari

, Secondi

, & Principato

(2016). From the table to waste: An exploratory study on behaviour towards food waste of Spanish and Italian youths. Journal of Cleaner Production , 138, 8–18.

34.

Pakpour

A. H.

, Zeidi

I. M.

, Emamjomeh

M. M.

, Asefzadeh

, & Pearson

(2014). Household waste behaviours among a community sample in Iran: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Waste Management , 34(6), 980–986.

35.

Porpino

, Parente

, & Wansink

(2015). Food waste paradox: Antecedents of food disposal in low income households. International Journal of Consumer Studies , 39(6), 619–629.

36.

, & Roe

B. E.

(2016). Household food waste: Multivariate regression and principal components analyses of awareness and attitudes among US consumers. PLoS ONE , 11(7), e0159250.

37.

Quested

T. E.

, Marsh

, Stunell

, & Parry

A. D.

(2013). Spaghetti soup: The complex world of food waste behaviours. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 79, 43–51.

38.

Ribbers

, Geuens

, Pandelaere

, & van Herpen

(2023). Development and validation of the motivation to avoid food waste scale. Global Environmental Change , 78, 102626.

39.

Roodhuyzen

D. M.

, Luning

P. A.

, Fogliano

, & Steenbekkers

L. P. A.

(2017). Putting together the puzzle of consumer food waste: Towards an integral perspective. Trends in Food Science and Technology , 68, 37–50.

40.

Russell

S. V.

, Young

C. W.

, Unsworth

K. L.

, & Robinson

(2017). Bringing habits and emotions into food waste behaviour. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 125, 107–114.

41.

Secondi

, Principato

, & Laureti

(2015). Household food waste behaviour in EU-27 countries: A multilevel analysis. Food Policy , 56, 25–40.

42.

Slorach

P. C.

, Jeswani

H. K.

, Cuéllar-Franca

, & Azapagic

(2019). Environmental and economic implications of recovering resources from food waste in a circular economy. Science of the Total Environment , 693, 133516.

43.

Slorach

P. C.

, Jeswani

H. K.

, Cuéllar-Franca

, & Azapagic

(2020). Assessing the economic and environmental sustainability of household food waste management in the UK: Current situation and future scenarios. Science of the Total Environment , 710, 135580.

44.

Soorani

, & Ahmadvand

(2019). Determinants of consumers’ food management behavior: Applying and extending the theory of planned behavior. Waste Management , 98, 151–159.

45.

Stancu

, Haugaard

, & Lähteenmäki

(2016). Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste. Appetite , 96, 7–17.

46.

Stangherlin

I. D. C.

, & De Barcellos

M. D.

(2018). Drivers and barriers to food waste reduction. British Food Journal , 120(10), 2364–2387. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2017-0726

47.

United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, 16301 (2015) A/RES/70/1

48.

United Nations. (2017). Sustainable development goals: 17 goals to transform our world. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/

49.

United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development (A/RES/70/1). https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

50.

van der Werf

, Seabrook

J. A.

, & Gilliland

J. A.

(2019). Food for naught: Using the theory of planned behaviour to better understand household food wasting behaviour. Canadian Geographies/Géographies Canadiennes , 63(3), 478–493.

51.

van der Werf

, Seabrook

J. A.

, & Gilliland

J. A.

(2021). ‘Reduce food waste, save money’: Testing a novel intervention to reduce household food waste. Environment and Behavior , 53(2), 151–183.

52.

Västfjäll

, Slovic

, Burns

W. J.

, Erlandsson

, Koppel

, Asutay

, & Tinghög

(2016). The arithmetic of emotion: Integration of incidental and integral affect in judgments and decisions. Frontiers in Psychology , 7, 325.

53.

Venkat

(2011). The climate change and economic impacts of food waste in the United States. International Journal on Food System Dynamics , 2(4), 431–446.

54.

Visschers

V. H.

, Wickli

, & Siegrist

(2016). Sorting out food waste behaviour: A survey on the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in households. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 45, 66–78.

55.

Watson

, & Meah

(2012). Food, waste and safety: Negotiating conflicting social anxieties into the practices of domestic provisioning. The Sociological Review , 60(2_suppl), 102–120.

56.

WRAP. (2017). Estimates of food surplus and waste arisings in the UK. Retrieved, October 2018, from https://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Estimates_%20in_the_UK_Jan17.pdf.

57.

WRAP. (2020). Banbury, UK progress against Courtauld 2025 targets and Sustainable Development Goal 12.3, Prepared by Andrew Parry, Billy Harris. Karen Fisher and Hamish Forbe . Retrieved, 21 February 2020, from https://wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Progress_against_Courtauld_2025_targets_and_UN_SDG_123.pdf.

58.

Zagata

(2012). Consumers’ beliefs and behavioural intentions towards organic food. Evidence from the Czech Republic. Appetite , 59(1), 81–89.

Micro-level Contributions Towards SDG Target 12.3: Identifying the Behavioural Drivers of Household Food Waste Reduction

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Background to Household Food Waste

Links Between Food Waste and Attitudinal Factors, Norms and Affective States

Theoretical Framework

The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TBP)

Schematic Representation of the Factors that Influence Food Waste Intention and Behaviour from the Modified Theory of Planned Behaviour Perspective.

The Expectation, Motivation and Attitude (EMA) model

Conceptual Model of the EMA Model.

Materials and Methods

Data Collection

Description of Variables.

Analytical Method

Summary of Methodology.

Results

Description of Households in the Sample.

Summary of Responses Related to Behavioural Intention, Attitude, Subjective Norm and Perceived Behavioural Control.

Correlation of Latent Variables

Correlation of TPB Latent Variables.

Structural Model Evaluation and Hypotheses Tests of the TPB and EMA

Structural Model for the Modified Theory of Planned Behaviour Model.

Structural Model: Standardized Path Coefficients and Hypothesis for the TPB.

Structural Model for the Modified Theory of Planned Behaviour Model.

Structural Model: Standardized Path Coefficients and Hypothesis for the EMA.

Discussion

Policy Implications

Limitations and Future Recommendations

Conclusion

Appendix

Example of Information Shown to Subjects to Elicit Affect.

Structural Model for the Original Theory of Planned Behaviour Model.

Structural Model for the Original EMA Model.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Notes

ORCID iD

References