Consumer and Food Product Determinants of Food Wasting: A Case Study on Chicken Meat
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Consumer Determinants Resulting in Household Food Waste
2.1.1. Sociodemographic Characteristics
2.1.2. Household Routines and Skills
2.1.3. Motivations and Attitudes
2.2. Consumer Classifications Based on Their Behaviour
2.3. Food Product Determinants Resulting in Household Food Waste
2.3.1. Packaging Size
2.3.2. Shelf Life
2.3.3. Agricultural Production Systems
2.3.4. Product Convenience Grade
2.4. Quantification of Household Food Waste
- Firstly, a thorough understanding was needed of the difference in consumer actions regarding chicken meat amongst the stages of purchasing, storage, preparation, and disposal. These consumers’ actions are presented as the flow analysis, explaining where, how much and why food waste occurs.
- Participants were divided into segments according to the amount of chicken meat they generally waste, so-called household waster segments (HWS).
- Next, whether or not a relationship exists between both consumer and food product determinants and various HWS are analysed.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Set-Up
3.2. Questionnaire
- Part 1: Identification of a commonly purchased chicken product.
- Part 2: Analysis of actions taken after the last routine purchase of a specific chicken product.
- Part 3: Quantification of self-reported food waste.
- Part 4: Influence of consumer determinants of household food waste.
3.3. Flow Analysis of Household Actions
3.4. Statistical Analysis
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Understanding the Household Activities and Their Relation to Food Wasting
4.2. Segmentation into Household Waster Segments
4.3. Consumer Determinants
Relation between Consumer Determinants and Household Waster Segments
4.4. Food Product Determinants
4.4.1. Waste Percentage of the Entire Sample
4.4.2. Relation between Food Product Determinants and HWS
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- FAO. Global Food Losses and Food Waste-Extent, Causes and Prevention; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Beretta, C.; Stucki, M.; Hellweg, S. Environmental impacts and hotspots of food losses: Value chain analysis of swiss food consumption. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 11165–11173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WRAP. Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK; Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP): Banbury, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Huysman, S.; Schaubroeck, T.; Goralczyk, M.; Schmidt, J.; Dewulf, J. Quantifying the environmental impacts of a european citizen through a macro-economic approach, a focus on climate change and resource consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 124, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heller, M.C.; Keoleian, G.A. Greenhouse gas emission estimates of U.S. Dietary choices and food loss. J. Ind. Ecol. 2015, 19, 391–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations (UN): New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving Forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Chaboud, G.; Daviron, B. Food losses and waste: Navigating the inconsistencies. Glob. Food Secur. 2017, 12, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delgado, L.; Schuster, M.; Torero, M. Quantity and quality food losses across the value chain: A comparative analysis. Food Policy 2020, 98, 101958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Geffen, L.; van Herpen, E.; van Trijp, H. Quantified Consumer Insights on Food Waste-Pan-European Research for Quantified Consumer Food Waste Understanding; Wageningen UR: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Stancu, V.; Haugaard, P.; Lahteenmaki, L. Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste. Appetite 2016, 96, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stefan, V.; van Herpen, E.; Tudoran, A.A.; Lähteenmäki, L. Avoiding food waste by romanian consumers: The importance of planning and shopping routines. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visschers, V.H.M.; Wickli, N.; Siegrist, M. Sorting out food waste behaviour: A survey on the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in households. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Principato, L.; Secondi, L.; Pratesi, C.A. Reducing food waste: An investigation on the behaviour of italian youths. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 731–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, H.; Wikström, F.; Otterbring, T.; Löfgren, M.; Gustafsson, A. Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 24, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lindh, H.; Williams, H.; Olsson, A.; Wikström, F. Elucidating the indirect contributions of packaging to sustainable development: A terminology of packaging functions and features. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016, 29, 225–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robertson, G. Food Packaging and Shelf Life: A Practical Guide; Taylor & Francis Inc.: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS (accessed on 12 December 2020).
- Clune, S.; Crossin, E.; Verghese, K. Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 766–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yavas, E.; Bilgin, B. Effect of calcium lactate, sodium diacetate and sodium chloride mixture on the microbiological, chemical and sensory properties of chicken nuggets stored in refrigeration and under modified atmospheres. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2010, 9, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- WHO. The Global View of Campylobacteriosis Report of Expert Consultation; World Health Organization (WHO): Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Strachan, N.J.; Rotariu, O.; MacRae, M.; Sheppard, S.K.; Smith-Palmer, A.; Cowden, J.; Maiden, M.C.; Forbes, K.J. Operationalising factors that explain the emergence of infectious diseases: A case study of the human campylobacteriosis epidemic. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e79331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Baltic, T.; Ciric, J.; Brankovic Lazic, I.; Ljubojevic Pelic, D.; Mitrovic, R.; Djordjevic, V.; Parunovic, N. Packaging as a tool to improve the shelf life of poultry meat. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 333, 012044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bravi, L.; Francioni, B.; Murmura, F.; Savelli, E. Factors affecting household food waste among young consumers and actions to prevent it. A comparison among uk, spain and italy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153, 104586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Talia, E.; Simeone, M.; Scarpato, D. Consumer behaviour types in household food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwodt, S.; Obersteiner, G. Development of tailor-made food waste prevention measures based on consumer type analysis. Sci. Pap.-Ser. A-Agron. 2018, 61, 513–515. [Google Scholar]
- Gaiani, S.; Caldeira, S.; Adorno, V.; Segre, A.; Vittuari, M. Food wasters: Profiling consumers’ attitude to waste food in italy. Waste Manag 2018, 72, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Funk, A.; Sütterlin, B.; Siegrist, M. Consumer segmentation based on stated environmentally-friendly behavior in the food domain. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 25, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirzaie-Nodoushan, F.; Morid, S.; Dehghanisanij, H. Reducing water footprints through healthy and reasonable changes in diet and imported products. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 23, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wohner, B.; Pauer, E.; Heinrich, V.; Tacker, M. Packaging-related food losses and waste: An overview of drivers and issues. Sustainability 2019, 11, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goossens, Y.; Schmidt, T.G.; Kuntscher, M. Evaluation of food waste prevention measures—The use of fish products in the food service sector. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gustavo, J.U.; Pereira, G.M.; Bond, A.J.; Viegas, C.V.; Borchardt, M. Drivers, opportunities and barriers for a retailer in the pursuit of more sustainable packaging redesign. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lanfranchi, M.; Calabro, G.; De Pascale, A.; Fazio, A.; Giannetto, C. Household food waste and eating behavior: Empirical survey. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 3059–3072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirtil, E.; Kilercioglu, M.; Oztop, M.H. Modified atmosphere packaging of foods. Ref. Modul. Food Sci. 2016, 1, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, B.Y.; Tong, Y.; Singh, S.; Cai, H.; Huang, J.-Y. Assessment of carbon footprint of nano-packaging considering potential food waste reduction due to shelf life extension. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 322–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dilkes-Hoffman, L.S.; Lane, J.L.; Grant, T.; Pratt, S.; Lant, P.A.; Laycock, B. Environmental impact of biodegradable food packaging when considering food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarthy, B.; Liu, H.B. Food waste and the ’green’ consumer. Australas. Mark. J. 2017, 25, 126–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heard, B.R.; Bandekar, M.; Vassa, B.; Miller, S.A. Comparison of life cycle environmental impacts from meal kits and grocery store meals. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 147, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elimelech, E.; Ert, E.; Ayalon, O. Bridging the gap between self-assessments and measured household food waste: A hybrid valuation approach. Waste Manag 2019, 95, 259–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Withanage, S.V.; Dias, G.M.; Habib, K. Review of household food waste quantification methods: Focus on composition analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giordano, C.; Alboni, F.; Falasconi, L. Quantities, determinants, and awareness of households’ food waste in italy: A comparison between diary and questionnaires quantities’. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Østergaard, S.; Hanssen, O.J. Wasting of fresh-packed bread by consumers—influence of shopping behavior, storing, handling, and consumer preferences. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cardinaels, J. Colruyt Pikt Klanten Weg Bij de Concurrentie. Available online: https://www.tijd.be/ondernemen/retail/colruyt-pikt-klanten-weg-bij-concurrentie/10137692.html (accessed on 12 March 2021).
- ifu Hamburg. E!Sankey-Show the Flow. Available online: https://www.ifu.com/en/e-sankey/sankey-diagram/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAv6yCBhCLARIsABqJTjZ9nd26HzeJCC-zuqDAX0zgsW4C0k_UmHUF6YX_fCinZSChDNYu_psaAjz2EALw_wcB (accessed on 12 March 2021).
- Hanley, C.; Duncan, M.J.; Mummery, W.K. The effect of changes to question order on the prevalence of ‘sufficient’ physical activity in an australian population survey. J. Phys. Act. Health 2013, 10, 390–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wohner, B.; Gabriel, V.H.; Krenn, B.; Krauter, V.; Tacker, M. Environmental and economic assessment of food-packaging systems with a focus on food waste. Case study on tomato ketchup. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 738, 139846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diced Chicken Breast 0.5 kg | Chicken Breasts 1 kg | Chicken Breasts 0.5 kg | Chicken Escalope 0.4 kg | Organic Whole Chicken 1.5 kg | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Main packaging | |||||
Type | Container | Container | Container | Container | Duplex paper |
Material | PP | PP | PS | PP | 90.6% Paper and 9.4% PE |
Mass (g) | 15.1 | 22.2 | 13.4 1 | 11.9 | 12.7 |
Additional bag | |||||
Type | – | – | – | – | Compostable bag |
Material | – | – | – | – | Mater-Bi HF05S2 |
Mass (g) | – | – | – | – | 9.6 |
Lid | |||||
Material | PP | PP | PVC | PP | - |
Mass (g) | 1.8 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 1.8 | - |
Soak pad | |||||
Material | 61.9% Pulp and 38.1% fil | 61.9% Pulp and 38.1% film | PS | 61.9% Pulp and 38.1% film | – |
Mass (g) | 2.8 | 1.7 | 13.4 1 | 2.8 | – |
Labels | |||||
Material | Paper | Paper | Paper | Paper | – |
Mass (g) | 3.3 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 3.3 | – |
Modified atmosphere ² | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
Storage location | Fridge | Fridge | Fridge | Fridge | Fridge |
Packaging size ³ | Small | Medium | Small | Small | Large |
Shelf life 4 | Long | Long | Limited | Long | Limited |
Food convenience grade 5 | Ready-to-cook foods (2) | Kitchen-ready food, inedible parts have been removed (1) | Kitchen-ready food, inedible parts have been removed (1) | Ready-to-cook foods (2) | Non-convenience food (0) |
Agricultural production system | Conventional | Conventional | Conventional | Conventional | Organic |
p-Value | |
---|---|
Sociodemographic Characteristics | |
Age class (18–32, 33–50, 51–59, ≥60) | <0.001 |
Household composition (with children vs. without children) | 0.010 |
Employment status (employed vs. unemployed) | 0.021 |
Gender (male vs. female) | 0.225 |
Children younger than 12 yr. (yes vs. no) | 0.341 |
Highest educational level (education after 18 yr. vs. no education after 18 yr.) | 0.810 |
Financial status ((rather) difficult, neither easy nor difficult, (rather) easy) * | 0.899 |
Household Routines and Skills | |
Planning routines—The shopping trips are usually planned in advance (shopping lists are made, inventories are checked, etc.) | 0.002 |
Shopping routines—We often buy unintended food products when shopping | 0.007 |
Leftover reuse routines—The leftovers are stored in appropriate conditions so they will last longer | 0.010 |
Household skills—Thinking about the activities related to food within your home, how would you rate your household’s skills, in terms of planning meals | 0.023 |
Motivations and Attitudes | |
Intention not to waste food—I try not to throw away food | <0.001 |
Injunctive norm—One should never waste food, not burden the environment with food waste | <0.001 |
Perceived consumer effectiveness—I believe that every small effort by consumers helps to reduce food waste | 0.012 |
Self-evaluated ecological footprint—The ecological footprint is the estimated surface area that a person or group of people needs to produce what is consumed and to absorb what is discarded. How would you estimate your own ecological footprint? | 0.184 |
Packaging perception—Packaging is a waste of raw materials; it must be minimised | 0.077 |
Compare chicken with vegetables—In comparison with vegetables | |
I try to throw away less chicken | 0.776 |
I buy chicken less often unplanned | 0.867 |
I reuse chicken surpluses more often | 0.055 |
I plan the purchase of chicken more | 0.316 |
I think throwing away chicken is rather negative | 0.151 |
All Households | Waste Percentage of All Households (%) | Waste Percentage Wasters (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Non-Wasters (%) | Wasters (%) | |||
Diced chicken breasts 0.5 kg (n = 59) | 25.4 | 74.6 | 1.9 | 2.6 |
Chicken breasts 1 kg (n = 55) | 29.1 | 70.9 | 3.1 | 4.4 |
Chicken breasts 0.5 kg (n = 64) | 42.2 | 57.8 | 2.2 | 3.8 |
Chicken escalope 0.4 kg (n = 48) | 35.4 | 64.6 | 2.3 | 3.5 |
Organic whole chicken 1.5 kg (n = 30) | 60.0 | 40.0 | 1.1 | 2.8 |
p-value | – | – | 0.261 | 0.451 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cooreman-Algoed, M.; Minnens, F.; Boone, L.; Botterman, K.; Taelman, S.E.; Verbeke, W.; Devleesschauwer, B.; Hung, Y.; Dewulf, J. Consumer and Food Product Determinants of Food Wasting: A Case Study on Chicken Meat. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7027. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137027
Cooreman-Algoed M, Minnens F, Boone L, Botterman K, Taelman SE, Verbeke W, Devleesschauwer B, Hung Y, Dewulf J. Consumer and Food Product Determinants of Food Wasting: A Case Study on Chicken Meat. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):7027. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137027
Chicago/Turabian StyleCooreman-Algoed, Margot, Fien Minnens, Lieselot Boone, Kyara Botterman, Sue Ellen Taelman, Wim Verbeke, Brecht Devleesschauwer, Yung Hung, and Jo Dewulf. 2021. "Consumer and Food Product Determinants of Food Wasting: A Case Study on Chicken Meat" Sustainability 13, no. 13: 7027. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137027