Next Article in Journal
Manufacturing Foreign Direct Investment and Sustainable Industrial Output in ASEAN-6 Countries
Previous Article in Journal
Insights into the Occurrence, Adaptation, and Links to Sediment Chemistry of Hydrocarbon-Degrading Bacteria in Polluted Mangrove Forests
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 18
Issue 9
10.3390/su18094430
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

From Tempting Aisles to Guilty Leftovers: Exploring Generation Z’s Food Waste Behavior Through the Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability Framework

by
Asli Aydin
Marketing Department, Istanbul Bilgi University, Santralistanbul Campus, 34060 Istanbul, Türkiye
Sustainability 2026, 18(9), 4430; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18094430
Submission received: 6 February 2026 / Revised: 10 April 2026 / Accepted: 14 April 2026 / Published: 1 May 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Shaping Green Choices: Consumer Behavior and the Path to Sustainable Development)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study uses the Motivation–Opportunity–Ability (MOA) framework to examine the drivers of food waste behavior among Generation Z, a demographic that contributes disproportionately to household food waste. Using structural equation modeling on survey data from 349 undergraduate students, the influence of morals and attitudes toward food waste (motivation), cooking and grocery shopping skills (ability), food purchase triggers, and frequencies of grocery shopping and cooking (opportunity) was investigated. The results indicate that strong moral convictions and creative cooking skills significantly reduce waste. Conversely, susceptibility to marketing-driven purchase triggers increases wasteful behavior. Notably, other factors such as shopping frequency and attitudes toward food waste showed no significant impact. These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions for young consumers that reinforce moral motivations, enhance practical culinary abilities, and mitigate the impact of predatory purchase triggers to effectively curb food waste.

1. Introduction

While some regions of the world continue to struggle with famine, others are responsible for significant levels of food waste [1,2]. The volume of food wasted each year leads to severe environmental, social, and economic consequences [3]. Addressing this issue is essential for a sustainable future, as emphasized by the United Nations’ goal (SDG 12.3) to halve per capita global food waste by 2030 [4]. However, a persistent intention–behavior gap undermines intervention efforts: despite expressing concern and negative attitudes toward waste, individuals often fail to translate these intentions into actual behavior [5,6]. To effectively address this gap, a more nuanced framework is needed to explain the interplay among psychological drives, practical skills, and external triggers. The Motivation–Opportunity–Ability (MOA) framework offers such a comprehensive lens.
This study uses the MOA framework to examine the food waste behavior of young consumers. As outlined by MacInnis et al. [7], the MOA framework posits that a combination of opportunity, ability, and motivation factors shapes behavior. Motivation encompasses personal beliefs, values, and attitudes that influence decision-making [8]. Opportunity includes extrinsic circumstances that enable or impede a specific behavior, while ability refers to personal attributes, namely knowledge and skills, that facilitate the performance of that behavior [8,9].
Guided by the MOA model, this work intends to explore how consumers’ motivations, opportunities, and abilities relate to their food waste behavior. The model integrates morals and attitudes toward food waste as components of the motivation dimension. In the ability dimension, the focus is on consumers’ grocery shopping skills and cooking skills. For the opportunity dimension, the model includes external food purchase triggers along with the frequencies of shopping and cooking activities.
By using the MOA framework to analyze food waste behavior, the present research advances the field of food waste research. Unlike traditional intention-based models that often overlook individuals’ abilities and routines, thereby revealing a significant disparity between beliefs, feelings and actual conduct [5,10], the current study integrates food-related practices and external triggers into the analysis. To date, few studies have employed the MOA framework to investigate food waste [11]. While most studies employ the MOA framework conceptually [8,12,13], only a limited number of studies quantitatively examine how its dimensions influence behavior [14,15,16]. These empirical studies report mixed and sometimes contradictory findings regarding the relative importance of MOA dimensions. For instance, Aloysius et al. [14] identify motivation as the most influential factor, followed by ability, with opportunity playing a comparatively smaller role. In contrast, Heidig et al. [15] find that ability exerts the strongest influence, while motivation has the weakest effect. Furthermore, Shan et al. [16] demonstrate that motivation does not consistently translate into behavior, showing that social factors can negatively moderate the relationship between intention and actual food waste reduction behavior. Such inconsistencies, together with variations in the operationalization of MOA constructs, underscore the need for further empirical investigation to consolidate knowledge in this domain.
More specifically, this study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, it provides an empirical test of the MOA framework in the context of food waste behavior, addressing the limited number of quantitative studies in this domain. Second, it operationalizes the MOA framework by linking each of its dimensions to specific and observable behavioral factors, namely morals, practical skills, and food purchase triggers. Third, it helps reconcile inconsistencies in prior research by examining the relative influence of motivation, opportunity, and ability within a unified empirical framework.
A focused understanding of food waste behavior is particularly critical for Generation Z, a key demographic identified as contributing disproportionately to household food waste [17,18]. Research on generational differences confirms a negative relationship between age and food waste, positioning Gen Z as the most wasteful cohort [18,19]. As one of the largest generational groups globally, comprising nearly a quarter of the world’s population [20], their wasteful habits carry amplified environmental consequences. Compounding this issue, studies reveal that while Gen Z holds strong pro-environmental beliefs, they exhibit a significant intention–behavior gap [21,22,23]. This paradox makes them a particularly fitting subject for study through the MOA framework, which is designed to identify the barriers that prevent intentions from translating into action. Therefore, examining the determinants of this demographic’s behavior is essential for developing effective interventions to curb waste and foster lifelong sustainable habits.
This paper’s remaining sections are organized in the following manner: Initially, the conceptual framework supporting the research is introduced. A detailed explanation of the methodology employed, namely data gathering techniques and analytical approaches, comes after this. The subsequent section reports the results, accompanied by a discussion of the findings and their practical ramifications. Finally, the limitations of the study are outlined, along with recommendations for future research topics.

2. Conceptual Background

The MOA framework, which was initially created to analyze the efficacy of communication, asserts that customers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability determine how much information pertaining to the brand they process [7]. Motivation relates to individuals’ willingness to engage in a particular behavior, while opportunity is related to external conditions such as the availability of options, time, and the absence of situational barriers. The dimension “ability” describes a person’s capacity, expressed in their knowledge and abilities, to act in a certain manner [9]. The MOA framework is adapted to investigate consumer responses in various areas, including energy use [24,25], proactive health practices [26,27], green behavior [28,29], and sustainable food consumption [30,31].
The MOA perspective is also insightful for understanding the dynamics of food waste behavior. For instance, through a qualitative study, Soma et al. [13] utilized the framework to explore how an awareness campaign intervention affected motivation, opportunity, and ability to reduce food waste at the household-level. Similarly, Van Geffen et al. [8] used focus groups to illustrate that consumers manage food based on a balance of competing goals and that both opportunities and abilities influence consumers’ capacity to reduce food waste. Using the clustering method, Vittuari et al. [32] employed the MOA framework to identify consumer segments based on their food waste management approaches. Only a couple of empirical studies tested the influence of MOA factors on wasting food. While one reported a significant impact of ability on lowering discarded food in the Chinese context [16], the other demonstrated a modest effect of all dimensions, with ability being the most influential factor [15].
In line with the studies mentioned above, this research posits that individuals’ motivation, opportunity, and ability affect their food waste practices. Next, factors that constitute these dimensions and the anticipated associations with food waste behavior will be discussed.

2.1. Motivation

Motivation is the driving force behind individual behavior that compels people to act in certain ways [33]. In a food waste context, the motive to lower food waste stems from factors such as individuals’ morals and attitudes. Research shows that moral motives strongly predict food waste behavior [34,35]. Prior studies indicate that those who consider food waste morally wrong and those who feel guilty about wasting it are more likely to try to lessen food waste [36,37,38]. Further studies demonstrate that ethical considerations over food waste affect people’s intentions and actions [39,40]. Drawing on the theory of planned behavior, it is suggested that individuals’ attitudes toward food waste also affect their motivation to take action [8]. While some studies indicate that negative attitudes toward food waste significantly decrease waste [41,42], others find no significant relationships [38,43].
Accordingly, the current study employs morals and attitudes toward food waste variables constituting the motivation component of the MOA framework. Strong morals against food waste and unfavorable attitudes toward food waste are expected to be associated with reduced food waste behavior.
H1a. 
Stronger morals against food waste are negatively associated with food waste behavior.
H1b. 
Stronger unfavorable attitudes toward food waste are negatively associated with food waste behavior.

2.2. Opportunity

The opportunity dimension represents the external circumstances that either facilitate or hinder specific behaviors [7]. In a food waste context, opportunity pertains to external factors contributing to or preventing wasted food. One such factor is the frequency of engaging in food-related activities. Several studies examine the impact of shopping frequency on being wasteful with food. Some of these studies show a negative association between the frequency of buying groceries and discarding food recklessly, as purchases are made on an as-needed basis [44,45]. Conversely, other studies find positive associations between food shopping frequency and making poor use of food due to unplanned purchases of additional food items [46,47]. Another external factor influencing food waste is the frequency of cooking. Farr-Wharton et al. [48] demonstrate that individuals lacking regular cooking habits produce more food waste from unused ingredients. In contrast, those who cook regularly develop better food management skills and waste less [49,50]. Opportunities contributing to increased wasting of food include external purchasing triggers in in-store environments, such as tempting displays and discounts for bulk purchases. Some studies indicate that purchasing discounted bulk items reduces waste due to financial concerns [51,52]. Conversely, other studies found that bulk purchase discounts and promotional offers often result in overbuying and subsequent waste [6,53,54]. It is stated that excessive promotional offers in supermarkets are among the primary factors contributing to food waste among young people [55]. Furthermore, impulsive purchases for just-in-case scenarios increase waste [56].
In light of the explanation above, the present work investigates the frequency of cooking, shopping, and food purchase triggers as variables associated with the MOA framework’s opportunity dimension. Increased frequency of shopping, cooking, and food purchase triggers are expected to be associated with being more wasteful with food.
H2a. 
Higher frequency of shopping is positively associated with food waste behavior.
H2b. 
Higher frequency of cooking is negatively associated with food waste behavior.
H2c. 
Stronger influence of food purchase triggers (e.g., discounts, promotions) is positively associated with food waste behavior.

2.3. Ability

Ability describes a person’s capacity to carry out specific behaviors, encompassing knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy [57]. In the context of food waste, people’s ability to lower this waste relates to their shopping and cooking skills. Research shows that improving cooking skills reduces food waste [58,59]. Roe et al. [60] suggest that throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals’ cooking skills improved, so they wasted less food. Similarly, it has been found that individuals who lack cooking skills tend to waste more, while those with creative cooking abilities to repurpose leftovers or use ingredients in versatile ways waste significantly less [8,61]. Furthermore, several studies indicate that grocery shopping skills, such as planning and making informed decisions while shopping, also impact food waste [62]. Shopping skills allow individuals to plan meals, create lists for necessary purchases, and avoid over-buying [38]. It has been noted that individuals who check their supplies, plan meals before shopping, and make lists are likely to make better use of food and discard less [59,63]. Yet according to other research, there is no significant association between wasteful consumption and planning abilities [45,51].
This study utilizes grocery shopping skills and cooking skills as variables of the ability dimension of the MOA framework. Improved grocery shopping and cooking skills are expected to be associated with reduced food waste.
H3a. 
Stronger cooking skills are negatively associated with food waste behavior.
H3b. 
Stronger grocery shopping skills are negatively associated with food waste behavior.
Figure 1 presents the conceptual model and hypothesized relationships among the study variables based on the MOA framework.

3. Method

3.1. Participants and Measures

The data for this research were collected through a web-based survey. A total of 378 undergraduate students took part in the study, receiving course credit in return for their participation. After eliminating unengaged respondents who failed attention check questions, a final sample of 349 was retained.
As the study focuses on Generation Z, the use of a student sample provides a relevant context for examining this demographic group. However, as the sample consists of university students within a specific cultural context (Türkiye), the findings should be interpreted with consideration of the characteristics of this population.
A total of 50.4% of the participants were male, and 49.6% were female. The participants’ ages ranged between 17 and 23, with a mean of 19.84 (SD = 1.26). The average household size was 3.94 (SD = 2.04).
The survey items measure various dimensions of food waste behavior, drawing on previously validated scales. Participants reported their wasteful food consumption by responding to questions (e.g., “How regularly do you think food is thrown away in your household?”) adapted from Stefan et al. [38] and Russell et al. [64]. Even though reported waste may partly reflect the behavior of other household members in shared living environments, such measures are widely used in the literature as proxies for individual food waste behavior [6,15,35,37,38]. Morals were measured using items such as “It is contrary to my principles when I have to discard food,” adapted from Visschers et al. [35] and Stefan et al. [38]. Attitudes toward food waste were assessed through items like “I think engaging in food waste behavior is bad,” drawn from Russell et al. [64]. Cooking skills were assessed using statements such as “I can use the leftovers to create some new dishes,” adapted from Cantaragiu [65], while grocery shopping skills were assessed with items like “I always use a shopping list when I go food shopping,” based on Stefan et al. [38] and Principato et al. [66]. Additionally, the questionnaire included items measuring the frequency of food-related practices (e.g., “How frequently do you shop for grocery items?”). It included items capturing food purchase triggers, such as “I often impulsively purchase food items that I did not plan to buy,” adapted from Lyndhurst [67].

3.2. Analysis and Results

Structural equation modeling was used for the data analysis. IBM SPSS Statistics 22 was used for data entry and descriptive analysis purposes. IBM Amos 22 was used to perform SEM analysis.
Before evaluating the research model, the measurement model was tested. To verify that every item representing the latent constructs adequately represented the data and that the data’s factor structure was validated, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was first conducted. As anticipated, the EFA findings show that a six-factor solution is the most appropriate based on the pattern loadings and eigenvalues. Due to their low communalities and low factor loadings, two elements from the food waste behavior construct and one from the grocery shopping skills construct were eliminated from the study [68]. The Pearson correlation scores between the constructs and the descriptive statistics are provided in Table 1.
Next, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to ensure the reliability and validity of the constructs. The CFA results show a good fit of the measurement model (CMIN/df = 1.395, IFI = 0.979, TLI = 0.974, CFI = 0.978, RMSEA = 0.034) [69].
The factor loadings, construct reliability scores, average variance extracted (AVE) scores, and squared correlations between the constructs were examined to establish convergent and discriminant validity. The composite reliability index was computed to evaluate the reliability scores of each factor. Table 2 shows the composite reliability indices ranging from 0.72 to 0.91, which is above the minimum criterion of 0.60 [70]. AVE scores and factor loadings were checked to ensure convergent validity. All loadings of the factors are significant and above 0.5, indicating sufficient convergence [71]. Except for two constructs (food waste behavior and cooking skills), all AVE values exceed the recommended threshold of 0.50. Although the AVE values for these two constructs fall below this threshold, their composite reliability scores are above 0.60, and their factor loadings are acceptable. Following Fornell and Larcker [72], convergent validity can still be considered adequate under these conditions, although slightly below the ideal threshold. To assess discriminant validity, first, it was ensured that none of the correlations between constructs are equivalent to 1.0 [71]. As an additional step, AVE scores and squared correlations between the constructs were examined to ensure that the former is greater than the latter [72].
The structural model was tested after the measurement model’s validity and reliability was ensured. Maximum likelihood estimation was conducted in Amos 22.0. The structural model suited the data well, based on the fit indices (CMIN/df = 1.409, IFI = 0.973, TLI = 0.968, CFI = 0.973, RMSEA = 0.034). The analysis reveals a significant relationship between food waste behavior and morals (β = −0.179, p < 0.05). People who have strong moral values refrain from wasting food. Therefore, Hypothesis H1a is accepted. Additionally, cooking skills have a significant negative influence on food waste behavior (β = −0.218, p < 0.05), indicating that individuals with stronger cooking abilities waste less food. Thus, Hypothesis H3a is supported. Food purchase triggers also show a significant positive correlation with food waste behavior (β = 0.167, p < 0.05). People who are influenced by external purchase triggers in shopping environments tend to engage in more wasteful behaviors. Hence, Hypothesis H2c is accepted. The remaining hypothesized paths (H1b, H2a, H2b, H3b) are found to be insignificant (Table 3), and thus, these hypotheses are not supported (Table 3).

4. Discussion

This study utilizes the MOA framework as an organizing structure for understanding food waste behavior. Within this framework, morals and attitudes toward food waste represent the motivation dimension, cooking skills and grocery shopping skills reflect ability, and food purchase triggers, frequency of shopping, and frequency of cooking capture opportunity-related factors. The results offer partial support for the MOA framework, demonstrating that not all components contribute equally to explaining behavior. To provide clearer theoretical integration of the findings, Figure 2 presents a revised model based on the empirical results. The figure distinguishes between statistically significant and non-significant relationships.
The findings indicate that, within the motivation dimension, morals are significantly associated with food waste behavior. Young consumers who consider food waste morally wrong and experience guilt when wasting food are less likely to engage in such behavior. This result aligns with prior research highlighting the effect of personal norms, values, and moral considerations in reducing food waste [35,36,37]. This moral orientation is further supported by evidence that younger generations, particularly Gen Z, demonstrate heightened sensitivity to ethical and environmental concerns and an increasing commitment to incorporating these values into their consumption choices [73]. This finding contributes to the literature by reinforcing the central role of internalized moral drivers within the motivation dimension of the MOA framework in explaining food waste behavior among Generation Z.
However, contrary to expectations based on the MOA framework, attitudes toward food waste are not a significant determinant of food waste behavior. While attitudes are typically expected to positively influence behavior through intention formation, this finding further supports the attitude–behavior gap within this generation, demonstrating that even individuals with favorable attitudes toward reducing food waste may still engage in wasteful behavior [6]. Even though such a positive relationship between attitudes toward food waste and behavior is reported in prior studies [8], there are also studies reporting insignificant relationships [38,43]. The finding of the current study contributes to the literature by providing further empirical support for the attitude–behavior gap in the context of food waste among Generation Z. It is probable that while Gen Z is often characterized as holding strong pro-environmental beliefs [21,22], their behavior is evidently driven by other factors. This suggests that, for young consumers, behavior may be less driven by simple attitudes and more influenced by other factors identified in prior research, such as norms, habits, and convenience [43]. These factors, although not directly measured in the present study, may help explain the observed attitude–behavior gap and highlight a key challenge for interventions targeting this group.
Within the ability dimension, cooking skills are instrumental in minimizing the amount of food that ends up in the trash. This result is in line with expectations derived from the MOA framework, where higher levels of ability are associated with more effective resource management and reduced waste. This finding is critical for Gen Z, a cohort often reported to have declining culinary competencies compared to previous generations [18]. The results demonstrate that those with creative cooking abilities are likely better at managing their food resources effectively, resulting in less waste. Additionally, individuals who are comfortable experimenting with leftovers are less likely to waste them. Prior research similarly indicates that advanced cooking abilities result in more appetizing meals that are consumed rather than discarded [59,60]. This finding extends prior research by highlighting that cooking skills represent a critical mechanism enabling individuals to reduce food waste in everyday consumption contexts.
Nevertheless, contrary to expectations that stronger planning and management skills would reduce waste, no significant relationship is observed between grocery shopping skills and food waste behavior. Within the MOA framework, ability-related constructs are generally expected to facilitate more efficient resource use and reduce waste, yet this expectation is not supported in this case. One possible explanation is that although individuals may possess planning-related skills, these skills may not be consistently implemented in practice. For instance, even when shopping lists are prepared, or meals are planned in advance, impulse purchases or deviations from planned consumption may still occur. Prior research indicates a positive relationship between shopping skills and food waste behavior [8,61,62,63], and also suggests that the effectiveness of such skills depends not only on their presence but also on their consistent execution [43]. This finding extends prior research by suggesting that the presence of skills alone may be insufficient unless consistently applied in real-world consumption contexts.
These findings suggest that food waste behavior among young consumers may be shaped more by situational and behavioral factors than by routine-based practices alone.
Within the opportunity dimension, as expected, food purchase triggers in the shopping environment are positively associated with food waste behavior. This may be explained by the fact that attractive product displays and promotional discounts can encourage excessive or impulsive purchases, some of which remain unused and are ultimately discarded. Previous research supports this link, indicating that food marketing strategies often drive unplanned buying and increase the risk of spoilage [6,56]. Additionally, studies show that young consumers are particularly prone to food waste due to greater impulsivity and susceptibility to in-store promotions [53]. This result extends prior research by emphasizing the importance of situational and environmental influences within the opportunity dimension in shaping food waste behavior through impulsive purchasing.
Neither the frequency of shopping nor that of cooking is significantly associated with reckless discarding of food, which contrasts with expectations that more frequent engagement with food-related activities would increase waste. Within the MOA framework, opportunity-related factors such as frequency are often assumed to influence behavior by shaping exposure, routines, and experience, yet these effects are not observed in this study. Prior research reported mixed results regarding the role of frequency variables in food waste behavior. Some studies find that more frequent shopping reduces waste by enabling consumers to purchase food based on immediate needs [44,45], whereas others report a positive association due to increased exposure to unplanned purchases [46,47]. Similarly, while some research suggests that frequent cooking leads to better food management and reduced waste [49,50], other studies indicate that irregular cooking habits may increase waste due to unused ingredients [48]. The finding of the current research suggests that Gen Z’s food waste is not primarily driven by routine-based behaviors. One possible account for this finding is that young consumers adapt their food practices based on these frequencies. For instance, frequent shoppers may purchase fresh produce in small quantities for immediate consumption, whereas infrequent shoppers may rely on staples and frozen foods to minimize waste [38,48]. Similarly, those who cook regularly may waste less due to better leftover management, while those who cook seldom may also minimize waste by freezing food [74,75].
These findings indicate that, within the MOA framework, behavior among Generation Z may be more strongly influenced by internalized moral drivers and practical competencies, as well as situational purchase triggers, rather than by general attitudes or routine behaviors. Accordingly, the results refine the MOA framework by highlighting the differential roles of its components in explaining food waste behavior in this context.

5. Theoretical and Practical Implications

The results of this work carry ramifications for both theory and practice. The primary objective is to utilize the MOA framework to enhance the understanding of food waste behavior of consumers. The significant relationships identified underscore the roles of morals (motivation), cooking skills (ability), and food purchase triggers (opportunity) in influencing food waste behavior. Furthermore, these findings illustrate the effectiveness of the MOA framework within the food waste domain.
From an applied standpoint, this study provides actionable insights for policymakers, educators, and retailers seeking to reduce food waste. The findings suggest that reinforcing Gen Z’s morals against food waste should be an essential goal of food waste reduction programs. This may be achieved through targeted awareness campaigns that emphasize the ethical and environmental consequences of waste. Examples include social media campaigns, campus-based initiatives, and public service messaging. Moreover, as moral values develop early in life, interventions targeting educators and parents should be designed to emphasize the importance of teaching anti-waste norms, for example, through school-based programs, curriculum integration, and family-oriented awareness initiatives.
In addition, enhancing young consumers’ cooking skills can play a critical role in reducing food waste. Practical interventions may include university-based workshops, online tutorials, and digital platforms that promote creative use of leftovers and flexible meal preparation. Integrating such skill-based training into educational curricula may help bridge the gap between moral intentions and actual behavior [60].
Furthermore, given the influence of food purchase triggers, interventions should also address the retail environment and consumer decision-making processes. Equipping individuals with strategies to resist shopping environment triggers can be an important component of food waste awareness campaigns. Previous research has shown that raising awareness significantly increases intentions to reduce food waste [11]. Educating individuals, especially those in impulse-prone demographics like Gen Z, about the link between marketing tactics and food waste can foster more deliberate purchasing habits. As consumers become more aware of how purchasing triggers influence their decisions and contribute to waste, they may become less susceptible to these triggers, ultimately minimizing food waste. Behavioral nudges such as clearer portion guidance, smaller package sizes, and in-store messaging that discourages over-purchasing may be effective. Taken together, these interventions highlight the need for a multi-level approach that simultaneously targets motivation, ability, and opportunity to effectively reduce food waste among young consumers.

6. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Similarly to most other studies, this work has some limitations. First, causal inferences cannot be made due to the study’s cross-sectional design. Significant relationships indicate associations between the constructs rather than causality. Experimental studies are needed to establish causality among them.
Second, although this study found no significant association between the frequency of shopping, cooking, and food waste behavior, measures that distinguish between shopping and cooking for immediate versus gradual consumption might provide more insight. Additionally, the absence of significant relationships might be due to compensatory behaviors of consumers attempting to minimize waste, but it could also stem from other factors such as food preservation methods or cultural practices like sharing food with others. Future research may explore these factors to improve the understanding of the relationship.
Another limitation concerns the measurement of food waste behavior. The items used in this study capture perceived household-level food waste rather than strictly individual behavior. Given that many participants live in shared households, some of the reported waste may be attributable to other household members. Although such measures are commonly used in food waste research, this may introduce measurement noise when linking individual motivations, abilities, and opportunities to food waste behavior. Future research may benefit from employing more fine-grained measures that capture individual-level behaviors more directly.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su18094430/s1, The Data Set.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Istanbul Bilgi University Ethical Committee (protocol code: 2024-50112-105, 4 March 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary Materials. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Durán-Sandoval, D.; Durán-Romero, G.; Uleri, F. How Much Food Loss and Waste Do Countries with Problems with Food Security Generate? Agriculture 2023, 13, 966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). Food Waste Index Report 2024. Think Eat Save: Tracking Progress to Halve Global Food Waste. 2024. Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/45230 (accessed on 5 February 2025).
  3. UNCC (United Nations Climate Change). Food Loss and Waste Account for 8–10% of Annual Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Cost USD 1 Trillion Annually. 2024. Available online: https://unfccc.int/news/food-loss-and-waste-account-for-8-10-of-annual-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-cost-usd-1-trillion (accessed on 2 February 2025).
  4. UN DESA. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2025; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2025; Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2025/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2025.pdf (accessed on 27 March 2026).
  5. 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]
  6. Schanes, K.; Dobernig, K.; Gözet, B. Food waste matters—A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 978–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. MacInnis, D.J.; Moorman, C.; Jaworski, B.J. Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. J. Mark. 1991, 55, 32–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vandersip, S.E.; Taillie, L.S.; Grummon, A.H.; Prestemon, C.E.; Reimold, A.E. Food Waste among Young Adults: Behaviors, Barriers, and Opportunities for Intervention. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 2025, 9, 107541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Bettiga, D.; Lamberti, L.; Noci, G. Investigating social motivations, opportunity and ability to participate in communities of virtual co-creation. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Malau, L.R.E.; Khaliqi, M.; Yulni, T.; Rambe, K.R.; Novanda, R.R.; Wibowo, R.P. Why we waste: A meta-analysis of food waste behavior using the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Sustain. Futures 2025, 10, 101421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nguyen, T.T.G.; Nguyen, G.H. Extended theory of planned behavior and demographics in household food waste reduction: Evidence from Vietnam. Clean. Waste Syst. 2025, 12, 100349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Manika, D.; Iacovidou, E.; Canhoto, A.; Pei, E.; Mach, K. Capabilities, opportunities and motivations that drive food waste disposal practices: A case study of young adults in England. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 370, 133449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Soma, T.; Li, B.; Maclaren, V. An evaluation of a consumer food waste awareness campaign using the motivation opportunity ability framework. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 168, 105313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Aloysius, N.; Ananda, J.; Mitsis, A.; Pearson, D. The last bite: Exploring behavioural and situational factors influencing leftover food waste in households. Food Qual. Prefer. 2025, 123, 105327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Heidig, W.; Dobbelstein, T.; Mason, R.B. Beyond the Bin: The Influence of Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability on Food Waste Behavior in Households. Sustain. Dev. 2024, 33, 3151–3169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Shan, L.; Lu, Q.; Tong, X. ‘How to improve the consistency of consumers’ food waste reduction intentions and behaviors? An analysis based on the expanded Motivation–Opportunity–Ability framework. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2024, 11, 1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mondéjar-Jiménez, J.A.; Ferrari, G.; Secondi, L.; Principato, L. From the table to waste: An exploratory study on behavior towards food waste of Spanish and Italian youths. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 138, 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Novitasari, S.D.; Purwadi, D.; Marseno, D.W. The effect of food waste behavior among Generation Z on sustainable food security. Food Res. 2025, 9, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Karunasena, G.G.; Ananda, J.; Pearson, D. Generational differences in food management skills and their impact on food waste in households. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 175, 105890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Galan, S. Share of the Global Population in 2024, and a Projection for 2030, by Generation. Statista. 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1607121/estimated-population-of-the-world-by-generation/ (accessed on 26 October 2024).
  21. Clement, J.; Alenčikienė, G.; Riipi, I.; Starkutė, U.; Čepytė, K.; Buraitytė, A.; Zabulionė, A.; Šalaševičienė, A. Exploring causes and potential solutions for food waste among young consumers. Foods 2023, 12, 2570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Filip, A.; Stancu, A.; Onișor, L.-F.; Mogoș, O.C.; Catană, Ș.-A.; Goldbach, D. Drivers of Purchase Intentions of Generation Z on Eco-Products. Sustainability 2025, 17, 629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Van Geffen, L.; Van Herpen, E.; Sijtsema, S.; van Trijp, H. Food waste as the consequence of competing motivations, lack of opportunities, and insufficient abilities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 5, 100026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Baumhof, R.; Decker, T.; Röder, H.; Menrad, K. Which factors determine the extent of house owners’ energy-related refurbishment projects? A motivation–opportunity–ability approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 36, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, B.; Maclaren, V.; Soma, T. Urban household food waste: Drivers and practices in Toronto, Canada. Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 1793–1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Brug, J. Determinants of healthy eating: Motivation, abilities and environmental opportunities. Fam. Pract. 2008, 25, i50–i55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Moorman, C.; Matulich, E. A model of consumers’ preventive health behaviors: The role of health motivation and health ability. J. Consum. Res. 1993, 20, 208–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rayner, J.; Morgan, D. An empirical study of ‘green’ workplace behaviours: Ability, motivation and opportunity. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2018, 56, 56–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yener, G.; Secer, A.; Ghazalian, P.L. What factors influence consumers to buy green products? An analysis through the motivation–opportunity–ability framework and consumer awareness. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Raimondo, M.; Spina, D.; Hamam, M.; D’Amico, M.; Caracciolo, F. Intrinsic motivation strongly affects the readiness toward circular food consumption: Evidence from the motivation–opportunity–ability model. Br. Food J. 2024, 126, 715–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rydström, C. Sustainable Consumption in Vietnam: An Examination of the Behavior of Young Consumers Through the Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability Model; Lund University, Centre for East and South-East Asian Studies: Lund, Sweden, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  32. Vittuari, M.; Falasconi, L.; Masotti, M.; Piras, S.; Segrè, A.; Setti, M. “Not in My Bin”: Consumer’s Understanding and Concern of Food Waste Effects and Mitigating Factors. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Barrera-Verdugo, G.; Durán-Sandoval, D. Influence of moral reasoning and environmental concern on sustainable food consumption behaviors: A gender comparison among university students. Clean. Waste Syst. 2024, 9, 100164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Visschers, V.H.; 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]
  36. Aydin, H.; Aydin, C. Investigating consumers’ food waste behaviors: An extended theory of planned behavior of Turkey sample. Clean. Waste Syst. 2022, 3, 100036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Aydin, A.E.; Yildirim, P. Understanding food waste behavior: The role of morals, habits and knowledge. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. 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]
  39. Bretter, C.; Unsworth, K.L.; Kaptan, G.; Russell, S.V. It is just wrong: Moral foundations and food waste. J. Environ. Psychol. 2023, 88, 102021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Talwar, S.; Kaur, P.; Kumar, S.; Salo, J.; Dhir, A. The balancing act: How do moral norms and anticipated pride drive food waste/reduction behaviour? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 66, 102901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sitompul, C.; Gunawan, T.; Mesiranta, N.; Närvänen, E.; Octavia, J.R. Impact of food waste-related course attendance on students’ food waste reduction behaviours and knowledge: A case study from Indonesia. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2025, 26, 36–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Valentin, A.P.; Vega, A.M.D.; Kho, M.I.; Licayan, S.R.; Nierras, E.L.; Pabalate, J.C. Predicting food waste reduction behavior among students in higher education institutions. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2023, 25, 885–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Quested, T.E.; Marsh, E.; Stunell, D.; Parry, A.D. Spaghetti soup: The complex world of food waste behaviours. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 79, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fanelli, R.M. Using causal maps to analyse the major root causes of household food waste: Results of a survey among people from central and southern Italy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Giordano, C.; Alboni, F.; Cicatiello, C.; Falasconi, L. Do discounted food products end up in the bin? An investigation into the link between deal-prone shopping behavior and quantities of household food waste. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2019, 43, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ananda, J.; Karunasena, G.G.; Mitsis, A.; Kansal, M.; Pearson, D. Analysing behavioral and socio-demographic factors and practices influencing Australian household food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 306, 127280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ghinea, C.; Ghiuta, O.A. Household food waste generation: Young consumers behaviour, habits and attitudes. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 16, 2185–2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Farr-Wharton, G.; Foth, M.; Choi, J.H.-J. Identifying factors that promote consumer behaviours causing expired domestic food waste. J. Consum. Behav. 2014, 13, 393–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Graham-Rowe, E.; Jessop, D.C.; Sparks, P. Identifying motivations and barriers to minimizing household food waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 84, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ponis, S.T.; Papanikolaou, P.A.; Katimertzoglou, P.; Ntalla, A.C.; Xenos, K.I. Household food waste in Greece: A questionnaire survey. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 149, 1268–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chalak, A.; Abiad, M.G.; Diab, M.; Nasreddine, L. The determinants of household food waste generation and its associated caloric and nutrient losses: The case of Lebanon. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0225789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jörissen, J.; Priefer, C.; Bräutigam, K.-R. Food waste generation at household level: Results of a survey among employees of two European research centers in Italy and Germany. Sustainability 2015, 7, 2695–2715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bittner, B.; Vida, V.; Szakos, D.; Kasza, G.; Kovács, S.; Nagy, A. A study of the behavioral and environmental factors influencing food waste in higher education. Clean. Waste Syst. 2025, 11, 100256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, D.; Menassa, C.C.; Karatas, A. Energy use behaviors in buildings: Towards an integrated conceptual framework. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 23, 97–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Palmieri, N.; Boccia, F. Food waste is embarrassing! Motivations and actions to prevent it among students in Italy. Young Consum. 2025, 26, 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nabi, N.; Karunasena, G.G.; Pearson, D. Food waste in Australian households: Role of shopping habits and personal motivations. J. Consum. Behav. 2021, 20, 1523–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cooper, A.; Lion, R.; Rodriguez-Sierra, O.E.; Jeffrey, P.; Thomson, D.; Peters, K.; van Herpen, E. Use-up day and flexible recipes: Reducing household food waste by helping families prepare food they already have. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 194, 106986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Scalvedi, M.L.; Rossi, L. Comprehensive measurement of Italian domestic food waste in a European framework. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Roe, B.E.; Bender, K.; Qi, D. The impact of COVID-19 on consumer food waste. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2021, 43, 401–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ammann, J.; Osterwalder, O.; Siegrist, M.; Hartmann, C.; Egolf, A. Comparison of two measures for assessing the volume of food waste in Swiss households. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 166, 105295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Begho, T.; Fadare, O. Does household food waste prevention and reduction depend on bundled motivation and food management practices? Clean. Responsible Consum. 2023, 11, 100142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Vittuari, M.; Masotti, M.; Iori, E.; Falasconi, L.; Toschi, T.G.; Segrè, A. Does the COVID-19 external shock matter on household food waste? The impact of social distancing measures during the lockdown. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 174, 105815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Russell, S.V.; Young, C.W.; Unsworth, K.L.; Robinson, C. Bringing habits and emotions into food waste behaviour. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 125, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cantaragiu, R. The impact of gender on food waste at the consumer level. Stud. Univ. Vasile Goldiş Arad-Ser. Ştiinţe Econ. 2019, 29, 41–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Principato, L.; Mattia, G.; Di Leo, A.; Pratesi, C.A. The household wasteful behaviour framework: A systematic review of consumer food waste. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 93, 641–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lyndhurst, B.; Cox, J.; Downing, P. Food Behaviour Consumer Research: Quantitative Phase; Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP): Banbury, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  68. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  69. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  72. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Djafarova, E.; Foots, S. Exploring ethical consumption of generation Z: Theory of planned behaviour. Young Consum. 2022, 23, 413–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mallinson, L.J.; Russell, J.M.; Barker, M.E. Attitudes and behaviour towards convenience food and food waste in the United Kingdom. Appetite 2016, 103, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Martindale, W. Using consumer surveys to determine food sustainability. Br. Food J. 2014, 116, 1194–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 18 04430 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Sustainability 18 04430 g001
Sustainability 18 04430 g002
Figure 2. Revised model. Note: Solid lines indicate statistically significant relationships. Dashed lines indicate non-significant relationships.
Figure 2. Revised model. Note: Solid lines indicate statistically significant relationships. Dashed lines indicate non-significant relationships.
Sustainability 18 04430 g002
Table 1. Descriptives and correlations between constructs.
Table 1. Descriptives and correlations between constructs.
ConstructsABCDEF
A. Food waste behavior1
B. Morals−0.321 **1
C. Attitudes toward food waste0.131 *−0.266 **1
D. Cooking skills−0.305 **0.582 **−0.113 *1
E. Grocery shopping skills−0.177 **0.501 **−0.0480.672 **1
F. Food purchase triggers0.196 **−0.1050.114 *0.129 *−0.0811
Mean0.9855.0531.0783.9714.8162.321
Std. Deviation0.3981.0590.7921.2061.1030.906
Notes: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis results.
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis results.
Constructs/ItemsFactor LoadingCRAVE
Food waste behavior 0.7590.448
“How regularly do you think food is thrown away in your household (e.g., as a result of cooking too much or food spoiling)?” (1 = Never, 5 = Most mealtimes)0.575
“How much bread and other bakery products is thrown away in your household of what you buy in a regular week”0.555
“How much rice and pasta is thrown away in your household of what you buy in a regular week”0.673
“How much food in total is thrown away in your household of what you buy in a regular week”0.836
Morals 0.8820.652
“I feel guilty when I throw food away.”0.772
“It is contrary to my principles when I have to discard food.”0.825
“Wasting food does not fit in well with my self image.”0.849
“I have been raised to believe that food should not be wasted and, I still live according to this principle.”0.781
Attitudes toward food waste 0.9050.761
“I think engaging in food waste behaviors is bad/good.”0.915
“I think engaging in food waste behaviors is harmful/beneficial.”0.843
“I think engaging in food waste behaviors is not at all negative/to extremely negative.”0.857
Cooking skills 0.72030.465
“I can use the leftovers to create some new dishes.”0.631
“I can use the food items at my disposal to improvise a recipe.”0.786
“Due to my superior cooking skills, the tasty food I cook is never wasted.”0.616
Grocery shopping skills 0.7690.532
“I always check my supplies before I go food shopping.” 0.83
“I always use a shopping list when I go food shopping.”0.766
“I always plan my meals before I go food shopping.”0.565
Food purchase triggers 0.8270.551
“I usually buy higher amounts of food when they offer good value for money”0.535
“I tend to buy more than I need when shopping for groceries because food displays are tempting.”0.84
“I like to buy extra food just in case.”0.779
“I often impulsively purchase food items that I did not plan to buy.”0.778
Goodness-of-fit indices: Chi-square = 239,861, df = 172; p < 0.001; IFI = 0.979, TLI = 0.974, CFI = 0.978, RMSEA = 0.034.
Table 3. Path Estimates.
Table 3. Path Estimates.
PathStandardized Path Coefficientp
Morals → Food waste behavior−0.1790.029
Attitudes toward food waste → Food waste behavior0.0430.494
Cooking skills → Food waste behavior−0.2180.035
Grocery shopping skills → Food waste behavior0.080.375
Frequency of shopping → Food waste behavior0.0730.262
Frequency of cooking → Food waste behavior−0.0840.2
Food purchase triggers → Food waste behavior0.1670.016
Goodness-of-fit indices: Chi-square = 298,779, df = 212; p < 0.001; IFI = 0.973, TLI = 0.968, CFI = 0.973, RMSEA = 0.034.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aydin, A. From Tempting Aisles to Guilty Leftovers: Exploring Generation Z’s Food Waste Behavior Through the Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability Framework. Sustainability 2026, 18, 4430. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18094430

AMA Style

Aydin A. From Tempting Aisles to Guilty Leftovers: Exploring Generation Z’s Food Waste Behavior Through the Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability Framework. Sustainability. 2026; 18(9):4430. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18094430

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aydin, Asli. 2026. "From Tempting Aisles to Guilty Leftovers: Exploring Generation Z’s Food Waste Behavior Through the Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability Framework" Sustainability 18, no. 9: 4430. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18094430

APA Style

Aydin, A. (2026). From Tempting Aisles to Guilty Leftovers: Exploring Generation Z’s Food Waste Behavior Through the Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability Framework. Sustainability, 18(9), 4430. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18094430

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop