521681
research-article2014
WMR0010.1177/0734242X14521681Waste Management and ResearchAbeliotis et al.
Short Report
Attitudes and behaviour of Greek households regarding food waste prevention
Waste Management & Research 2014, Vol. 32(3) 237–240 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0734242X14521681 wmr.sagepub.com
Konstadinos Abeliotis1, Katia Lasaridi2 and Christina Chroni2
Abstract Food waste is a waste stream with serious economic, environmental and social implications. The emphasis of the reported research is on the food waste generated by households in Greece. A structured questionnaire was utilised in order to identify the attitudes of the respondents and investigate the prevalence of certain behavioural good practices that can prevent the generation of food waste. The research, to our knowledge the first of its kind in Greece, took place in February and March 2012. Face-to-face interviews were employed, resulting to a total of 231 consumers fully completing the questionnaire. Results indicate that, based on self-reported behaviour, people in Greece have positive attitudes towards food waste prevention and that their habits are close to the good practices suggested in the literature for reducing food waste. For instance, most respondents do plan their food shopping in a multitude of ways and are very careful in their purchases of fresh food supplies. However, about 40% misunderstand the meaning of food date labels. The positive findings are strongly influenced by the severe recession experienced in the country, which makes consumers more conscious of their spending. Results may serve as a yardstick to further promote and establish food waste prevention behaviour at the household level on an environmental and social awareness basis that may outlast the economic crisis. Keywords Food waste, Prevention, Greece, Questionnaire study, Household behaviour, Awareness, Attitude and behaviour survey
Introduction Since the publication of the findings of WRAP (2009) that consumers in the UK throw away 31% of the food they buy, food waste is becoming an increasingly significant global issue. Food waste is ‘composed of raw or cooked food materials and includes food loss, before, during or after meal preparation in the household, as well as food discarded in the process of manufacturing, distribution, retail and food service activities’ (European Community, 2011). Since significant resources are required for food production, manufacturing, transportation, storage, retailing and preparation, food wastage is a waste of valuable resources with obvious economic, environmental and moral implications. There is growing evidence that households contribute greatly to the food waste problem (European Community, 2011; Sharp et al., 2010). Therefore, it makes good sense to prevent food waste at this level. A number of behaviours have been shown to influence food waste generation (Evans, 2012; Koivupuro et al., 2012; Stefan et al., 2013) and, consequently, need to be studied in order to develop efficient prevention actions. Food consumption and wastage behaviour may have large cultural variation across countries, necessitating deeper investigation in the different geographic contexts. To date, information on the attitudes and behaviours of households in Greece regarding food waste is lacking.
Thus, the aim of this research was to: •• investigate the knowledge and attitudes of Greek households regarding food waste and its prevention; •• investigate the main causes of food waste and the prevalence of certain consumer behavioural practices that can lead to its reduction, to inform planning of food waste prevention interventions; and •• examine the potential influence of the current economic crises on food waste generation by Greek households.
Methodology of the study The research took place in urban areas in Greece, in February and March 2012, using a structured questionnaire. The use of questionnaires for conducting food waste-related studies is well documented (Koivupuro et al., 2012; Stefan et al., 2013; WRAP, 1Department
of Home Economics and Ecology, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece 2Department of Geography, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece Corresponding author: Katia Lasaridi, Department of Geography, Harokopio University, El. Venizelou 70, 17671 Athens, Greece. Email: [email protected]
238
Waste Management & Research 32(3)
A little 5%
Not very much 5%
A fair amount 36%
A great deal 54%
Figure 1. Results for the question ‘To which extent are you concerned when you have to waste food?’.
2009). Interviewees were randomly selected in shopping areas and the questionnaire was completed in a face-to-face interview with the researchers. A positive response was obtained from 255 shoppers. Of those, 231 fully completed the questionnaire. Only people who were involved in food purchases and cooking in their household were asked to fill the questionnaire. This was further screened by placing a relevant question in the introductory section of the questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised 39 questions concerning: self-reported food wastage, attitudes and causes; knowledge, habits and behaviour regarding shopping, storage, preparation and consumption of food; food waste disposal; potential changes in the last 12 months and their causes; and demographics. Most questions comprised several items (e.g. frequency of throwing away different named food categories, if they are past their ‘best before’ date). Results of a limited but representative set of questions are presented in this paper. SPSS 19.0 software was used to analyse results.
Results and discussion According to the demographics of the sample, 61.3% of participants were active professionally and 74.8% were well educated (48.7 university and 26.1% secondary education). The chisquared test indicated significant differences with the general urban population in Greece concerning these two parameters, but the sample is representative within the aforementioned groups. The first section of the questionnaire was focused on selfreported behaviour and attitudes regarding food waste and the efforts taken, if any, to reduce it. The first question was ‘How much of the total food items do you throw away into the bin?’ Of the respondents, only 13% placed themselves on the upper scale of wastage, declaring that they throw ‘significant amounts’ (6%) and ‘quite a bit’ (7%), with the majority claiming to throw ‘a small amount’ (49%) or ‘hardly any’ (31%), while 7% replied ‘none’. To the question ‘To which extent are you concerned when your household throws away food?’ the large majority declared that they do care (90%) while none picked ‘I do not care’ (Figure 1). This is similar to the findings of Schneider and Lebersorger (2009) for lower Austria and in accordance to the answers to the question ‘How much effort does your household place in order to minimise the amount of uneaten food that is thrown away?’: 48% and 42% of the respondents take ‘a great deal’ or ‘a fair amount’ of effort, respectively, while 11% replied ‘a little’; none picked the answer ‘No effort at all’.
The aforementioned results are promising and consistent with the literature, indicating that there is a strong ‘feel bad’ factor about wasting food, which provides a good ground for prevention campaigns. However, it is reported that food waste is likely to be a result of the daily routines that consumers perform, although consciously they would like to avoid it (Evans, 2012; Stefan et al., 2013). Therefore campaigns should consider focusing on changing the daily routines, including provision of information and tips, building on the awareness /ethical background that already exist. The next set of questions concerned consumers behaviour during food supply. A 5-point Likert-type scale of frequency was used, with 5 corresponding to ‘Always’ and 1 to ‘Never’. Most respondents do plan their shopping in a multitude of ways: checking the cupboards was the most common action (median 5, SD 0.71), followed by making a list (median 4, SD 1.06) and planning meals (median 4, SD 1.07). Careful food shopping planning is considered to be an efficient food waste prevention measure at the household level (Sharp et al., 2010; WRAP, 2009). However, its prevalence in this study is likely to be more related to the economic crisis in Greece rather than environmental awareness. Most of the respondents replied that the amount of uneaten food thrown away has decreased ‘a lot’ (42%) or ‘a little’ (22%) compared to 12 months before the study, while 34% reported that it remained the same, the rest not being able to compare/recall. No one reported an increase. The main reason for the reduction in food waste reported was the recession (62.8%), followed by ‘change in their consumption patterns’ (29.2%, which is also likely to relate to the hardship of wide parts of Greek society, which were not used to spending restrictions at the food provision level), while the ‘change towards a more environmentally friendly lifestyle’ was reported third (21.2%; respondents could select more than one answer). With the GDP of the country sinking by more than 25% in the last 5 years, the finding that 64% of the respondents stated that they produce less food waste than 12 months before comes as no surprise. However, it also provides a good guidance for the design of food waste prevention campaigns. These should focus on the moral and environmental merits of prevention to highlight these aspects of behaviours that have already been adopted, to a large extent out of necessity, in order to create both a positive feeling about them and a stronger basis that will be able to sustain them upon economic recovery. Consumers’ confusion over food labelling is considered to be an important factor correlated to unnecessary food wastage due to misunderstanding of the ‘use by’ and ‘best before’ date (European Community, 2011; WRAP, 2009). Relevant research in the UK shows that 45–49% of consumers misunderstand the meaning of the date labels (WRAP, 2011). To test relevant knowledge of the respondents, two questions on ‘best before’ and ‘use by’ dates were included (Figure 2). The results indicate that although there is a general understanding of the differentiation between the two labels, a lot of confusion remains. 58.0% of the respondents answered correctly in the first question that it is safe
239
Abeliotis et al. It's safe to consume it 1-2 days a er 21/2/2012, if properly preserved, but some of its characteris cs may be altered It's safe to consume it 1-2 days a er 21/2/2012, if properly preserved
58
(a)
28,5
Valid 64,8
Not valid
24,9
Don't know 38,5
On 22/2/2012 I have to discard it
It's safe to consume it 1-2 days a er 21/2/2012, if properly preserved, but some of its characteris cs may be altered It's safe to consume it 1-2 days a er 21/2/2012, if properly preserved
56,5
38,8
Valid 42,8
Not valid
49,8
Don't know 66,7
On 22/2/2012 I have to discard it 0%
(b)
48,1
20%
40%
27,9 60%
80%
100%
Figure 2. Results for questions on ‘best before’ and ‘use by’ dates. (a) ‘If you read on a food label “Best before 21/2/2012”, which of the following is valid?’; and (b): ‘If you read on a food label “Use by 21/2/2012”, which of the following is valid?’.
to consume the food product 1–2 days later, while 38.5% believed it should be discarded immediately the day after. In the second question, 66.7% answered correctly that the item should be discarded the day after the ‘Use by’ date, while 42.8% believed it was safe to consume it 1–2 days after. Considering that the sample was more educated than the general Greek population, misunderstanding of food labels might be even more widespread. Overall, the findings of this study for Greece are in agreement with those of WRAP (2009, 2011) for the UK, revealing a strong need for targeted information campaigns on food labelling.
Conclusions Results on the attitude and behaviour of households in Greece regarding food waste generation and prevention reveal both similarities and significant differences with the limited number of similar studies elsewhere. A common trend is the positive attitude towards food waste prevention, as food wastage is perceived to be an issue of concern for the large majority. Moreover, there is confusion on food labels at a similar scale to the UK, leading about 40% of the respondents to throw away perfectly edible food that has gone past its ‘Best before’ date. Therefore, campaigns to improve the understanding of food labelling should be along the first lines of action. A different trend from other studies is that consumer habits on food purchasing, storage, preparation, and consumption are very close to good practice guidelines for food waste prevention. For instance, the majority of respondents organise their shopping through checking cupboards, making shopping lists and planning meals. However, in Greece the likely causes for these positive habits are not founded on environmental awareness but necessity. A limitation of this type of studies is that they are based on self-reported behaviour and, as recent research indicates, households tend to underestimate their food waste (WRAP, 2011). In
the same manner self-reported behaviour studies tend to overestimate recycling and other pro-environmental behaviours (Ioannou et al., 2013). Nevertheless, self-reported behaviour studies remain a valuable – and in many cases the sole – tool to study environmental behaviour. The results of this study, to our knowledge the first of its kind in Greece, are of paramount importance for developing food waste prevention campaigns, as they may serve as a yardstick in order to establish and promote waste prevention activities for households. This is an action that is expected to produce positive environmental and economic results at both the household level and the overall waste management system in Greece. A specific challenge for such campaigns would be to build on the current, necessity-driven change and demonstrate its environmental and moral virtues, to create a positive feeling among the population and sustain good practices and pro-prevention behaviour upon economic recovery.
Declaration of conflicting interests The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding Research was supported by the LIFE10 ENV/GR/622 project ‘WASP Tool’ which is co-funded by the European Union LIFE+ programme.
References European Community. (2011) Preparatory study on food waste across EU-27, technical report 2010-054. European Communities ISBN:97892-79-22138-5; DOI: 10.2779/85947. Evans D. (2012) Beyond the throwaway society: ordinary domestic practice and a sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology 46: 41–56. Ioannou Th, Zampetakis LA and Lasaridi K. (2013) Psychological determinants of household recycling intention in the context of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 22: 2035–2041.
240 Koivupuro H-T, Hartikainen H, Silvennoinen K, et al. (2012) Influence of socio-demographical, behavioural and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish households. International Journal of Consumer Studies 36: 183–191. Schneider F and Lebersorger S. (2009) Households attitudes and behaviour towards wasting food – a case study. In: Cossu, Diaz and Stegmann (eds), Proceedings of 12th Sardinia 2009 Symposium, Cagliari: CISA Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre. Abstract, pp. 831–832. Full paper on CD. Sharp V, Giorgi S and Wilson DC. (2010) Delivery and impact of household waste prevention intervention campaign (at the local level). Waste Management and Research 28: 256–268.
Waste Management & Research 32(3) Stefan V, van Herpen E, Tudoran A, Lähteenmäki L. (2013) Avoiding food waste by Romanian consumers: the importance of planning and shopping routines. Food Quality and Preference 28: 375–381. WRAP. (2009) Household food and drink waste in the UK. Banbury: WRAP. Available at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/ Household food and drink waste in the UK – report.pdf (consulted April 2012) WRAP. (2011) New estimates for household food and drink waste in the UK, final report. Banbury: WRAP. Available at: www.wrap.org.uk/ content/estimates-household-food-and-drink-waste-uk-2011 (consulted May 2013).
research-article2014
WMR0010.1177/0734242X14521681Waste Management and ResearchAbeliotis et al.
Short Report
Attitudes and behaviour of Greek households regarding food waste prevention
Waste Management & Research 2014, Vol. 32(3) 237–240 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0734242X14521681 wmr.sagepub.com
Konstadinos Abeliotis1, Katia Lasaridi2 and Christina Chroni2
Abstract Food waste is a waste stream with serious economic, environmental and social implications. The emphasis of the reported research is on the food waste generated by households in Greece. A structured questionnaire was utilised in order to identify the attitudes of the respondents and investigate the prevalence of certain behavioural good practices that can prevent the generation of food waste. The research, to our knowledge the first of its kind in Greece, took place in February and March 2012. Face-to-face interviews were employed, resulting to a total of 231 consumers fully completing the questionnaire. Results indicate that, based on self-reported behaviour, people in Greece have positive attitudes towards food waste prevention and that their habits are close to the good practices suggested in the literature for reducing food waste. For instance, most respondents do plan their food shopping in a multitude of ways and are very careful in their purchases of fresh food supplies. However, about 40% misunderstand the meaning of food date labels. The positive findings are strongly influenced by the severe recession experienced in the country, which makes consumers more conscious of their spending. Results may serve as a yardstick to further promote and establish food waste prevention behaviour at the household level on an environmental and social awareness basis that may outlast the economic crisis. Keywords Food waste, Prevention, Greece, Questionnaire study, Household behaviour, Awareness, Attitude and behaviour survey
Introduction Since the publication of the findings of WRAP (2009) that consumers in the UK throw away 31% of the food they buy, food waste is becoming an increasingly significant global issue. Food waste is ‘composed of raw or cooked food materials and includes food loss, before, during or after meal preparation in the household, as well as food discarded in the process of manufacturing, distribution, retail and food service activities’ (European Community, 2011). Since significant resources are required for food production, manufacturing, transportation, storage, retailing and preparation, food wastage is a waste of valuable resources with obvious economic, environmental and moral implications. There is growing evidence that households contribute greatly to the food waste problem (European Community, 2011; Sharp et al., 2010). Therefore, it makes good sense to prevent food waste at this level. A number of behaviours have been shown to influence food waste generation (Evans, 2012; Koivupuro et al., 2012; Stefan et al., 2013) and, consequently, need to be studied in order to develop efficient prevention actions. Food consumption and wastage behaviour may have large cultural variation across countries, necessitating deeper investigation in the different geographic contexts. To date, information on the attitudes and behaviours of households in Greece regarding food waste is lacking.
Thus, the aim of this research was to: •• investigate the knowledge and attitudes of Greek households regarding food waste and its prevention; •• investigate the main causes of food waste and the prevalence of certain consumer behavioural practices that can lead to its reduction, to inform planning of food waste prevention interventions; and •• examine the potential influence of the current economic crises on food waste generation by Greek households.
Methodology of the study The research took place in urban areas in Greece, in February and March 2012, using a structured questionnaire. The use of questionnaires for conducting food waste-related studies is well documented (Koivupuro et al., 2012; Stefan et al., 2013; WRAP, 1Department
of Home Economics and Ecology, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece 2Department of Geography, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece Corresponding author: Katia Lasaridi, Department of Geography, Harokopio University, El. Venizelou 70, 17671 Athens, Greece. Email: [email protected]
238
Waste Management & Research 32(3)
A little 5%
Not very much 5%
A fair amount 36%
A great deal 54%
Figure 1. Results for the question ‘To which extent are you concerned when you have to waste food?’.
2009). Interviewees were randomly selected in shopping areas and the questionnaire was completed in a face-to-face interview with the researchers. A positive response was obtained from 255 shoppers. Of those, 231 fully completed the questionnaire. Only people who were involved in food purchases and cooking in their household were asked to fill the questionnaire. This was further screened by placing a relevant question in the introductory section of the questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised 39 questions concerning: self-reported food wastage, attitudes and causes; knowledge, habits and behaviour regarding shopping, storage, preparation and consumption of food; food waste disposal; potential changes in the last 12 months and their causes; and demographics. Most questions comprised several items (e.g. frequency of throwing away different named food categories, if they are past their ‘best before’ date). Results of a limited but representative set of questions are presented in this paper. SPSS 19.0 software was used to analyse results.
Results and discussion According to the demographics of the sample, 61.3% of participants were active professionally and 74.8% were well educated (48.7 university and 26.1% secondary education). The chisquared test indicated significant differences with the general urban population in Greece concerning these two parameters, but the sample is representative within the aforementioned groups. The first section of the questionnaire was focused on selfreported behaviour and attitudes regarding food waste and the efforts taken, if any, to reduce it. The first question was ‘How much of the total food items do you throw away into the bin?’ Of the respondents, only 13% placed themselves on the upper scale of wastage, declaring that they throw ‘significant amounts’ (6%) and ‘quite a bit’ (7%), with the majority claiming to throw ‘a small amount’ (49%) or ‘hardly any’ (31%), while 7% replied ‘none’. To the question ‘To which extent are you concerned when your household throws away food?’ the large majority declared that they do care (90%) while none picked ‘I do not care’ (Figure 1). This is similar to the findings of Schneider and Lebersorger (2009) for lower Austria and in accordance to the answers to the question ‘How much effort does your household place in order to minimise the amount of uneaten food that is thrown away?’: 48% and 42% of the respondents take ‘a great deal’ or ‘a fair amount’ of effort, respectively, while 11% replied ‘a little’; none picked the answer ‘No effort at all’.
The aforementioned results are promising and consistent with the literature, indicating that there is a strong ‘feel bad’ factor about wasting food, which provides a good ground for prevention campaigns. However, it is reported that food waste is likely to be a result of the daily routines that consumers perform, although consciously they would like to avoid it (Evans, 2012; Stefan et al., 2013). Therefore campaigns should consider focusing on changing the daily routines, including provision of information and tips, building on the awareness /ethical background that already exist. The next set of questions concerned consumers behaviour during food supply. A 5-point Likert-type scale of frequency was used, with 5 corresponding to ‘Always’ and 1 to ‘Never’. Most respondents do plan their shopping in a multitude of ways: checking the cupboards was the most common action (median 5, SD 0.71), followed by making a list (median 4, SD 1.06) and planning meals (median 4, SD 1.07). Careful food shopping planning is considered to be an efficient food waste prevention measure at the household level (Sharp et al., 2010; WRAP, 2009). However, its prevalence in this study is likely to be more related to the economic crisis in Greece rather than environmental awareness. Most of the respondents replied that the amount of uneaten food thrown away has decreased ‘a lot’ (42%) or ‘a little’ (22%) compared to 12 months before the study, while 34% reported that it remained the same, the rest not being able to compare/recall. No one reported an increase. The main reason for the reduction in food waste reported was the recession (62.8%), followed by ‘change in their consumption patterns’ (29.2%, which is also likely to relate to the hardship of wide parts of Greek society, which were not used to spending restrictions at the food provision level), while the ‘change towards a more environmentally friendly lifestyle’ was reported third (21.2%; respondents could select more than one answer). With the GDP of the country sinking by more than 25% in the last 5 years, the finding that 64% of the respondents stated that they produce less food waste than 12 months before comes as no surprise. However, it also provides a good guidance for the design of food waste prevention campaigns. These should focus on the moral and environmental merits of prevention to highlight these aspects of behaviours that have already been adopted, to a large extent out of necessity, in order to create both a positive feeling about them and a stronger basis that will be able to sustain them upon economic recovery. Consumers’ confusion over food labelling is considered to be an important factor correlated to unnecessary food wastage due to misunderstanding of the ‘use by’ and ‘best before’ date (European Community, 2011; WRAP, 2009). Relevant research in the UK shows that 45–49% of consumers misunderstand the meaning of the date labels (WRAP, 2011). To test relevant knowledge of the respondents, two questions on ‘best before’ and ‘use by’ dates were included (Figure 2). The results indicate that although there is a general understanding of the differentiation between the two labels, a lot of confusion remains. 58.0% of the respondents answered correctly in the first question that it is safe
239
Abeliotis et al. It's safe to consume it 1-2 days a er 21/2/2012, if properly preserved, but some of its characteris cs may be altered It's safe to consume it 1-2 days a er 21/2/2012, if properly preserved
58
(a)
28,5
Valid 64,8
Not valid
24,9
Don't know 38,5
On 22/2/2012 I have to discard it
It's safe to consume it 1-2 days a er 21/2/2012, if properly preserved, but some of its characteris cs may be altered It's safe to consume it 1-2 days a er 21/2/2012, if properly preserved
56,5
38,8
Valid 42,8
Not valid
49,8
Don't know 66,7
On 22/2/2012 I have to discard it 0%
(b)
48,1
20%
40%
27,9 60%
80%
100%
Figure 2. Results for questions on ‘best before’ and ‘use by’ dates. (a) ‘If you read on a food label “Best before 21/2/2012”, which of the following is valid?’; and (b): ‘If you read on a food label “Use by 21/2/2012”, which of the following is valid?’.
to consume the food product 1–2 days later, while 38.5% believed it should be discarded immediately the day after. In the second question, 66.7% answered correctly that the item should be discarded the day after the ‘Use by’ date, while 42.8% believed it was safe to consume it 1–2 days after. Considering that the sample was more educated than the general Greek population, misunderstanding of food labels might be even more widespread. Overall, the findings of this study for Greece are in agreement with those of WRAP (2009, 2011) for the UK, revealing a strong need for targeted information campaigns on food labelling.
Conclusions Results on the attitude and behaviour of households in Greece regarding food waste generation and prevention reveal both similarities and significant differences with the limited number of similar studies elsewhere. A common trend is the positive attitude towards food waste prevention, as food wastage is perceived to be an issue of concern for the large majority. Moreover, there is confusion on food labels at a similar scale to the UK, leading about 40% of the respondents to throw away perfectly edible food that has gone past its ‘Best before’ date. Therefore, campaigns to improve the understanding of food labelling should be along the first lines of action. A different trend from other studies is that consumer habits on food purchasing, storage, preparation, and consumption are very close to good practice guidelines for food waste prevention. For instance, the majority of respondents organise their shopping through checking cupboards, making shopping lists and planning meals. However, in Greece the likely causes for these positive habits are not founded on environmental awareness but necessity. A limitation of this type of studies is that they are based on self-reported behaviour and, as recent research indicates, households tend to underestimate their food waste (WRAP, 2011). In
the same manner self-reported behaviour studies tend to overestimate recycling and other pro-environmental behaviours (Ioannou et al., 2013). Nevertheless, self-reported behaviour studies remain a valuable – and in many cases the sole – tool to study environmental behaviour. The results of this study, to our knowledge the first of its kind in Greece, are of paramount importance for developing food waste prevention campaigns, as they may serve as a yardstick in order to establish and promote waste prevention activities for households. This is an action that is expected to produce positive environmental and economic results at both the household level and the overall waste management system in Greece. A specific challenge for such campaigns would be to build on the current, necessity-driven change and demonstrate its environmental and moral virtues, to create a positive feeling among the population and sustain good practices and pro-prevention behaviour upon economic recovery.
Declaration of conflicting interests The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding Research was supported by the LIFE10 ENV/GR/622 project ‘WASP Tool’ which is co-funded by the European Union LIFE+ programme.
References European Community. (2011) Preparatory study on food waste across EU-27, technical report 2010-054. European Communities ISBN:97892-79-22138-5; DOI: 10.2779/85947. Evans D. (2012) Beyond the throwaway society: ordinary domestic practice and a sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology 46: 41–56. Ioannou Th, Zampetakis LA and Lasaridi K. (2013) Psychological determinants of household recycling intention in the context of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 22: 2035–2041.
240 Koivupuro H-T, Hartikainen H, Silvennoinen K, et al. (2012) Influence of socio-demographical, behavioural and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish households. International Journal of Consumer Studies 36: 183–191. Schneider F and Lebersorger S. (2009) Households attitudes and behaviour towards wasting food – a case study. In: Cossu, Diaz and Stegmann (eds), Proceedings of 12th Sardinia 2009 Symposium, Cagliari: CISA Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre. Abstract, pp. 831–832. Full paper on CD. Sharp V, Giorgi S and Wilson DC. (2010) Delivery and impact of household waste prevention intervention campaign (at the local level). Waste Management and Research 28: 256–268.
Waste Management & Research 32(3) Stefan V, van Herpen E, Tudoran A, Lähteenmäki L. (2013) Avoiding food waste by Romanian consumers: the importance of planning and shopping routines. Food Quality and Preference 28: 375–381. WRAP. (2009) Household food and drink waste in the UK. Banbury: WRAP. Available at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/ Household food and drink waste in the UK – report.pdf (consulted April 2012) WRAP. (2011) New estimates for household food and drink waste in the UK, final report. Banbury: WRAP. Available at: www.wrap.org.uk/ content/estimates-household-food-and-drink-waste-uk-2011 (consulted May 2013).
