Eat healthy, reduce food waste!

Eat healthy, reduce food waste!

The influence of motivations to eat healthy and

frequency of convenience food purchases on the amount

of food waste

By

ENDRE SZEKRETÁR

Eat healthy, reduce food waste!

The influence of motivations to eat healthy and

frequency of convenience food purchases on the amount

of food waste

By

ENDRE SZEKRETÁR

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

MSC Marketing Management

Master Thesis

Completion date: 11

of January 2016

Endre Szekretár

Spirealaan 41b

9741 PB Groningen

Phone: +31 (0)611 257 174

E-mail:

e.szekretar@student.rug.nl

Student number: 2851989

1

_{Supervisor: Dr. Jenny van Doorn}

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the influence of health motivations and frequency of convenience food purchases on households’ food waste. Moreover, it researches whether frequency of convenience food purchases acts as a mediator in the relationship of health motivations on the amount of food waste. In order to obtain the results, the study used a database of a food waste diary alongside with the responses from a background questionnaire of 81 participants. Consumers’ degree of autonomous motivation, controlled motivation and amotivation, their frequency of convenience food purchases in various food categories and their amounts of food waste in 22 food and drink categories were measured and analyzed. The results show that consumers with a higher degree of autonomous motivation purchase less convenience food, whereas consumers with a higher degree of controlled motivation purchase more convenience food. Additionally, higher frequency of convenience food purchases lead to higher food waste amounts in households. Furthermore, higher degree of autonomous motivation of consumers directly leads to less food waste, contrary to consumers with a higher degree of controlled motivation, who end up wasting more food indirectly, due to their higher frequency of convenience food purchases.

Keywords: food waste; health motivations; convenience food; food disposal; convenience food

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Food waste is very serious issue worldwide, as stated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, around one third of all produced food for human consumption, an estimated 1.3 billion tonnes, is lost or wasted each year worldwide (FAO 2013). By looking at this issue in the European Union (EU 27) around 90 million tonnes of food is wasted (European Commission 2010). In industrialized countries over 40% of the waste comes from the so called “downstream”, which refers to the retail and consumer level, which include processing, distribution and mainly consumption (European Commission 2015a; FAO 2013). Additionally, a large portion of the food that is disposed by households was avoidable, meaning that it was still edible at some point prior to the disposal (Koivupuro et al. 2011).

Although the issue of food waste is realized by various authorities, such as the European Commission, further research is needed to supplement the existing knowledge (European Commission 2015b). Moreover, previous literature and many drivers of food waste indicate that two growing and recent trends might have influencing effects of the amount of food waste. There are several studies that investigate the amount, composition and socio-demographic factors of food waste, but lack insights of the underlying factors for the wasteful behavior and in the investigation of recent trends in the food industry (e.g. Silvennoinen et al. 2014; Koivupuro et al. 2011; Lyndhurst, Cox and Downing 2007; WRAP 2013).

food categories were measured and analyzed. To obtain the sufficient results, two linear multiple regression analyses were conducted alongside the mediation analyses.

Partly in line with the expectations, the results show that higher degree of autonomous motivation towards healthy eating results in lower frequency of convenience food purchases, whereas higher degree of controlled motivation to eat healthy results in higher frequency of convenience food purchases. Contrary, no significant results were found with amotivation in this relationship. Moreover, the frequency of convenience food purchases positively influence the amount of food waste, meaning that the more convenience food consumers purchase, the more food they tend to waste. By looking at the relationship of health motivations on the amount of food waste, the results show that higher degree of autonomous motivation negatively influences the amount of food waste directly. In contrast, higher degree of controlled motivation positively influences the amount of food waste, however this relationship is indirect and fully mediated by the frequency of convenience food purchases. Meaning that consumers with higher controlled motivation waste more food, due to their higher frequency of convenience food purchases. Lastly, amotivation had no significant influence on the amount of food waste neither directly, nor indirectly.

This research is, to the best of the author’s knowledge, the first that investigates the influence of different health motivations on the amount of food waste in consumers’ households with regard to their frequency of convenience food purchases as a mediator. Therefore, it expands existing academic literature by providing new insights about food waste in the previously elaborated topics. The main insight of this study, aside from raising awareness in the topic of food waste, is to reveal that the underlying motivations towards healthy eating needs to be regarded, since their direct and indirect influence for food waste is confirmed by the results of this study.

PREFACE

This thesis is the final part of my Marketing Management Master studies at the University of Groningen. This year was one of the most unique and exciting, but also one of the most difficult years of my life so far. I have learnt many new things in my field of study and also got a wider perspective of life in general. Herewith, I would like to thank all the people who made this year and this thesis possible.

First of all, I would like give a huge thanks to my supervisor Dr. Jenny van Doorn, who always provided very useful guidance, ideas, help and feedback, throughout the whole thesis writing process.

Secondly, I would also like to thank my thesis group, who provided additional ideas and feedback.

Next, I would like to thank my family who supported and allowed me to spend my master year in the Netherlands and study at the University of Groningen.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ... 3

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ... 4

PREFACE ... 6

-I.

INTRODUCTION ... 9

-II.

LITERATURE REVIEW ... 14

II.1. Drivers of food waste in households ... 15

II.2. Motivation to eat healthy ... 17

II.3. Convenience food ... 19

-III.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 22

III.1. Conceptual model ... 22

III.2. Hypotheses ... 23

III.2.1. Motivations to eat healthy on the amount of food waste ... 23

III.2.2. Motivations to eat healthy on the frequency of convenience food purchases . 25 III.2.3. Frequency of convenience food purchases on the amount of food waste ... 28

III.3. Control variables ... 30

III.3.1. Age ... 30

III.3.2. Gender ... 30

III.3.3. Income ... 31

III.3.4. Household size ... 31

III.3.5. Frequency of eating out and ordering takeaway food ... 31

III.3.6. Number of working hours ... 32

-IV.

METHODOLOGY ... 32

IV.1. Data collection method ... 32

IV.1.1. Food waste diary ... 33

IV.1.2. Questionnaire ... 34

IV.2. Descriptives of the collected data ... 36

IV.3. Data analysis method ... 39

IV.3.2. Reliability Analyses ... 39

IV.3.3. Correlations ... 40

IV.3.4. Models used for analyses ... 41

-V.

RESULTS ... 42

-V.1. Model 1 – Health Motivations on Frequency of Convenience Food

Purchases ... 42

-V.2. Model 2 – Health Motivations and Frequency of Convenience Food

Purchases on Total Food Waste ... 43

V.4. Mediation analyses ... 45

V.5. Control variables ... 46

-VI.

DISCUSSION ... 47

-VII.

CONCLUSION ... 52

VII.1. Academic contribution and managerial implications... 52

VII.2. Limitations and future research ... 53

REFERENCES ... 54

APPENDICES ... 65

Appendix A – Food Waste Diary ... 65

Appendix B – Questionnaire ... 67

Appendix C – Factor Analysis ... 77

-- 9 --

I.

INTRODUCTION

Food waste is a serious worldwide issue. It needs to be addressed in order to save important resources in the agriculture, reduce environmental impacts on the planet and minimize the disposal of edible food in households. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, around one third of all produced food for human consumption, an estimated 1.3 billion tonnes, is lost or wasted each year worldwide (FAO 2013).

There is a clear distribution of where the food is wasted in the food supply chain. In developing countries, over 40% of the wastage comes from the so called “upstream”, which refers to the agricultural production, postharvest handling and storage (food loss), whereas in industrialized countries over 40% of the wastage is at the “downstream”, namely at retail and consumer level, which include processing, distribution and mainly consumption (food waste) (European Commission 2015a; FAO 2013).

Furthermore, a preparatory study on food waste, conducted by the European Commission shows that in the European Union (EU 27) nearly 90 million tonnes of food is wasted annually. The top three countries in Europe by overall wastage are the United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands, looking at the waste by consumer households, the top three countries are the UK, Germany and France (European Commission 2010). Additionally, Waste & Resource Action Programme’s study shows that in the UK in 2012, 7 million tonnes of food and drink were disposed at the consumer level, which represent 19% by weight of the food and drink that was originally brought into the households (WRAP 2013). From this number about 60% was avoidable, meaning that it was still edible at some point prior to the disposal (Koivupuro et al. 2011), and it was worth £12.5 billion (WRAP 2013). Food waste also has a significant impact on the environment. The avoidable waste accounted for 17 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. On the bright side, the study also makes a comparison with the food waste results of 2007 and there is a progression towards the reduction of food waste (WRAP 2013).

- 10 -

There hasn’t been that much research done regarding consumers’ disposal behavior, which is the last stage of goods trajectory and therefore, might get less attention (Cappellini 2009). However, previously presented insights show the seriousness of food waste, therefore this study focuses on the disposal stage, in order to further supplement the researched information about food waste.

To investigate the issue of food waste in depth, it is necessary to define it and have a uniform understanding of its meaning. Several studies have a definition for food waste (Lyndhurst, Cox and Downing 2007; FAO 2013; Silvennoinen et al. 2014; Gustavsson et al. 2011; Koivupuro et al. 2011). In this study the focus will be on avoidable food waste:

“Avoidable food waste includes all discarded food that has been edible prior to disposal, it refers to the type of food and raw material that could have been consumed had it been stored or prepared differently.” (Koivupuro et al. 2011, p. 184.; WRAP 2008)

This definition of food waste is mostly in line with the definitions of the above mentioned studies and it fits well with the investigated context of food waste in this study. It is important that it excludes unavoidable food waste, which refers to the inedible food parts, like certain fruit and vegetable peels, bones and coffee grounds, because these have little or no additional use, therefore disposing them is not a major concern (Koivupuro et al. 2011; WRAP 2008).

- 11 -

There have been several studies that investigated the amount of food waste in various nations and households (Silvennoinen et al. 2014; Koivupuro et al. 2011; Lyndhurst, Cox and Downing 2007; WRAP 2013; FAO 2013; Gustavsson et al. 2011). They mainly investigate the amount, the composition, origin of food waste and the influence of socio-demographical factors, but lack investigation in the underlying factors of consumers’ disposal behavior, and in the influence of recent trends in the food industry. Two recent and growing trends in the food industry are that (1) consumers are more active in trying to eat healthier and seeking fresh, natural foods, and (2) the demand for convenience food products is increasing (Nielsen 2015; Brunner, van der Horst and Siegrist 2010; Tudoran et al. 2012). These trends may influence consumers’ food choice behavior and with that their food waste behavior may also differ in some extent (Tudoran et al. 2012). In relation to food waste, these two potentially influential food industry trends are the main focus of this study, because it would be beneficial to reveal the relationships among these constructs, in order to gain further insights on how to resolve the issue of food waste.

As mentioned previously, there has been a growing attention and awareness of living a healthy lifestyle, especially in the recent years (Nielsen 2015; Tudoran et al. 2012). However, despite the growing awareness of healthy lifestyles, healthy food products are still being wasted (WRAP 2013). In studies of Evans (2011; 2012a) there is inconsistency between the planned intentions of the consumers and their actual behavior regarding food related activities, for example due to time constraints or prioritizing certain activities over others. Therefore, different motivations consumers have towards healthy eating, may impact consumers behavior towards food related activities.

Furthermore, Wertenbroch (1998) also states that consumers, who have a long-term view, when evaluating the consumption consequences, are more likely to prefer virtue products, because of their relative positive long-term consequences. In contrast, consumers with a short-term view are more likely to choose vice products, because of their short-term pleasures. Therefore, different approaches to health affect consumers’ food choices, which possibly include convenience food choices.

- 12 -

include ready-made meals and pre-prepared products, they are easier to prepare and require less expertise in culinary skills (Candel 2001). Additionally, convenience is an important determining factor for consumers’ food choices and there is a connection between food preference and perceived convenience for such products (Candel 2001; Rappoport et al. 1993). The usage of convenience food might be one of the drivers of food waste, since it accounts for the deskilling in cooking and meal preparation. Consumers with lower levels of cooking skills are not as able to make good use of leftovers, prepare meals with different ingredients and store the food properly, all of which could result in food waste (Hartmann 2013; Short 2003a; Graham-Rowe, Jessop and Sparks 2014; Evans 2012a). Additionally, convenience foods are more perishable than non-convenience foods and therefore need to be consumed in a shorter time frame (Gisslen 2011; de Vries 1997). Additionally, consumers with constant time constraints and busy schedules often forget about the food they still have left and with less time to consume, they are more likely to waste the food (Evans 2012a; 2012b). These insights suggest that, there might be a relationship between the purchase and use frequency of convenience foods and food waste.

Furthermore, Candel (2001) finds that convenience orientation results unhealthy food consumption, because of low food variety. Also, the consumption of ready-made meals is associated with higher energy intake, unfavorable nutrition intake patterns and higher risk for obesity (Dixon, Hinde and Banwell 2006; Alexy et al. 2011; Alkerwi, Crichton and Hébert 2015). These insights, which reveal that in general convenience food is unhealthier, indicate that convenience food purchase and consumption would differ among consumers with different orientation to health. Moreover, the differing convenience food choices based on various health motivations, may alter the amounts of food consumers waste in their households.

Based on these insights, there are possible relationships that worth researching among health motivations, convenience food purchases and food waste. In sum, this study seeks to investigate (1) individuals’ underlying motivations to eat healthy, (2) the frequency of convenience food purchases, (3) the relationship of health motivations on convenience food purchase frequency, all in regard to (4) the amount of food waste in households.

Based on the previously presented relations the following problem statement was created: To what extent do consumers’ different motivations to eat healthy (autonomous; controlled;

- 13 -

Consequently, to investigate this issue more closely, several research questions were created: 1. Do consumers’ different motivations to eat healthy (autonomous; controlled;

amotivation) influence the amount of food they waste?

2. Do consumers’ different motivations to eat healthy (autonomous; controlled; amotivation) influence their frequency of convenience food purchases?

3. Do consumers’ frequency of convenience purchases influence the amount of food they waste?

4. Do consumers’ different motivations to eat healthy (autonomous; controlled; amotivation) influence the amount of food they waste through their differing convenience food purchase frequency?

Based on these research questions, this thesis contributes to academic knowledge about food waste in households, since to the best of the author’s knowledge this is the first study that investigates the relationship of different motivations to healthy eating on the amount of food waste, with regard to the frequency of convenience food purchases. The results would prove to be valuable for authorities in the sustainability field, policy makers, marketers, consumers and educational institutes, because this study expands and supplements existing knowledge about food waste in consumer households. Additionally, this paper also tries to raise awareness about the seriousness of food waste and the importance of its immediate reduction.

The paper will investigate the research questions through an existing database of 97 households. The database contains results from a food waste dairy and several questionnaire scales, which are meant to capture consumers’ information about their food waste amounts, attitude, behavior and sociodemographics. The food waste dairy is comparable to the study of Koivupuro et al. (2012), Silvennoinen et al. (2014) and Bos-Brouwers et al. (2013).

- 14 -

II.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter elaborates on the existing literature on the drivers of food waste in households, the different motivations to eat healthy and the relevance of convenience foods. A selective overview of the articles discusses in this chapter is shown in ‘Table 1’.

Table 1

Selective overview of the existing literature of drivers of food waste, convenience foods and motivations to eat healthy

Authors Relevant to Drivers of food waste Relevant to Convenience foods Relevant to Motivations to eat healthy Main findings

about Study design

Brambila-Macias et al.

(2011) 

The effectiveness of policy interventions to promote healthy eating

Analyses of systematic reviews, academic papers, institutional reports

Brunner, van der Horst

and Siegrist (2010) 

Drivers of convenience food consumption

Convenience food frequency questionnaire

Buckley, Cowan and

McCarthy (2007) 

Convenience food market and consumer segments

Survey on a nationally representative sample

De Boer et al. (2004)  Aspects of the demand

for convenience food

Survey on a nationally representative sample

European Commission

(2010) 

Amount, key causes, impacts, forecast about food waste

Food waste data analysis (based on EUROSTAT)

Evans (2011; 2012a)   Underlying factors of

food waste

Qualitative researches, in-depth interviews

Graham-Rowe, Jessop

and Sparks (2014) 

Motivations and barriers of food waste

Qualitative semi-structured interviews

Koivupuro et al. (2012) 

Socio-demographical, behavioral, attitudinal factors on food waste

Food waste diary study; Questionnaire

Lindsay (2010) 

Consumers’

compliance with health guidelines

Analyses of existing academic literature

Lyndhurst, Cox, and

Downing (2007)  Sociodemographics, motivations, drivers of food waste Interviews with a representative sample, questionnaire Milkman, Rogers, Bazerman (2008; 2010) 

How decisions differ, when made in different times

Review of existing literature; Analyses of online grocery orders

Olsen et al. (2012)  Likelihood of buying healthy convenience food products Web-questionnaire Silvennoinen et al. (2014)  Amount and composition of food waste

- 15 -

II.1. Drivers of food waste in households

Consumers usually dispose foods, because such products have lost some of their value or have become useless (Evans 2012a; Frow 2001). Food choices and food waste behavior among consumers is rather complex and filled with contradictory concerns (Lindsay 2010; Evans 2011). Consequently, consumers perceive food waste as a critical issue, but many of them only realize the wasteful behavior in others’ actions and not as a consequence of their own actions (Watson and Meah 2013; Doron 2013).

There are several studies that investigate the amount of food waste, its composition and its drivers/influencing factors. As stated earlier, in the UK, consumers are accounted for around 19% of the food wasted by weight, additionally 60% of this was avoidable, meaning that it was still edible at some point prior to the disposal (WRAP 2013). The same study shows that one of the two main reasons for throwing away food (which together, account for around 80% of the waste) is that consumers don’t use the food in time, therefore it goes spoiled or passes the expiration date on the packaging. The most common foods wasted because of this reason are fresh vegetables and salads, bakery products, dairy products, eggs and fruits (WRAP 2013). One of other main reasons is cooking, preparing and serving too much food. Leftovers, home-made meals, pre-prepared meals are mostly thrown away because of this reason. Furthermore, wastage is also linked to not fitting with personal preferences, such as health reasons, diet goals and tastes (Koivupuro et al. 2012; WRAP 2013). Furthermore, Parfitt, Barthel, and Macnaughton (2010) state that the increase in food choices available to consumers, and the reduction in the ratio of disposable income spent on food products could also be influencing factors for food waste. However, WRAP’s study also mentions that there was a reduction in food waste in the previous years, namely from 2007 to 2012. This may be the result of several factors including, the success of several food waste campaigns (e.g. Love Food Hate Waste), how the food is sold and packaged, food price inflation and other economic factors. A range of behaviors and technical innovations may have also contributed to this reduction in food waste of the households, for example: storing food properly, buying the right amounts, preparing and serving more appropriate amounts, making the most of leftovers (WRAP 2013).

- 16 -

eating the available food in time, therefore leading to spoilage or expiry; preparing and serving too much food, not reusing available ingredients and leftovers properly; not storing the food properly, leading to a quality reduction of the food; food risk by not being able to judge the quality of the food, therefore throwing it away despite the fact it is still edible; being unsatisfied with the taste (Silvennonien 2011; Koivupuro 2012; European Commission 2010; Lyndhurst, Cox and Downing 2007; Evans 2011; 2012a; 2012b; Parfitt, Barthel, and Macnaughton 2010). Important to touch upon the so called ‘home economics’ skills in the study of Lyndhurst, Cox and Downing (2007). It is a combining name for several ‘skills’ that are used in households from planning to making the food, for example pre shop planning, food organization in the home, cooking skills, combining foods. Consumers that have possession of these ‘skills’ are more likely to throw away less food. The results show that there is still room for improvement, because only around 29% of the participants are good at all the competencies, contrary, 22% report that they are not good at any, finally also around 22% report that they are only good at a few of the ‘home economics’ skills (Lyndhurst, Cox and Downing 2007).

Another study by Graham-Rowe, Jessop and Sparks (2014) investigated consumers’ motives, which may help to minimize food waste, but also motives that may interfere with it. The two categories identified by the study to minimize food waste are consumers’ ‘waste concerns’ and ‘doing the ‘right’ thing’. The first motive ‘waste concerns’ is about financial consequences of food wasted, in other words wasted food is wasted money for the consumers, therefore they try to avoid it, alongside with the negative feelings they get about the thoughts of losing money. Other aspect is that the food wasn’t utilized in a useful way, if it was in the end wasted (Graham-Rowe, Jessop and Sparks 2014). This is in line with Lyndhurst, Cox and Downing (2007), where respondents reported three key factors that bothered them about food waste, around 68% reported that is a waste of money, 45% reported that it is a waste of good food, 36% reported that it makes them feel guilty. ‘Doing the ‘right’ means that consumers have a negative feeling about wasting food and it is considered a ‘wrong’ behavior, which may originate from personal, social contexts or concerns for the environment.

- 17 -

After taking a look at factors that would help consumers minimize food waste, it is also important to know the motives that could be the barriers of this minimization. First, the feeling of being a ‘good provider’ (in line with the finding of Evans (2011; 2012a)), which means to have enough amounts and variety of fresh, nutritious food for the partner or family, which often leads to over-purchasing and wasting the food. Next, consumers often stock up on food, which is not eaten in time and wasted later, to avoid the inconvenience of having to go the stores or to free up time for other activities. The third motive barrier is the lack of priority for the concern of food waste, basically consumers are more concerned about other issues in their lives and they don’t care about this issue. Finally, the last motive is that consumers don’t feel responsible for the food waste and they believe that the responsibility lays with the food industry and the retailers (Graham-Rowe, Jessop and Sparks 2014).

II.2. Motivation to eat healthy

As mentioned previously, one of the big trends in the food industry is that more and more consumers try to eat healthier and become more health conscious (Nielsen 2015; Tudoran et al. 2012). Consequently, researching it in relation to food waste might reveal various important insights. Moreover, plenty elements from literature of the drivers of food waste indicate that health motivations, as a determining factor for food choice behavior (Wertenbroch 1998; Levesque et al. 2007), might be an important and influential aspect when consumers make decisions about food and food related activities.

In the latest decades people’s food choices and their unhealthy diet patterns have really become large in numbers and therefore it is now a serious issue in the developed countries worldwide (WHO 2007; Hawkes 2006; Hawkes 2007). Unhealthy diets can contribute to obesity and may lead to diabetes, cancer and vascular diseases. This is a serious issue for the individuals and their surrounding community, but also for the society, with the increased costs of health services (Brambila-Macias et al. 2011; WHO 2007; Hawkes 2006; Hawkes 2007). Additionally, the same study concluded that several policy interventions against unhealthy eating are successful in raising awareness of the dangers and consequences of unhealthy eating, improving consumer’s knowledge about nutrition and healthy diet and changing attitudes about eating healthy, however most of this success is not transferred into actual consumer actions to eat healthier (Brambila-Macias et al. 2011).

- 18 -

responsibility for their own health (Lindsay 2010; Brambila-Macias et al. 2011; Nielsen 2015; Tudoran et al. 2012). Consequently, there has been an increase in the healthiness of the eating habits among the consumers in the EU (Capacci and Mazzocchi 2011). Furthermore, Evans (2011; 2012a) also discovered that in people’s lives it is important to ‘eat properly’, in order to take care of the self and to be overall healthier. However, there are also discrepancies reported, which interfere with the intentions to eat healthy and therefore having the intention to eat healthy doesn’t necessarily mean that the related behavior will be conducted (Evans 2012a). One of the reasons for not following the intended behavior is the need for ‘social well-being’, which as a definition regards to the positive feelings in people when they are in social relationships or engaging in social activities. Social well-being is more important to consumers, than following their intentions to eat healthy and since eating and drinking are mainly considered social activities and therefore central to social relationships, they are willing to give up their intentions to eat healthy in order to maintain their social relationships and end up wasting food (Lindsay 2010; Wyn 2009; Evans 2012a).

- 19 -

Furthermore, the study of Levesque et al. (2007) found that having an autonomous motivation is negatively associated with negative health outcomes and positively associated with positive health outcomes, such as healthier diets, more fruit and vegetable consumption and higher levels of physical activity. Contrary, controlled motivation and amotivation was found to be positively associated with negative health outcomes and had a weak or negative association with on positive health outcomes, as in the competence to change a certain health behavior, and the consumption of fruit and vegetables (Levesque et al. 2007).

II.3. Convenience food

Again, as mentioned previously, the other big trend in the food industry, as stated by Brunner, van der Horst and Siegrist (2010), is the increasing popularity and usage frequency of convenience food products and with that the demand for these products is steadily increasing (Tudoran et al. 2012). Since convenience food products are becoming central to food purchases, food management and food preparation for many consumers, it would be beneficial to reveal their relationship with food waste. Additionally, consumers’ health motivations highly influence food choices, therefore may alter consumers’ behavior towards convenience food products and with that, their food waste amounts (Wertenbroch 1998; Levesque et al. 2007). Technological advancements, changing consumer lifestyles, different household structures, changing social norms and values, constant time pressure, lack of culinary skills are among the main drivers of convenience food products’ demand and supply (Buckley, Cowan and McCarthy 2007; Olsen et al. 2012; Scholliers 2015). Byrne (1998) found that there is a great increase in the number of single-person and small households, which increased the demand for small package sizes of convenience foods (IGD 1998). Additionally, despite having more time available as single persons, they are not willing to invest it into shopping, preparing and cooking meals (Gofton 1995). Additionally, Gofton (1995) states that convenience may occur in every stage of the consumption process, such as planning, buying, storing, preparing, cleaning up and disposing.

- 20 -

Olsen et al. (2012) states that consumer nowadays eat more convenience food than ever before. Additionally, Brunner, van der Horst and Siegrist (2010) found that convenience orientation leads to more usage of convenience foods.

Additionally, Costa et al. (2001) classified convenience foods into four categories, on similar bases as Havlicek et al. (1983) and Capps, Tedford and Havlicek (1985), who distinguished basic convenience, complex convenience, manufactured convenience and non-convenience categories. The four classes of convenience food, based on Costa et al. (2001), are ‘ready-to-eat’ (e.g. take-away main courses, chilled sandwiches, salads), which are usually consumed right after the purchase. ‘Ready-to-heat’ meals (e.g. chilled or frozen main courses, dehydrated and canned food) only require a short period of heating up before it can be consumed. Next, ‘ready to end-cook’ (e.g. chilled or frozen main courses, dehydrated dishes) require a longer period of heating up. Lastly, ‘ready to cook’ foods, which are minimally pre-prepared and require the consumer to prepare and cook all or several of their ingredients before it can be consumed (Olsen et al. 2012; Costa et al. 2001).

There are many reasons why consumers would choose, purchase and use convenience food products. Rappoport et al. (1993) states that convenience is a main determining factor for consumers’ food choice behavior. Additionally, many consumers’ food preferences depend on the convenience aspects of a product (Candel 2001). Costa et al. (2001) states that most of the consumers don’t have the time to eat, shop or cook. Convenience foods are easy to prepare and allow for quick consumption (Swoboda 2001). In line with the findings of De Boer et al. (2004) that the consumption of ready- and take-away meals are mainly connected to convenience related dimensions. Furthermore, the same study found that convenience food-related lifestyle issues are main drivers of convenience food purchases. According to IGD (2002), “convenience foods are increasingly trying to provide ‘meal solutions’ with the aim to make consumers’ lives easier when choosing and preparing meals” (IGD 2002; De Boer et al. 2004, p. 156.).

- 21 -

products, insufficient intake of fruits and vegetables (Larson et al. 2006a; Crawford et al. 2007; van der Horst, Brunner and Siegrist 2011; Anderson et al. 2008; Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition 2003). This deskilling can be accounted to several factors, such as the decreased opportunities to acquire cooking and food preparation skills, both within home and from public education environments; technological advances in food storage and preparation; increased availability in convenience foods and ready-made meals; changes of social norms around cooking and eating; changes in lifestyles and the presence of constant time constraints; changes in the traditional family priorities and values (Caraher and Lang 1999; Chenhall 2010; Lang and Caraher 2001).

Consequently, the previously mentioned transition in cooking and the more frequent use of processed, pre-prepared meals and convenience foods have resulted in different dietary patterns, which have negative results on consumers’ overall health and further increase the diet related chronic diseases and conditions (Chenhall 2010). Traditionally, women were responsible for meal planning and food preparation, however there is an increase of women who work full time and therefore have much more limited time for home tasks, including cooking. Time constraints, lack of cooking skills, lack of confidence to cook and lack of cooking enjoyment facilitated manufacturers and retailers to develop several offers in convenience foods, which differ in freshness, taste and nutritional value to better meet consumer needs (Chenhall 2010; Lang and Caraher 2001). Time constraints may be a barrier to cooking ‘proper’ food and eating healthy, additionally respondent reported that the use of convenience foods let them ‘save’ time for other activities (Lyon, Colquhoun and Alexander 2003; Lang and Caraher 2001; Caraher, Baker and Burns 2004). Additionally, studies show that there is a connection between consumers’ involvement with cooking and healthier diets, consumption patterns (e.g. Byrd-Bredbenner and Abbot 2008; Gracey et al. 1996; Neumark-Sztainer et al. 2003; Larson et al. 2006a; Larson et al. 2006b; Marshall and Bell 2004; Candel 2001).

- 22 -

than those who have a decent level of culinary expertise, as in they consume more convenience food. Using convenience foods may lead to a decrease in the level of confidence and competence consumer have towards cooking and as a result, they find it hard to make use of leftovers and remaining ingredients (Evans 2012a).

III. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In the following sections of the study, the conceptual model is presented and hypotheses are elaborated, regarding the influence of motivations to eat healthy on the amount of food wasted through frequency of convenience food purchases. Additionally, the effect of sociodemographics, the frequency of eating out and ordering take-away food and the number of working hours are investigated.

III.1. Conceptual model

There is a possible relationship between consumers’ different motivational states to eat healthy on the amount of food they waste through their frequency of convenience food purchases.

Figure 1

- 23 -

important and recent trends of the food industry together, in relation to food waste. First, consumers are becoming more health conscious, second the demand for convenience food products is increasing (Nielsen 2015; Brunner, van der Horst and Siegrist 2010; Tudoran et al. 2012). These trends might be highly connected, therefore researching them together, opposed to researching them separately, would possibly provide more insightful results. This construct examines the direct effect of health motivations on the amount of food waste, mainly on the argumentation, that consumers with differing health motivations will handle food differently, due to the discrepancy of intentions and behavior (Milkman, Rogers and Bazerman 2008; Evans 2012a). However, since motivations to eat healthy can highly determine food choice behavior they may alter the convenience food purchase behavior of the consumers (Wertenbroch 1998; Levesque et al. 2007). With the increased popularity and demand for convenience food, these kind of products are expected to be important or central to many consumers (Brunner, van der Horst and Siegrist 2010). Therefore, the possible influence of health motivations have on the purchase frequency of convenience products may also result in differing food waste amounts. In the subsequent sections the hypotheses are elaborated in detail, in line with and as presented in the conceptual model.

III.2. Hypotheses

III.2.1. Motivations to eat healthy on the amount of food waste

As presented previously, consumers may have different underlying motivations toward healthy eating. The motivations that are investigated in this study are based on the self-determination theory, which distinguishes autonomous motivation, controlled motivation and amotivation (Gagné and Deci 2005; Ryan and Deci 2000). The theory also reasons, that these different states of motivations influence how individuals behave regarding to healthy eating (Vansteenkiste, Lens, and Deci 2006; Williams et al. 1996).

- 24 -

People often find themselves having internal conflicts about intentions and actual behavior. Milkman, Rogers, and Bazerman (2008; 2010) identify two metaphors to resolve this issue. There is ‘want’ self, which is aimed at obtaining short-term pleasures, desires, contrary to the ‘should’ self, which is aimed to maintain the individual’s long-term interests and goals. In context of eating healthy, one’s has the intention to maintain a healthy diet, for the long-term health and other benefits, however often give in to the short-term temptation, as in consuming unhealthy food, because it tastes better. This discrepancy also occurs when purchasing food, because there is a delay between the purchase and the actual consumption. This delay allows to behave in line with the ‘should’ self at the time of purchase, which focuses on the long-term consequences, resulting in more healthy food purchases. However, at the time of consumption, the ‘want’ self takes over, and fulfills the immediate pleasures, resulting in eating vice foods, instead of the previously purchased virtue foods (Milkman, Rogers, Bazerman 2008; 2010). This discrepancy is also present in the studies of Evans (2011; 2012a), where many consumers have trouble maintaining their health related intentions, because of short-term temptations, time constraints and social contexts (Evans 2011; 2012a). Additionally, the initial intention to eat healthy is often not conducted, due to the previously mentioned events. Moreover, following or changing to a healthier diet, usually results in higher amounts of virtue food purchases, which are highly perishable and have a limited time frame for consumption. This limited durability, alongside with not behaving as previously intended, as in breaking the intention to eat healthy, are influencing factors for food disposal (Evans 2011; 2012a).

- 25 -

learning and higher persistence (Vansteenkiste, Lens and Deci 2006). Consequently, as presented previously, it is more likely that people with autonomous motivation will act in line with their intentions, therefore continue to eat healthy (Gagné and Deci 2005; Milkman, Rogers and Bazerman 2008; 2010). This would result in lower amounts of food waste, because the initially purchased healthy foods are less likely to be replaced and wasted by consumers with higher degrees of autonomous motivation. Therefore, it can hypothesized:

H1a: Autonomous motivation to eat healthy will have a negative influence on the amount of

food waste.

Contrary, consumers with controlled motivation to eat healthy, have the initial intention to eat healthy, but at the time of consumption, they are more likely to likely to break the intended behavior and ‘give in’ to the temptation and consume other foods instead of the healthy foods they purchased beforehand (Gagné and Deci 2005; Milkman, Rogers and Bazerman 2008; 2010). This discrepancy, then results in an increased amount of total food waste, since most healthy foods are highly perishable and can’t be stored for a long time, when replaced. Furthermore, Lyndhurst, Cox and Downing (2007) argues, that consumers attempt to buy more fresh foods, which have a limited expiration date, and in the end throw them away, as a result of an unsuccessful transition to healthier eating patterns or food experimentation. Therefore, it can be hypothesized:

H1b: Controlled motivation to eat healthy will have a positive influence on the amount of

food waste.

Finally, the previously elaborated discrepancy, similarly to autonomous motivation is less likely to occur. However, the behavior is different in a sense that amotivated consumers, as previously presented, are not health oriented and lack the motivation towards eating healthy (Ryan and Deci 2000; Gagné and Deci 2005). Therefore, they are expected not to purchase healthy foods, or just as much as they would normally consume. Consequently, given the lack of discrepancy in this relationship, it is expected that higher degree of amotivation to eat healthy would result in lower amounts of food waste. Therefore, it can be hypothesized:

H1c: Amotivation to eat healthy will have a negative influence on the amount of food waste.

- 26 -

Firstly, as previously elaborated on, in general people highly value the convenience aspects of the food products, therefore the increasing demand for these products (Brunner, van der Horst and Siegrist 2010). It gives a solution for the issues consumers have due to their changing lifestyles (Buckley, Cowan and McCarthy 2007; Olsen et al. 2012). Consequently, it is expected that in general people will prefer and purchase convenience foods more frequently.

However, different health motivations are expected to alter food choice behavior and therefore, the purchase frequency of convenience foods (Wertenbroch 1998 Levesque et al. 2007; Milkman, Rogers and Bazerman 2008). According to Pelletier et al. (2004) and Otis and Pelletier (2008) women with autonomous motivation have healthier eating habits, because they plan for including healthy foods into their diets and they are also more focused on the quality of the food, opposed to women with controlled motivation, who are more concerned about the quantity of the food. Therefore, consumers with a higher degree of autonomous motivation are expected to focus and be critical of the quality of the food they consume, opposed to consumers with higher degree of controlled motivation, who are expected to focus more on the quantity of the foods.

Secondly, the nutritional quality of convenience foods is expected to be a high determining factor in a health context when choosing food products. Traditionally, convenience food has been perceived unhealthy and been associated with lower quality ingredients (Gofton 1995). Despite companies trying to increase their offer for high quality and healthy convenience meals, several studies confirm that convenience foods are still perceived less healthy and lower quality than non-convenience foods and are often not regarded as proper meals (Costa et al. 2007; De Boer et al. 2004; Mäkelä 2000). Alongside with the unfavorable perceptions, most convenience foods are actually inferior to non-convenience foods in relation to healthiness and nutrition. Convenience categories, like ready-made meals often contain high amounts of sugar, sodium and fat, and low levels of fibers (Kanzler & Wagner 2009; WHO 2007).

- 27 -

ingredients (e.g. preservatives) and processing techniques (e.g. heating, cooling, pressure cooking), therefore it is hard for the consumer to control for the nutritional quality of these foods. Moreover, their results show that the consumption of ready-made meals is associated with obesity, higher energy intake and poorer nutrition (Alkerwi, Crinchton and Hébert 2015). These insights suggest, that people who are highly health conscious would avoid or at least purchase less convenience food, because in general they are less healthy and perceived lower quality.

Additionally, according to De Boer et al. (2004), consumers who find freshness as an important food factor, tend to purchase less ready meals and take-away meals. Another study also reports that freshness is highly important for consumers and they perceive fresh foods healthier than processed foods (TNS 2000). Additionally, fewer take-away meals were purchased by consumers, who placed more importance on health (De Boer et al. 2004). Moreover, the study of Brunner, van der Horst and Siegrist (2010) found, that the concern for naturalness and consumers nutritional knowledge were important predictors for food choices. Additionally, consumers, with higher concern of the naturalness of food and higher knowledge about nutrition, consume less convenience food products. Similarly, these insights suggest that highly health conscious consumers would purchase and use less convenience food.

Based on these previously presented insights, consumer with higher degree of autonomous motivation, who are internally committed to eat healthy, would highly focus on their dietary quality (Pelletier et al. 2004; Otis and Pelletier 2008). The previous insights showed that convenience foods are perceived less healthy and lower quality (Gofton 1995; Costa et al. 2007; De Boer et al. 2004; Mäkelä 2000) and most of these products are in fact have lower dietary quality (Kanzler & Wagner 2009; WHO 2007). Despite the fact, that in general people would prefer convenience food products (Brunner, van der Horst and Siegrist 2010), consumers with higher degree of autonomous motivation are expected to rely less on convenience foods and purchase them less frequently. These types of consumers are highly health conscious, more likely to have more knowledge about nutrition, therefore would value the health aspects of food, rather than the convenience aspects (Brunner, van der Horst and Siegrist 2010). Therefore, it can be hypothesized:

H2a: Autonomous motivation to eat healthy will have a negative influence on the frequency

- 28 -

Contrary, consumers with a controlled motivation are expected to be more focused on the quantity of food, rather than the quality (Pelletier et al. 2004; Otis and Pelletier 2008). Given the fact, that these consumers are not as committed to health, they are expected to purchase and rely more on convenience food products, due to the convenience aspects these products provide (Brunner, van der Horst and Siegrist 2010). For these consumers, it is expected that the positive convenience aspects will outweigh some of negative health aspects of convenience foods, because they are not internally motivated (Gagné and Deci 2005). However, they are expected to try to choose healthier options of convenience food products, because they intend to eat healthier, but they are not as quality focused as autonomous motivated consumers. Therefore, it can be hypothesized:

H2b: Controlled motivation to eat healthy will have a positive influence on the frequency of

convenience food purchases.

Similarly in some measure to the previous case, amotivated consumers are not motivated to eat healthy, therefore they are not expected to value the health and quality aspects of foods as highly (Gagné and Deci 2005). Consequently, consumers with a higher degree of amotivation towards healthy eating are expected to purchase and rely more on convenience food products, because of the convenience aspects they provide (Brunner, van der Horst and Siegrist 2010). Additionally, they are indifferent about the lower dietary quality these products, therefore they would purchase the category they normally prefer (Kanzler & Wagner 2009; WHO 2007). Therefore, it can hypothesized:

H2c: Amotivation to eat healthy will have a positive influence on the frequency of

convenience food purchases.

III.2.3. Frequency of convenience food purchases on the amount of food waste The relationship between convenience food purchases and the amount of food waste investigated in this study is based on mainly three argumentations.

- 29 -

Secondly, many convenience food categories are a lot more perishable, than their non-convenient counterparts, therefore they allow for a smaller timeframe to consume (Gisslen 2011; de Vries 1997). Due to the processing procedure, they become perishable and less protected from environmental impacts. Given the discrepancy between the intentions and the actual behaviors of what and when to eat, and also that many foods are being replaced, due to the lifestyles of the consumers (Evans 2011; 2012a), it is expected that this shorter time frame for consumption could lead to an increased amount of food waste among consumers who purchase more convenience food.

Thirdly, several convenience food categories are not offered in many various package sizes (e.g. ready-made meals), therefore consumers may lose or have less control over the quantity, package sizes and serving sizes when purchasing convenience foods (Dixon, Hinde and Banwell 2006). This could lead to an increased amount of food purchase, and in the end an increased amount of food waste, due to buying too much and not consuming it.

Based on these three argumentations, it is expected that higher frequency of convenience food purchases will result in more food waste in consumers’ households. Therefore, it can be hypothesized:

H3: The frequency of convenience food purchases will have a positive influence on the

amount of food waste.

Aside from the previously presented direct relationship of health motivations on the amount of food waste, there might also be an indirect effect through differing frequency of convenience food purchases. The direct relationship of health motivations and food waste, might be ‘too far’ from each other to have an influence, therefore an intermediate (mediator) would be appropriate to be used, as in the frequency of convenience food purchases. Health motivations might be more effective in explaining convenience food choice behavior, and with that also explain the differing food waste amounts (Wertenbroch 1998; Levesque et al. 2007).

- 30 -

Based on the importance of convenience food to many consumers and that the purchase frequency of these products might be highly determined by the underlying motivations consumers have towards health (Brunner, van der Horst and Siegrist 2010; Wertenbroch 1998; Levesque et al. 2007), this mediation relationship is expected to provide insightful results in the relation with the amount of food waste. Based on these and the previous arguments consumers with a higher degree of autonomous motivation are expected to waste less food due to their lower frequency of convenience food purchases. Contrary, consumers with a higher degree of controlled motivation and amotivation are expected to waste more food due to their higher frequency of convenience food purchases. Therefore, it can be hypothesized:

H4: The frequency of convenience food purchases will mediate the effects of motivations to

eat healthy on the amount of food waste.

III.3. Control variables

In this study age, gender, income, household size, frequency of eating out and ordering take-away food and number of working hours are included as control variables. Research shows that these variables may have an influence on the amount of food wasted by consumers, therefore it is important to investigate their supposed effects and control for them in the analyses.

III.3.1. Age

The study of Lyndhurst, Cox and Downing (2007) shows that, age may have an influence on the amount of food wasted. The most waste caused by the consumers comes from the 25-34 age category, whereas the least waste is caused by consumers who are 65 or older. Additionally, a clear trend is shown, where as consumers get older, they tend to waste less food (Lyndhurst, Cox and Downing 2007). Therefore, age is expected to have a negative influence on the amount of food waste in households.

III.3.2. Gender

- 31 -

amount of food waste per person, single women, who live alone tend to produce the highest amount of avoidable food waste (Koivupuro et al. 2012). Based on these insights, females are expected have a positive influence on the amount of food waste in households.

III.3.3. Income

According Lyndhurst, Cox and Downing (2007) lower-income households waste less food than high-income households. The study also shows, that one of the influencers of food waste is ‘buying’ too much, which was reported by 22% of the respondents. Additionally, Parfitt, Barthel, and Macnaughton (2010) also state, that lower income results in lower food waste, opposed to high income which results in higher amounts of food wasted. Based on these insights, income is expected to have a positive influence on the amount of food waste in households.

III.3.4. Household size

There are several studies (Koivupuro et al. 2012; Lyndhurst, Cox and Downing 2007; WRAP 2013; Silvennoinen et al. 2014) with results that household size has a significant effect on the amount of food wasted. The results show, that households with more people have higher amounts of wasted food. In the UK in 2012, households, with one occupant on average ended up with 97 kg of avoidable food waste, with two occupants this number was 140kg, with three occupants 220kg and with four or more occupants 250kg (WRAP 2013). However, when looking at the waste per person, single households waste more than other households, especially single women living alone ended up wasting the most per person (Koivupuro et al. 2012; Silvennoinen et al. 2014). These results suggest that, household size is expected to have a positive influence on the amount of food waste in households.

III.3.5. Frequency of eating out and ordering take-away food

- 32 -

insights, the frequency of eating out and ordering take-away food is expected to have a positive influence on the amount of food waste in households.

III.3.6. Number of working hours

Evans (2011; 2012a) reveals, that consumers ending up wasting food, because they don’t find time to prepare them and prioritize other social activities, over cooking. Additionally, a barrier of minimizing food waste is consumers’ desire to cook and prepare food with convenience and with regard to time constraints. Stockpiling food is also related to convenience and time constraints, because respondents don’t have to visit the stores as often, however may easily cause avoidable food waste (Graham-Rowe, Jessop and Sparks 2014). Furthermore, time scarcity is present in consumers’ daily lives, this feeling of not having enough time, resulted in changes in consumers’ food consumption patterns (Candel 2001; Jabs and Devine 2006). Moreover, the number of working hours is a significant element to time constraints. A study from Scholderer and Grunert (2005) found that full-time employment had the largest negative influence on respondents perceived time budgets. Furthermore, Lyndhurst, Cox and Downing (2007) found that full-time and part-time respondents wasted more food than retired respondents. Two studies from Austria also support this suggestion, where results show that full-time employment has a positive effect on the amount of avoidable food wasted (Wassermann and Schneider 2005; Schneider and Obersteiner 2007). These insights suggest, that the number of working hours is expected to have a positive effect on the amount of food waste in households.

IV. METHODOLOGY

IV.1. Data collection method

- 33 -

official holidays, namely Easter and Kingsday, which may have altered the amounts of wasted food compared to a period of no holidays (Dahlén and Lagerkvist 2008). The three week data collection period allowed to obtain more sufficient data that may reduce the likeliness for possible biases (Hyett 2015).

IV.1.1. Food waste diary

The food waste diary, which was used in this study was based on, and comparable to the research by Koivupuro et al. (2012), Silvennoinen et al. (2014) and Bos-Brouwers et al. (2013). The food waste diary approach can be used to determine and estimate the quantities of food waste by households and it includes one or more household members to weigh and record the type and quantity of the wasted food (Møller et al. 2014). One of the disadvantages of using a food waste diary approach is that it represents the participants’ subjective point of view (at least to a certain extent), and demands significant effort and time from the participants (Lebersorger and Schneider 2011; Møller et al. 2014; Langley et al. 2010). Additionally, Silvennoinen et al. (2014) also states that it is rather hard to evaluate the accuracy and truthfulness of the diaries, since it contains self-reported data from the respondents. Also, the reporting process may have a bias effect, resulting in an overall reduced amount of food waste, due to the awareness to the issue, or respondents might not report the actual amounts of waste, due to the sensitive nature of the topic (Silvennoinen et al. 2014; Møller et al. 2014). In contrast, food waste diaries can provide more data and insights in high level of detail about the waste categories, time and reasons (Møller et al. 2014). Additionally, this approach presents real-life behavior settings, which increases the meaningfulness and reliability of the reported data, also when applied correctly it can be a very accurate measurement method (Jean-Baptiste et al. 2014; Langley et al. 2010).

- 34 -

a continuous period of three weeks, which only focused on avoidable food waste, excluding unavoidable waste, such as vegetable peel, bones and coffee grounds (Hyett 2015).

The food waste diary consisted of 22 food and drink categories, in which the participants had to record the composition and the quantity of the wasted products. There was also an ‘other’ categories, where respondents could record the foods that didn’t fit the other listed categories (Hyett 2015). The listed food categories were determined based on the study of Van Doorn and Verhoef (2015) and Milkman, Rogers, and Bazerman (2010). Additionally, according to Van Doorn and Verhoef (2015) these food categories account for about 80% of all the food purchases by consumers in the Netherlands. The data about the quantity of food waste was classified into three subcategories, namely virtue (e.g. bread, dairy products or vegetables), vice (e.g. cookies, soft drinks or alcoholic drinks) and either (e.g. meat, pasta or coffee) based on the studies of Hui, Bradlow and Fader (2009), Van Doorn and Verhoef (2015) and Milkman, Rogers, and Bazerman (2010) (Hyett 2015).

A detailed overview of all the food categories is illustrated in ‘Table 2’.

Table 2

Detailed overview of the food categories in the subcategories

Subcategories Food categories

Virtue Dairy products, Soup, Juice, Fruit, Vegetables, Bread, Cereals, Eggs, Take-away food, Baby food

Vice Alcohol, Desserts, Soft drinks, Cheese, Chocolate, Cake, Sweets, Cookies, Crisps, Nuts

Neither Dressings/Toppings, Leftovers, Coffee/Tea, Chicken/Fish/Meat, Rice/Potatoes/Pasta

IV.1.2. Questionnaire

- 35 -

to the topic of this study, the questionnaire also measured respondents’ different motivations to eat healthy and their convenience food purchase frequency (Hyett 2015). For health motivations, respondents had to report their view on healthy eating on a seven point Likert scale, ‘1’ being ‘Strongly disagree’ and ‘7’ being ‘Strongly Agree’ on questions such as, ‘Because I feel that I want to take responsibility for my own health’ or ‘Because I would feel bad about myself if I did not eat a healthy diet’.

A selective overview of the relevant variables is illustrated in ‘Table 3’.

Table 3

Selective overview of the original scales used in the questionnaire

Question Variable Number

of items Example Source

1-8 Sociodemographics n.a. Age, Gender, Household size, Education, Income, e.g. Bos-Brouwers et al. (2013); Lyndhurst, Cox and Downing (2007); Silvennoinen et al. (2014)

17.

Frequency of eating out and ordering take-away

food

1

How many times on average per month, do you go out to eat or order food?

e.g. Lyndhurst, Cox and Downing (2007) 24.1-24.17 Frequency of buying convenience food 17

Indicate how often you buy the

following products: Pre-cut vegetables, canned fruit, frozen vegetables (lettuce, broccoli)

Hui, Bradlow and Fader (2009), Milkman, Rogers, and Bazerman (2010), Verhoef and Van Doorn (2015) 26.1-26.15. Motivation to eat healthy 15

Because I feel that I want to take responsibility for my own health. Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire (TSRQ) e.g., Ryan and Connell (1989); Levesque et al. (2007)

- 36 -

point scale ‘1’ being ‘Never’ and ‘5’ being ‘Every time I buy groceries’. The food categories were determined by the previous researchers and certain categories were merged in order to avoid having numerous sub-categories. The final dataset consists of 17 categories, in which participants indicated the frequency of their convenience food purchases (Hyett 2015). After computing the mean variable from all the scores of the respondents for the frequency of convenience food purchases, the descriptive statistics were examined. The minimum score among the participants was 1, whereas the maximum was 3.53, with a mean of 1.93 and a standard deviation of 0.539. The food categories are shown in ‘Table 4’, in their respective waste division, based on the study of Milkman, Rogers, and Bazerman (2010) and Hui, Bradlow and Fader (2009).

Table 4

Overview of the convenience food categories

Food Categories

Ready-made baby food; Meal packages; Main dish salads; Canned/Frozen/Pre-cut vegetables and fruits; Composite vegetable and fruit packages; Canned soup; Combined dairy products; Granola bars; Sliced bread/gingerbread; Pre-cut/Marinated fish and meat; Peeled/Mashed potatoes; Quick rice; Baking mixes; Frozen pizzas; Frozen snacks; Instant

snacks; Sauces and dressings; Ready-made meals for microwave, oven or pan

IV.2. Descriptives of the collected data

- 37 -

The respondents, who provided the data and were responsible for doing the groceries and preparing the meals in the household, were mostly female with a ratio of 87.7%. Focusing on the age of the respondents, 28.4% were younger than 31 years, 7.4% were between 31 and 40 years and 13.6% were between 41 and 50 years. The largest age group was between 51 and 60 years with 33.3%, whereas 17.3% of the respondents were older than 60 years. The average age in the sample was 46.8 years. Regarding education, the majority stated HBO as their highest completed education with 39.5%. Followed by the 25.9% of the respondents who completed MBO, 16% completed high school education, whereas 17.3% of the respondents have acquired at least a university degree. Additionally, 65.4% of the participants were employed, 12.3% were retired and 8.6% were students. In relation, 32.1% of the respondents worked less than 8 hours per week, 11.1% worked between 8 and 16 hours, the majority worked between 16 and 32 hours with 43.2% and finally 13.6% of the participants worked more than 32 hours per week. On average the number of working hours in the sample was 18.85.

Focusing on the monthly net income of the participating households, it can be derived from the data that 35.8% of them had an income lower than €2000. Moreover, 13.6% had an income between €2000 and €2999, 22.2% between €3000 and €3999 and finally, 11.1% of them had above €4000. There were also a large group (17.3%) who preferred not to report their monthly net income. Two person households were the largest group in the sample were represented by 34.6%, closely followed by single person households with 29.6%. Moreover, three person households had a ratio of 19.8% and finally 14.8% were four and five person households. Consequently, 17.3% of the households had one child, 16% had two children and only 2.5% had three children. The average persons per household in the sample was 2.23.

- 38 -

Table 5

Overview of the food waste in different divisions

Waste Division Waste in units (gram and ml)

Mean Minimum Maximum Std. Deviation Percentage of total food waste Virtue 107900 1332.10 0 8405 1523.90 50.77% Vice 23024 284.25 0 2245 499.38 10.83% Neither 81586 1007.23 0 6430 1357.46 38.39% Per Capita - 1358.97 0 9390 2701.29 - Total waste 212510 2623.58 0 13810 2701.29 100%