sustainability

Article
Less Is More: Preventing Household Food Waste through an
Integrated Mobile Application
Cynthia Castro 1 , Ekaterina Chitikova 1 , Giulia Magnani 1 , Julian Merkle 1 and Maxi Heitmayer 1,2, *

1 Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science,
London WC2A 2AE, UK
2 London College of Fashion, University of the Arts London, London WC1V 7EY, UK
* Correspondence: m.a.heitmayer@lse.ac.uk

Abstract: This paper proposes an intervention using personal Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs) to help consumers reduce household food waste. Across the global food-supply
chain, about one-third of all edible food is lost or wasted each year, and this issue is particularly
pressing in in the Global North. We present a detailed overview of consumer activity in relation
to household food waste using the Multilayered Installation Design Approach (MID). We trace
consumer activity along the acquisition, storage, consumption, and disposal stages and provide a
comprehensive set of recommendations on how to use personal ICTs to reduce household food waste
rooted in the extant empirical literature. We then develop a concept for an application that integrates
the full suite of potential avenues for intervention in one place.

Keywords: food sharing; food waste; installation theory; mobile application; MID; surplus food

1. Introduction
Across the global food-supply chain, approximately 1.3 billion tons of food are lost
or wasted each year. This is equivalent to one-third of all edible food being disposed of
Citation: Castro, C.; Chitikova, E.; across all stages from production to consumption [1]. In the Global South, the majority of
Magnani, G.; Merkle, J.; Heitmayer, food loss occurs on the production side due to a lack of efficient agricultural technology
M. Less Is More: Preventing and limited infrastructure [2]. In Western Europe and the US, however, the majority of
Household Food Waste through an food is wasted at the consumer level [1]. In fact, across countries in the European Union,
Integrated Mobile Application. households are the single largest contributor to food waste with over 50% of overall food
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597. waste originating there; on average 92 kg per capita per year [3]. This enormous waste of
https://doi.org/10.3390/ food commonly raises concerns at environmental, social, and economic levels. With the UN
su151310597 setting the aim to halve food waste and loss by 2030 as part of the Sustainable Development
Academic Editor: Flavio Boccia Goals [4], this not only raises concerns over the impacts of food waste, but over the very
feasibility of reaching such a vital goal. This paper will therefore focus specifically on food
Received: 23 May 2023 waste in developed countries, and more precisely on the optimization of matching supply
Revised: 22 June 2023
and demand in the last segment of the food chain, the consumer.
Accepted: 29 June 2023
There are significant challenges to solving the issue of household food waste in Europe,
Published: 5 July 2023
given that drivers of food waste are both conscious and unconscious and can be related to
factors ranging from the socio-economic, psychological, or demographic, amongst others [5].
At the same time, the process leading to waste is often spread across many actors and
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
frequently involves food that is close to its expiration date [5]. This means that waste can
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. occur because of a poor optimization of the food chain, e.g., by storing food for too long, or
This article is an open access article not matching supply with demand. Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs),
distributed under the terms and such as mobile applications, have great potential to reduce household food waste in urban
conditions of the Creative Commons areas given that they can be easily made available to a large proportion of consumers [6]
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// and optimise the distribution and use of foods across the food chain. The proliferation of
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ ICTs used for food consumption, whether in the form of platforms that enable easy and
4.0/). quick grocery shopping, takeaway food delivery, and delivery of pre-measured food in

Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310597 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597 2 of 18

recipe boxes in urban areas, suggests as well that many urban citizens are used to having
their food consumption mediated by ICTs.
In this paper, we analyse household food waste using Installation Theory [7] and
the MID approach [8]. We review literature gathered from Scopus, Web of Science, as
well as Google Scholar and news sources, and recommend ways in which ICTs can help
scaffold consumer behaviour to reduce waste. We use the term food waste to refer to
“food appropriate for human consumption being discarded or left to spoil at a consumer
level—regardless of the cause” [9]. It is distinct from food loss, which refers to waste
or losses earlier in the food supply chain [2]. The majority of consumer food waste is
generated within the household [10], which is why we focus exclusively on household food
waste. Even more specifically, we consider food waste generated within urban households
of young consumers living either alone or in a shared flat. Young adults aged between
18 and 34 tend to waste more food than older demographics [11] and are also more likely
to use ICTs [12], making them the ideal demographic for our analysis. Similarly, urban
areas are not only responsible for producing more food waste than other areas [11], they
also offer networks and collaborative opportunities for the sharing of food amongst its
members [13]. Considering that more than half of the world’s population currently lives
in cities [14], interventions and solutions in cities can contribute substantially to creating
more sustainable food systems.
This paper proceeds in the following way: First, we discuss the nature of food waste
and introduce our theoretical framework. We then present our problem analysis, segregate
household food waste into three distinct stages, and provide a detailed individual analysis
of these stages. Finally, we distil our insights into a single ‘ideal’ mobile application to
tackle household food waste, discuss the limitations of the work, and provide actionable
recommendations for implementation.

2. Literature Review
2.1. The Impact of Food Waste
The negative consequences of food waste are numerous and varied, but can broadly
be categorised into environmental, economic, and social impacts [11]. The impact of food
waste on the environment is twofold [15]. Firstly, the overproduction of food poses an
additional strain on scarce resources. The production of food requires resources such as land
and water and is also connected to the emission of greenhouse gases. Secondly, agriculture
is the largest consumer of water world-wide and as demand for food increases, the danger
of water scarcity increases as well [16]. Simultaneously, up to 15% of all greenhouse gases
are currently emitted due to food production [17]. Taken together with the trend of global
population rise—predictions assume the population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050 [14]—the
impact of the overproduction of food can be expected to intensify. It is to be noted here
that food consumption is still distributed highly unequally across the globe, with average
caloric supply per person in North America almost double of that in Africa in 2019 [18].
With higher levels of food supply, the potential for food waste increases as well. The
disposal of food waste in landfills additionally leads to greenhouse gas emissions and
thereby promotes climate change. As food degrades in landfills, it releases both methane
and carbon dioxide [19]. More so than carbon dioxide, methane is a key contributor
to the warming of the planet, as its impact on the climate over a period of 100 years is
34 times higher than that of an equivalent mass of carbon dioxide [20]. According to the
US Environmental Protection Agency, only 25% of methane from landfills is captured and
transformed into energy, whereas the rest is freely emitted into the atmosphere [21].
The social implications of food waste concern the problem of food insecurity. While,
globally, over 820 million people still do not have secure access to food, one-third of all
edible food is lost or wasted [22]. Food insecurity reaches the entire globe, affecting citizens
in both wealthy and poor countries, although to a different degree [22]. In some regions of
the African continent, up to 22.8% of the population is undernourished, while up to 8% of
people in North America and Europe do not have sufficient access to food [22]. Under these
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597 3 of 18

circumstances, any wastage of food is a waste of resources that could be invested to alleviate
food insecurity elsewhere. At the same time, the production of food that is not consumed
puts an additional strain on the global food supply chain and exacerbates the difficulty of
providing for a growing population, while possibly also increasing inequalities [15].
Finally, the economic dimension of the issue highlights food waste as a loss of economic
value. In this way, the economic dimension can serve to quantify the impact on the
environment, on society in general, and on the consumer as an individual. It will also
serve to frame the issue and to put the problem into perspective: The FAO estimates the
cumulative costs of food waste in the world to be around USD 12 trillion per year [23].

2.2. Drivers of Food Waste

Various drivers contribute to the continuous wastage of food. As our analysis focuses
on urban areas in developed countries, we shall sketch an overview of the main drivers
specific to these areas. Due to a decades-long increase in urbanisation, more citizens in
the Global North live in cities than in rural areas. In 2018, 82% of the North American
population and 74% of Europe lived in urban areas [14]. Most agricultural production,
however, occurs on farms in rural areas [15]. This physical distance and disconnect with
the location of food production has led to a psychological disconnect with the sources
of food and an increased lack of understanding of the labour and resources involved [2].
Particularly in the Global North, consumers’ lived realities are far away (both physically
and metaphorically) from the growing and processing of crops, animal husbandry, the
slaughtering of animals, and the processing of their meat; interactions with foodstuffs
here usually begin on the supermarket shelves, where items are washed, cleaned, and
mostly pre-processed.
Additionally, with an increase in income, dietary patterns have changed to include
more products with a short life span such as dairy, eggs, and meat and fewer starchy
products [16,24]. The consumption of food with shorter life spans is further linked to a
higher rate of food waste generation [16]. Lastly, the disconnect from food sources taken
together with an increase in the consumption of non-durable food products positions cities
as areas that are particularly vulnerable to an excessive wastage of food products [25].
A possible solution that has been put forward to tackle food waste in urban areas is
the use of ICT technologies such as laptops, smartphones, and IoT devices [6]. In particular,
the personal devices of users are a promising mediating tool to deliver interventions at the
point of behaviour. This paper, therefore, critically evaluates existing mobile applications
and provides a more comprehensive suggestion of a mobile app that can help urban
environments create more sustainable food systems.

2.3. Theoretical Framework for Analysis

Two main theoretical approaches have been previously used to understand the reasons
behind household food waste [26]. Psychology-oriented approaches have focused on
identifying the cognitive and interpersonal factors that lead consumers to waste food [27].
The theory of planned behaviour [28] for example, has been used to explain food waste in
terms of individual motivations and intentions [29]. Sociological approaches have instead
focused on the influence of societal and external factors [26]. Social practice theory can be
used to explain food waste as the product of household practices influenced by a wider
economic and social context [30].
While psychology-oriented theories offer insights into individual psychological mech-
anisms that account for food waste, they fail to explain why people’s intentions to prevent
food waste often do not manifest behaviourally [26]. On the other hand, social practice
theory allows for a clearer understanding of this intention–behaviour gap but lacks a
deeper explanation regarding the individual’s interaction with environmental cues [31,32].
Schanes and colleagues [26] note that a better comprehension of food-waste behaviour
stems from the integration of these two complementary views.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597 4 of 18

To analyse the consumer journeys that lead to unnecessary household food waste, as
well as to develop the proposed interventions, we will apply the Multilayered Installation-
Design approach (MID) [8]. Following MID, we use Activity theory [33] to trace the
individual journey of stakeholders in food practices, identifying potential issues and
defining the scope of our intervention. Activity theory (AT) understands human activity as
a goal-directed trajectory from a given initial situation to a consciously represented, future
state (goal). Attainment of the goal is driven by the internal motives of the individual that
finds satisfaction once the desired state is reached, and typically passes through several
subgoals that are achieved incrementally. This conceptualisation of activity is, therefore,
highly subject-centric and focuses on the individual perception and experience of action [8].
Installations are: “specific, local, societal setting[s], where humans are expected to
behave in a predictable way” [7] (p. 15). Each installation is seen as composed of three layers:
embodied competences (in the individual), material affordances (in the environment), and
social regulations (within society). These three layers act together to scaffold and make
human behaviour predictable within specific circumstances. The essence of any given
installation is the activity it supports, and which (in principle) is aligned with the goals of
its users [7].
Installation Theory as an analytical framework allows us to incorporate both psy-
chological and social practice perspectives, as it explains behaviour as resulting from
environmental, social, and individual factors. We use Installation Theory as an analytical
framework for two reasons: Firstly, it allows us to bridge a gap within the theoretical
literature, offering a more comprehensive understanding of food-waste behaviour, by high-
lighting not only the consumer’s intentions and practices, but also the material conditions
of their environment (affordances) and the social regulations that can intervene in the
determination of behaviour. Furthermore, Installation Theory is devised as a means to
produce behavioural change in real-world situations and is optimal for the identification of
real-world practical solutions. In this paper, we argue that ICTs, and mobile applications in
particular, can be seen as objects that contribute to the installation. They are brought in to
scaffold the behaviour of individuals first by extending and improving embodied compe-
tences. For example, a simple shopping list acts as an artificial extension of the individual’s
memory (cf. [34]). Second, the interface of an ICT can be analysed as a physical affordance
scaffolding certain behaviours. Lastly, social norms also apply in digital environments,
particularly when users interact with other users online [35], suggesting that the social
layer of installations can potentially be leveraged by mobile applications.

2.4. Research Gap: The Three Stages of Food Waste

Consumers interact with food items in various contexts and with various goals. Anal-
ysis is thus facilitated by segmenting household food waste into distinct stages. Several
taxonomies have already been proposed, each outlining a path from the point of purchase,
proceeding through consumption, and ending in the disposal of uneaten food [10]. Dif-
ferences in the models relate to whether certain specific activities, such as meal planning,
meal preparation, and storage are classified as distinct phases or not.
We chose to build on the commonalities of these three models and adopt a simple
three-stage sequence, composed of “Acquisition”, “Consumption”, and “Disposal” for our
own analysis. To facilitate analysis under Installation Theory, we conceived of each stage as
being defined by a central activity which tends to occur in a specific installation (although
exceptions exist). “Acquisition” is thus defined as the activity of selecting and purchasing
food for subsequent consumption, and the typical associated installation is the shop (in
cities, often supermarkets). “Consumption” contains the activity of preparing and eating
food that one already owns. “Disposal” includes activities in which consumers dispose of
food they own, which can include throwing it in the garbage, recycling it, or giving it to
someone else (see Table 1).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597 5 of 18

Table 1. The three stages of food waste used in our analysis. Each is associated with a central activity
that is scaffolded by an Installation in our analysis.

Stage Central Activity Relevant Installation

Acquisition Planning and Purchasing Food Supermarket
Consumption Preparing and Eating Food Kitchen
Disposal Disposing of Uneaten Food Kitchen

While meal planning and preparation are important, we will treat these activities as
part of Acquisition and Consumption, respectively, because they are directly instrumental
to the overarching activity. Storage will be discussed throughout the entire sequence as an
activity important for food waste at each stage.
In the following section, we will analyse typical user behaviours across the three
stages and identify challenges and opportunities along the way. The analysis will be
structured using the methodological lens of Installation Theory, shedding light on the
physical affordances, embodied competences, and social regulations relevant for each step.

3. Problem Analysis
3.1. Acquisition
In a modern setting, food for household consumption can be acquired in a variety
of different settings, including supermarkets, local farmer’s markets, and, increasingly,
online as well. Online grocery shopping still accounts for only a small fraction of household
food acquisition according to Saphores and Xu [36]. Their recent analysis of data from the
American Time Use survey indicates that in 2017, Americans were 24 times more likely to
buy groceries in a store compared with online. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, this
might have changed significantly. Reporting on consumer research conducted by for-profit
market research company Kantar, van Rompaey [37] reports that the share of fast-moving
consumer goods purchased online in 2021 had risen to 7.2% in the US and 6.9% in Europe.
In the end, while online grocery retail is an important part of managing food waste, we
focus on physical installations, as they still account for the vast majority of purchases.
Compared with other shopping locations, large supermarket chains are the biggest
drivers of food-waste behaviour in consumers [34]. At this stage, food waste typically
results from the over-purchasing of unneeded products, which are not consumed, and are
consequently disposed of [38]. Impulse buying, defined as a purchase decision made in-
store with no explicit recognition of a need for such a purchase prior to entry in the store [39],
is accountable for nearly 60% of overall purchases and leads to over-purchasing [40].
Impulse buying is consciously perceived by consumers as an unnecessary use of economic,
mental, and physical resources [41]; it is (often deliberately, with merchandising) fostered
by the affordances displayed in supermarket alleys. The supermarket was thus analysed as
the installation that leads to over-acquisition, and ultimately food waste.

3.1.1. Embodied Competences Related to Acquisition

Over-acquisition of products in the supermarket has been associated with poor plan-
ning skills as well as memory deficits in consumers [42]. Consumers are affected by the
planning fallacy [43], defined as the underestimation of how much time they will need to
complete a future task. In the context of food acquisition, consumers may underestimate
the time needed to prepare and eat any given meal, leading them to purchase more food
than they will be able to cook and consume before it expires [42].
In a supermarket, shoppers are also susceptible to the present bias [42], which refers to
consumers’ inclination to focus more strongly on pay-offs in the present than on trade-offs
that may occur in the future [44]. In practice, consumers may prefer to make use of in-store
promotions and select for variety, rather than purchase in line with planned consumption.
On top of this, consumers may systematically underestimate the occurrence of unpre-
dictable events and as-of-yet unplanned commitments, resulting in an overestimation of
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597 6 of 18

how many meals they will eat at home [42]. This is especially true for young consumers
who often get involved in last-minute eating out for sociability purposes. Lastly, given that
many consumers do not make use of a shopping list while in the supermarket [45], the
inability to recall one’s kitchen inventory typically leads to buying already stocked and
unnecessary items that go to waste [12].

3.1.2. Physical Affordances Related to Acquisition

Marketers have become increasingly aware of consumers’ susceptibility to impulse
buying and have been designing physical stores with the aim of eliciting these consumption
biases through the infrastructure’s physical properties [46]. Firstly, the overall architecture
and layout of supermarkets typically increase the amount of time that is spent shopping
there compared with other stores, such as smaller markets. This fosters over-acquisition
and, hence, food waste [47]. Studies have also shown that eye-level shelves [47], in-store
signage [48], and promotions [49] all increase the amount of sales by appealing to consumers
through attractive visual cues [47]. Supermarkets also increase the overconsumption of
food by displaying a wide variety of similar products (e.g., different flavours). This leads
to over-acquisition by eliciting the diversification bias: consumers are attracted to buying
products in bulk that contain variation, as they believe that in the future, they will want
different flavour choices [50]. This, however, often leads to the partial consumption of
goods, as buyers are more likely to consume their usual preferences, while disposing of
disliked and unneeded options [42].

3.1.3. Social Regulation Related to Acquisition

Social factors also influence purchases in the supermarket. Bevelander and colleagues [51]
demonstrated that the amount of healthy vs. unhealthy food purchased by shoppers was
proportional to the amount of healthy and unhealthy products purchased by a confederate,
showing how people’s purchasing choices partly result from social monitoring [51]. In
supermarkets, shoppers see other people filling massive caddies with food as example
behaviours; this is obviously not prone to encourage moderation. In sum, the abundance
of tempting products, the affordance of huge caddies or bags, the forced trajectories along
alleys full of “bargains”, and the example of other consumers pushing massive loads of
food all push to overconsumption. And, these installations are skilfully designed by expert
marketers and merchandisers precisely to maximise purchase.

3.1.4. ICT Solutions for the Acquisition Stage

Based on our analysis, an effective way to reduce food waste resulting from over-
purchasing at the acquisition stage is to counteract consumers’ cognitive biases and memory
deficits. Household inventory applications such as No Waste and Plus Fridge Pal can help
consumers keep track of needed and unneeded items when shopping at the supermarket.
Furthermore, these applications offer consumers a summary of their previous shopping
and consumption experiences, displaying the items that have been previously bought and
gone to waste, reducing the incidence of the present bias and planning fallacy, as well as the
diversification bias. A challenge associated with this approach is registering products and
their expiration dates into the app, as this potentially creates a large burden for consumers.
A barcode scanner or integration with online grocery delivery websites could remedy
this situation. Planning behaviour and quantity of food purchased can also be facilitated
through portion-ready food delivery services, such as Hello Fresh or close to expiry sale
apps like Too Good to Go, MyFoody, and FoodCloud. This allows consumers to choose from a
variety of different recipes online. Ingredients for these are then delivered to their homes in
the exact quantities required for cooking. Not only does this allow consumers to enjoy a
large selection of products, but it also allows individuals to shop from their homes, reducing
their susceptibility to over-purchase within the supermarket installation.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597 7 of 18

3.2. Consumption
During the consumption stage, consumers make decisions regarding preferred food
to eat, which ingredients to use, and the quantity to cook, serve, and eat [42]. Secondi
and colleagues note that most food waste “could have been eaten if it had been better
portioned, managed, stored and/or prepared” [11] (p. 3). An important part of this stage is
whether consumers choose to reuse leftovers after a meal, as doing so may be one of the
most effective ways of reducing household food waste [11]. We focus on the kitchen as
the general installation for preparing and eating a meal, while acknowledging that there
is a great variety between households. A family home, for example, usually has a shared
dining table, while student accommodation may not.

3.2.1. Embodied Competences Related to Consumption

Embodied interpretive systems such as experience, knowledge, and skills drive con-
sumer behaviour in the kitchen. Memory of items available in storage affects the decision
of what to eat or what ingredients to use when cooking. People can forget they have bought
ingredients in the past and let them expire [42]. Perhaps more importantly, consumers lack
the knowledge of how to use sensory skills (e.g., taste and smell) to interpret freshness of
food correctly [10], increasing fear of foodborne illness and, consequently, waste [11]. In a
large-scale diary and questionnaire study, Giordano and colleagues found that the most
common reason cited for disposing of food was that it was “spoiled” [52]. This reason
accounted for 45% of all waste in the study.
Similarly, Teng and colleagues identified a lack of knowledge around assessing edi-
bility as the most frequent barrier to food waste prevention in a Taiwanese sample [53].
Fear of spoiled food especially affects fish, meat, and dairy products, which have a large
environmental impact during their production and are thrown away more often compared
with other food items [54]. Lacking sensory skills to determine food freshness themselves,
many consumers rely on food labels such as “best by” dates. White and colleagues found
that eating food after the date displayed on the packaging was perceived to be dangerous,
even though in many cases there is no risk [55]. Some labels such as “sell by” are created
to suggest the date by which the store should stop offering the product. “Best by”, “best
before”, and “use by” are estimates of dates when the product will maintain its highest
quality [56]. This does not mean that the product is no longer safe to eat after this date [42].
Similarly, wrongful perceptions of health risks associated with eating leftovers influence
whether they are thrown away after a meal [34,57]. Hence, misunderstood food labels in
combination with a lack of food appraisal skills encourage people to dispose of edible food
too early [25]. While aversion to spoiled food accounts for the majority of food waste at
this stage, it should be noted that pure preference for novel and freshly prepared meals
also plays a significant role [52].
Beyond memory and appraisal, cooking skills also play an important role in food
waste. Unappealing leftover food can be transformed and seen as “fresh” again by a process
of rediscovery, re-evaluation, and preparation in the kitchen [58]. An illustrative example of
this is using leftover chicken bones to make a broth on the following day. Consistent with
this, cooking skills allow consumers to make better use of leftover ingredients, preventing
food waste [59]. Lastly, cooking competencies also help avoid burning food and cooking
excessive quantities that are then wasted [25].

3.2.2. Physical Affordances Related to Consumption

The amount of storage space, the size of the refrigerator, and the colour, size, and
material of plates used for servings and storage all influence consumption behaviour in the
kitchen [42]. Consumers may forget to consume items close to the expiration dates if newer
purchases are stored more visibly in their inventory [55].
While we found no research investigating the effect of cooking appliances on food
waste, we expect superior kitchen equipment to come with cooking competencies, which
in turn can decrease food waste [25]. Particularly, we expect that simply having access to
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597 8 of 18

durable and easy-to-use storage boxes (“Tupperware”) for leftover foods would increase
reuse, especially if there were easy systems for signalling dates of consumption.
Finally, the physical appearance of food items such as fruit and vegetables or dam-
aged packaging affects consumers’ decisions to dispose of them, even when still edible.
Consumers fear imperfect food might be unsafe to eat [55]. Notably, this mechanism also
affects food loss, since supermarkets often throw out “ugly” foods instead of displaying
them. A number of digital solutions have sprung up to tackle this problem (for example
OddBox—a vegetable delivery service that only ships “ugly” foods). While more research
is still required here, the popularity of such services suggests that aesthetic norms around
food have the potential to change.

3.2.3. Social Regulation Related to Consumption

The social composition of a household can have a big influence on food waste. In a
review of relevant national studies, Hebrok & Boks [60] found that families with children
produce less food waste per capita than other households (albeit more in absolute terms).
Furthermore, the lifestyles of younger consumers are more commonly characterised by
“pleasure, improvisation and social activity”, correlating with higher proportions of food
waste [60]. Thus, the role of the gatekeeper (see [61]), that is, the person who buys or
prepares food for the household, is crucial. Families tend to shop for and prepare meals
for the entire household. In flat shares, individuals usually shop for and prepare food
independently, but there is the opportunity for shared shopping, cooking, or pooling food
items to prepare a meal. Single-person households are the least well posed to share or pool
resources when it comes to the acquisition and preparation of food.
Social conventions, social representations, and culture constitute another layer that
influences behaviour in the consumption stage both directly and indirectly. In a qualitative
study of 15 UK households, Graham-Rowe and colleagues identified “good provider”
norms as a significant barrier to minimising food items [62].
People want to avoid feelings of guilt or failure to meet others’ expectations of what it
means to be a good host or provider, leading them to over-prepare meals, serve excessively
big portions, and avoid properly storing leftovers while guests are present [62]. Such norms
can also encourage obesity and/or waste, particularly when parents aim to satisfy their
children instead of focusing on a balanced diet [63]. Building on this work, a survey of
643 consumers in Australia and Singapore found that good provider norms suppressed
intentions of avoiding food waste in Australia, but not in Singapore, possibly due to the
higher emphasis placed on thrift in the latter country’s culture [64].
While ‘good provider’ norms can drive food waste by increasing the amount of food
prepared by the cook, other social norms influence eating behaviours in the guests or
consumers. In a cross-cultural qualitative study of Czech and French restaurant guests,
a large attitude–behaviour gap was found, where most respondents reacted favourably
to the idea of asking for a ‘doggy bag’ with leftovers at the restaurant, yet very few had
ever done it themselves [65]. This gap was mainly explained in terms of social norms
around restaurant etiquette. More relevant to our chosen installation of the dining table
is the norm, shared in many cultures, of “finishing what one has started”—i.e., eating all
the food on one’s plate [66]. The relationship to food waste here is somewhat less clear.
On the one hand, someone who finishes their plate leaves less food that may be thrown
away. On the other hand, if I am already full, the rest of my food may be more usefully
eaten tomorrow, rather than overeating today. With this, it is important to bear in mind
that cultural norms around finishing plates can vary quite starkly, and finishing a plate
may be socially undesirable in particular contexts as it can be interpreted as gluttony or
signalling to the host that one has not yet had one’s fill (and thus drawing into question
their generosity).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597 9 of 18

3.2.4. ICT Solutions for the Consumption Stage

Food-waste behaviour at the consumption stage is associated with consumers’ aver-
sion to foodborne illness, lack of knowledge on how to interpret food freshness, and food
labels, memory deficits of inventory, and social norms. Creating solutions that facilitate ac-
cess to inventory, food appraisal and cooking skills, and storage competencies can support
consumers to reduce food waste in the kitchen installation.
Applications that offer consumers an overview of their inventories (such as NoWaste
and Plus Fridge Pal) can prevent food from being forgotten and left to expire. Such appli-
cations may also help interpret labels correctly and recognize the freshness of food, but
their success depends on how rigorously users perform product entry into their inven-
tory. Avoiding unsafe food recommendations and overreliance on the side of the users
(i.e., an app labelling an item as edible that has expired), as well as correctly accounting for
natural variations in produce will be a challenge. Additionally, mobile applications such as
Plant Jammer may suggest recipes to use up food which is soon to expire. These recipes can
also suggest the correct number of portions to prepare to avoid food waste. Lastly, apps can
be used to create social awareness about the impact of food waste, creating a social value
for sustainable behaviour. Within the context of leftovers, the above functionalities may
help reduce perceptions of health risks and distaste by displaying positive information
about the nutritional value of leftovers as well as recommending simple ways in which to
turn leftovers into another meal.

3.3. Disposal
Disposal occurs once consumers decide to not keep a certain food. Generally, individ-
uals are faced with the choice of throwing food in the garbage, recycling it (for example,
by composting), or giving it to another person. While composting serves to alleviate some
of the negative environmental consequences of food waste, it does not directly reduce
food waste itself and is thus not at the core of the intervention proposed in this paper.
The correlation between composting behaviour and food waste itself is also still poorly
understood. A study of food waste across the EU-27 countries found that individuals who
report sorting their waste also report significantly lower levels of food waste [11]. However,
there may also be backfire effects in play: 41% of a sample of US households reported that,
because they compost, they are not bothered by wasting food [45].
In this paper, we focus on food-sharing behaviours when it comes to disposal. Specif-
ically, we view the act of gifting leftovers to other people who may still eat them as a
disposal behaviour that may prevent food waste. Nonetheless, it is of course not difficult
to include composting in the app’s functionality at a later stage, for example by including
prompts when food items registered in the app are ready to be composted, how this should
be done, how the compost should be maintained, and so on.
The most relevant installation for disposal is the kitchen, although in the case of food
sharing, the relevant physical space can extend to include spaces where food is exchanged
between strangers, including digital spaces associated with such practices (e.g., [34]).

3.3.1. Embodied Competences Related to Disposal

Embodied competences needed for effective sharing of leftover foods are largely
identical to ones identified in Section 3.2.1. Identifying that food can be consumed requires
some of the embodied skills discussed, but beyond that, few additional competences have
been identified that enable food sharing with strangers. Social competencies are likely to
play a role, and prior social relations are an important enabling factor for food sharing [67].
It therefore stands to reason that strong interpersonal skills may influence food sharing.
All research identified for this study, however, analyses the issue from a social norms
perspective, and is therefore discussed in the following sections.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597 10 of 18

3.3.2. Physical Affordances Related to Disposal

Physical affordances relevant to food sharing are those that allow individuals to
access a social network where giving away food becomes possible and convenient. In a
comparison of rural and urban low-income environments in the US, Morton and colleagues
found that rural neighbourhoods are more likely to participate in reciprocal nonmarket
food exchanges—i.e., by giving food to family, friends, and neighbours [68]. Urban low-
income neighbourhoods, on the other hand, were more likely to access food through the
redistribution economy [68]. To fully analyse the physical affordances that separate urban
form rural contexts is beyond the scope of this paper, but it seems safe to assume that
rural neighbourhoods are structured to encourage more interaction with one’s neighbour,
which may encourage the sharing of surplus food and that which is close to expiry, while
urban environments rely more on digital technology and formally created solutions. This
strengthens our focus on using ICT to reduce food waste in urban environments.
While there is little research on the influence of the immediate physical environment
on food-sharing behaviour, there are a few obvious considerations. Firstly, the availability
of food-storage devices (e.g., Tupperware) is a practical limitation to food sharing. Certain
foods cannot be given away without a container, and consumers may be hesitant to give
away high-quality or expensive containers with the food, uncertain whether they will
receive them back. Secondly, in the context of sharing food with a predefined group (for
example, within the household or at work), the designation of specific places for shared
food is a likely enabler of more food-sharing behaviour. Having a “shared shelf” in a fridge
signals to others that the food can be taken, and may encourage people to leave leftovers
behind, rather than throw them out. Moreover, community fridges can further sharing
behaviours of perishable goods beyond the limitations of the household (see, e.g., [69] for
an early trial).
It should be noted that simply sharing food within a household does not automatically
reduce food waste. Environmental attitudes, household food-management skills, and
general attitudes towards collaboration are important mediating factors [70]. It is possible
that intentionally sharing food with persons outside the household is thus more effective,
since the receiving party is more likely to plan around consuming the food compared with
a household member simply finding food on a “shared shelf”.

3.3.3. Social Regulation Related to Disposal

Social norms surrounding leftovers can act as obstacles to food-sharing behaviours.
Some groups may see leftover food as “dirty” and even consider it shameful to reuse [67].
Specifically, once food has been designated as “waste” it becomes socially unacceptable to
consume it [71]. Similarly, qualitative research suggests that once food has been designated
as “waste” or “leftovers” it immediately becomes less appealing to consumers, which
contributes to an aversion to accepting food from strangers [58].
Lazell [67] found that in a UK university context, prior social relations between
students were crucial for enabling the trust necessary for sharing food. While Kniazeva and
Venkatesh [72] have argued that sharing food is associated with shared identity formation
and forming social relations, Lazell [67] found that in practice, the simple desire to share
food is not enough to justify forming social bonds strong enough to enable food-sharing
behaviour. Similarly, sharing food with neighbours and the wider community is likely to
depend on notions of common identity and trust shared with those individuals (cf. [34]).

3.3.4. ICT Solutions for the Disposal Stage

While the effect of composting on food waste is ambiguous, sharing food presents
a great opportunity to reduce food waste [34]. In an analysis of leftover and close-to-
expiration food-sharing platforms, Choi and colleagues established that such platforms
may benefit the end consumer as well as other economic stakeholders, such as the retailer
and the supplier, while reducing food waste [73]. Other applications re-integrate food
waste into the production cycle and use it to feed animals [74]. Available solutions aimed
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597 11 of 18

at household consumption include EquoEvento, FoodSharing.de, IFoodShare, LastMinuteSotto-

Casa, and S-Cambia Cibo. While highly informative for our intervention, these commercial
applications do not perfectly translate to the household case as they are mainly driven by
financial incentives for the various stakeholders. Our analysis suggests that to effectively
encourage food sharing among households, applications need to not only establish a digital
marketplace in which to exchange food, but must also alter the social norms surrounding
food waste and help build relationships between food sharers. In moving beyond the
household, establishing trust and social bonds between food sharers is especially important.
We see two main ways in which ICTs can achieve this. First is by leveraging insights
from Social Identity Theory [75] and creating a salient in-group identity, for example by
emphasising that food is being shared with members of the same local neighbourhood.
Secondly, trust can be created by allowing users to rate and review the digital profiles of
other food sharers [76]. Taken together, this may help overcome the barriers associated
with food sharing and even create new persistent relationships between agents committed
to reduce their food waste by sharing [77]. Table 2 provides a summary of the analysis
presented in this section.

Table 2. Different mechanisms of food waste and opportunities for ICT solutions.

Installation
Phase Mechanism Example ICT Opportunities Source
Component
Consumers underestimate time needed
Portion-Ready
Planning Fallacy for food preparation and thus plan for [42]
Food Delivery
more meals than they can make
Embodied In-store promotions factor more heavily
Competences Present Bias into decision making, compared with Shopping Lists [42]
planning for future commitments
Acquisition

Poor Memory Not using a shopping list, consumers buy Kitchen Inventory
[45]
of Inventory what they already own Management
Supermarket
Encouraging more time spent in the store Direct delivery [47]
Physical Layout
Physical Attractive Visual Cues Promotional signage ibid [47]
Affordances
Purchasing bulk items with
Diversification Bias ibid [50]
different flavours
Adjusting purchases towards observed
Social Regulation Social Monitoring ibid [51]
purchases of other shoppers
Poor Memory Forgetting what one has in the fridge Kitchen Inventory
[42]
of Inventory means one does not plan to use it Management
Sensory Skills to Interpret Smelling milk to determine if it has gone Guides to help consumers
[10]
Food Freshness off (rather than relying on the label) discern food freshness
Embodied Knowledge of Throwing out still-healthy food on the
Competences Explanation of food labels [25]
Food Labels ‘sell-by’ date
Perception of Overblown fear of eating some Guides to help discern
[34]
Health Risks out-of-date products food freshness
Consumption

More creative and consistent use Recipes and other

Cooking Skills [59]
of leftovers cooking help
Placing newer food items at the front of
Kitchen Inventory
Storage Space the fridge leads to forgetting older [55]
Management
purchases in the back
Physical
Affordances Serving Equipment Plate colour affects serving size Tips on how to serve food [42]
Better capabilities for reusing leftovers Tips on how to best prepare
Cooking Equipment [25]
(supporting cooking skills) food in recipes
Preparing too much food to be seen as a Nudging cooks to create
Good Provider Norms [62]
generous host appropriate portion sizes
Social
Regulations Awareness-raising
Cultural Values
Shame around reusing leftovers campaigns to encourage the [71]
Around Leftovers
reuse of leftovers
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597 12 of 18

Table 2. Cont.

Installation
Phase Mechanism Example ICT Opportunities Source
Component
Embodied Prior relationships enable Facilitating social
Interpersonal Skills [67]
Competences food-sharing behaviour interaction
Creating a new platform for
Urban Redistribution
Food-Sharing Platforms sharing food in [73]
Economies
Physical a local context
Disposal

Affordances Creating a new platform for

Shared Food Spaces Shared shelf in a communal fridge sharing food in [69]
a local context
Cultural Attitudes Reusing leftovers may be seen as a socially Signalling that leftover use
[67]
Social Towards Leftovers undesirable sign of poverty is virtuous
Regulations Rural neighbours are more likely to Enable new norms through
Food-Sharing Norms [68]
share food online community

4. The Problem Scope: Applying Activity Theory

Based on the solutions suggested at each food-waste stage, we have distilled a list of
14 key features with which mobile applications can help reduce food waste. We propose
condensing these 14 features into four major functionalities, which, when integrated into a
single mobile application, may scaffold consumer behaviour at each stage of food waste
to optimally reduce wasteful behaviour: (1) Inventory management, (2) Smart recipes,
(3) Food-sharing hub, (4) Portion-ready food delivery (see Table 3). This one-stop-shop
smartphone app sketches an ideal version of synergetic functionalities and integration
and is intended to illustrate how powerful and effective a smartphone-based intervention
focusing on food waste could be. In practice, it may not be possible to deliver the app in
its entirety, or it may be more convenient to deploy parts of its functionality in already
existing systems.

Table 3. Proposed functionalities for applications to reduce household food waste.

App Functionalities
Smart Inventory Smart Recipes Food-Sharing Hub Portion-Ready Food Delivery
Create grocery lists based on
past consumption and current Find recipes based on Order ingredients for specific
Manage common inventory
inventory; scan barcodes to inventories and meals to be delivered straight
for food shared within flat
automatically enter items into soon-to-expire food to the door
the system.
Access a digital marketplace
View information on how to
View information on how to Track leftovers and find to share leftovers with
store purchased
store purchased items correctly recipes for creative reuse members of the
items correctly
wider community
View information on when View information on when
Adjust recipes for ideal See and rate personal profiles
purchased items should actually purchased items should
portions for every user of other food sharers
be disposed actually be disposed
Have a clear overview of
available foods in the inventory
See statistics on past food waste,
including monetary and
environmental impact

4.1. Inventory Management

The ideal mobile application should allow users to log all food items in their inventory,
and to create smart grocery lists based on this information. Additionally, the ideal appli-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597 13 of 18

cation would present information for each food item on the grocery list, explaining how
to properly store the item and how to tell when it has gone off, as well as how frequently
this particular food has been wasted by the user in the past. Such functionality would
facilitate proper meal planning and help reduce over-purchasing in the supermarket, while
also preventing premature disposal due to ineffective storage or wrongful assessment of
food safety. The app would predict when certain food items are due to expire (for example,
based on information on food type and expiration date entered by the consumer) and alert
the user before this happens, so they can incorporate these ingredients in the next meal. By
also displaying historical data on food items thrown out in the past, we hope to further
raise awareness of the food (and money) wasted by consumers every week. Of course, the
success of this functionality depends on users actually logging their inventory. By allowing
users to make grocery lists within the application and adding any item which has been
ticked off that list directly to the inventory, we could reduce the effort connected with
tracking one’s inventory and capitalise on the habit of making grocery lists, which already
exists for many consumers [45]. Repositories of product barcodes or QR codes can also be
leveraged to facilitate product entry. Furthermore, the advancement of new technologies
and the development of smart fridges could automatically record the food items that users
have bought and stored within their kitchen, alleviating the effort on the user’s side.

4.2. Smart Recipes

Another important factor for preventing food waste is cooking capability [10]. Based
on the items on the inventory list that are about to expire, the ideal application would
suggest recipes for meals that can be prepared with the available ingredients as well as
suggest complementary items to buy, if necessary. This presents an excellent opportunity
to integrate existing recipe databases (e.g., BBC good food) into the functionality of the app.
This will not only increase functionality for users, as recipes can be tailored depending on
the number of servings, time available, and level of difficulty, but can also increase uptake
from existing users of the recipe databases, further encouraging sustainable behaviours. It
can also lead to utility for recipe websites, as more recipes focusing on using leftovers will
be created.
Overall, this will enable consumers with low cooking skills to use all the ingredients
they buy, in the correct amount, as well as avoid any cooking mistakes that may lead
to food waste. Additionally, the application would let the user log whether all of the
prepared food was eaten. If not, it could add the leftovers directly to the inventory list
and automatically suggest ways to use them in future meals. This would help consumers
to reappraise leftovers as desirable and avoid unnecessary waste at the consumption and
disposal stage [58].

4.3. Food-Sharing Hub

As discussed, food sharing has the potential to prevent a lot of food waste, but also
faces major challenges in overcoming social norms related to accepting leftover food from
strangers [67]. The ideal app should include a food-sharing hub which not only acts as a
marketplace for users to donate and pick up leftover food items (similarly to existing apps
Olio or Too good to Go), but also leverages existing social ties between regular food sharers.
We propose that it should have features both geared towards food sharing within the
household, as well as for the broader neighbourhood. Within a household, the food-sharing
hub would be linked to each user’s individual inventory list. Users should be able to
drag individual food items to a shared inventory list, notifying all cohabitants of the flat
share. To encourage food sharing outside the household, we suggest letting users set up
personal profiles with pictures and having others rate the quality of the food shared. While
this runs the risk of discouraging users from sharing food in the first place, we believe
transparent ratings to be an invaluable tool in fostering trust between strangers, which in
turn is necessary for food sharing [67]. Secondly, the app should emphasise that food is
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597 14 of 18

being shared with people in the neighbourhood, to further increase social cohesion and
trust between users.

4.4. Portion-Ready Food Delivery

Finally, we propose to integrate our mobile application with a portion-read food
delivery service such as Hello Fresh. Users would be able to plan meals for the upcoming
week and obtain the ingredients delivered directly to their door in the perfect quantities.
This feature would allow consumers to overcome the diversification bias in the supermarket,
as they would be offered a wide range of choices daily and would be equipped with the
necessary tools and information needed to correctly prepare meals. The fact that the
ingredients are portioned would also result in fewer leftovers which may be wasted.
Ideally, this function could be integrated with the other three functionalities. Meals
could be suggested based on food items already found in the inventory. Once the ingredi-
ents for the planned meal arrive, they could also be added to the inventory automatically,
and the matching recipe activated.

5. Discussion and Limitations

Throughout this paper, we identified sources of food waste within urban households
of young consumers. Using Installation Theory, we discussed the physical affordances,
embodied competences, and social regulations that influence consumers throughout the
process of acquisition, consumption, and disposal of food. We focused our analysis on
the supermarket and kitchen, considering these as the most important installations where
these processes tend to occur.
Based on the analysis, we proposed an ideal mobile application that can help reduce
food waste by scaffolding relevant behaviour. This ideal app is built around four key
functionalities: (1) A comprehensive inventory management system, (2) a smart recipe
generator, (3) a food-sharing hub, and (4) a portion-ready food delivery service. The app
aims to reduce food waste that is dependent on the final user. Through its smart inventory
system, it enables users to keep track of the items they buy and store, enabling them to make
informed purchasing decisions at the supermarket based on other ingredients they already
have as well as their past cooking and consuming behaviours, resulting in fewer impulsive
purchases that ultimately lead to waste. Further, through its smart recipe function, it also
guides users in the process of cooking with the ingredients they have, maximising their
existing food ingredients, and minimising new food purchases. The introduction of a
food-sharing hub further reduces food waste at the wider household level by leveraging
social ties and enabling members of a community to exchange needed food items without
having to engage in new wasteful food purchases. Finally, integrating a portion-ready food
delivery system would facilitate the reduction of food waste at all phases, as it would allow
ultimate users to purchase strictly necessary ingredients, as well as cook with these in an
efficient manner, reducing disposal overall.
Possibly the most important limitation of our solution is that it depends almost entirely
on consumers’ willingness to use the mobile application. Real-world ICT solutions face the
threefold challenge of beneficially scaffolding user behaviour while encouraging enough
individuals to regularly use the application and somehow being financially sustainable. We
have here only considered the first of these three challenges. In this regard, it will also be
important to take into account people’s diverse engagement with ICTs [78], particularly in
relation to food-related behaviours [79], and the interaction between devices [80]. Similarly,
issues of data sharing and privacy may become relevant.
Secondly, while we have identified key behaviours that contribute to household food
waste, counteracting them is not necessarily guaranteed to reduce total food waste. Treated
in isolation, some measures may only displace food wasted. For example, by cooking
smaller portions at each meal, one may waste fewer leftovers, but end up with more raw
ingredients which spoil in the fridge. Any kind of reduction in household food waste
needs to eventually translate into a reduction in food acquisition by the household. And
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597 15 of 18

even then, saved food may still be wasted earlier in the supply chain, for example because
supermarkets keep ordering the same amounts.
Thirdly, household composition and living arrangements more generally are a signifi-
cant influence on how people shop and what opportunities for food sharing are available
to them, but we have so far only discussed the influence of the gatekeeper who does the
shopping and cooking for the household. The effectiveness of interventions aimed at social
regulation, for example, may be lower in single-occupancy households. Similarly, tech-
nological solutions require seamless integration in households where foodstuff is bought
and consumed by multiple people. It will thus be crucial to investigate the efficacy of ICT
solutions aimed at reducing household waste in embedded, in situ investigations that can
document the complexities, opportunities, and shortcomings of these solutions as they
emerge naturally. Moreover, aggregate-level data on ICT-based solutions to reduce food
waste needs to be collated to understand take-up, user profiles, and usage behaviours, both
to increase user numbers and to better tailor solutions towards existing users.
Ciaghi & Villafiora [6] have commented on the inherent difficulty of saving food at the
household level—due to the food items being kept in small quantities and very close to
their expiration date. It is thus worth taking a step back to locate the technological solution
offered in this paper in the wider political, social, and economic context of food waste.
We agree that it will not be possible for a single mobile application to tackle household
food waste on its own, but see it as a starting point in facing a problem that requires many
different approaches being enacted in parallel.

6. Conclusions
With a growing global population and food production set to be affected by progress-
ing global warming, household food waste is a big issue to be tackled at the systemic level
and the individual level. This is particularly pressing in developed countries with 92 kg
of food wastage per head per year in the EU, for example [3]. This paper proposes an
intervention using personal ICTs to help consumers reduce household food waste during
food acquisition, consumption, and disposal. Based on a detailed analysis of consumer
activity, we provide a set of recommendations rooted in the extant empirical literature and
aimed at improving processes in the physical space, developing personal competences
of users, as well as updating social and cultural norms. These ideas are leveraged in the
sketch of a prototypical, integrated mobile application that combines the insights from our
analysis and delivers them directly to the user. This combined, holistic approach offers
a promising route for individuals and social groups to reduce the amount of household
food waste they produce and their ecological impact. Future research should develop
and prototype the application functionalities proposed in this paper. For the policy and
stakeholder levels, this paper serves as a work-in-progress and comprehensive review of
opportunities for consumer-based action interventions to reduce household food waste.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.C., E.C., G.M. and J.M.; methodology, C.C., E.C., G.M.,
J.M. and M.H.; investigation, C.C., E.C., G.M. and J.M.; writing—original draft preparation, C.C., E.C.,
G.M. and J.M.; writing—review and editing, C.C., E.C., G.M., J.M. and M.H.; visualization, C.C., E.C.,
G.M., J.M. and M.H.; supervision, M.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597 16 of 18

References
1. Gustavsson, J.; Cederberg, C.; Sonesson, U.; Van Otterdijk, R.; Meybeck, A. Global Food Losses and Food Waste; FAO: Rome,
Italy, 2018.
2. Parfitt, J.; Barthel, M.; Macnaughton, S. Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 3065–3081. [CrossRef]
3. Stenmarck, A.; Jensen, C.; Quested, T.; Moates, G. Fusions. Estimates of European food waste levels. In European Community
Seventh Framework Programme Grant Agreement No. 311972; Swedish Environmental Research Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2018.
4. United Nations, General Assembly. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. J. Public Health
Policy 2018, 37, 13–31.
5. Principato, L.; Di Leo, A.; Mattia, G.; Pratesi, C.A. The next step in sustainable dining: The restaurant food waste map for the
management of food waste. Ital. J. Mark. 2021, 189–207. [CrossRef]
6. Ciaghi, A.; Villafiorita, A. Beyond food sharing: Supporting food waste reduction with ICTs. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE
International Smart Cities Conference, Trento, Italy, 12–15 September 2016; pp. 1–6.
7. Lahlou, S. Installation Theory: The Societal Construction and Regulation of Behaviour; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK,
2017; ISBN 9781316480922.
8. Lahlou, S.; Heitmayer, M.; Pea, R.; Russell, M.G.; Schimmelpfennig, R.; Yamin, P.; Dawes, A.P.; Babcock, B.; Kamiya, K.; Krejci, K.;
et al. Multilayered Installation Design: A framework for analysis and design of complex social events, illustrated by an analysis
of virtual conferencing. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2022, 6, 100310. [CrossRef]
9. HLPE. Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. In A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food
Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security; HLPE: Rome, Italy, 2014.
10. Principato, L. Food Waste at Consumer Level: A Comprehensive Literature Review; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018.
11. Secondi, L.; Principato, L.; Laureti, T. Household food waste behaviour in EU-27 countries: A multilevel analysis. Food Policy
2015, 56, 25–40. [CrossRef]
12. Kubiatko, M. The Comparison of Different Age Groups on the Attitudes toward and the Use of ICT. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 2013,
13, 4–6.
13. Davies, A.; Evans, D. Urban food sharing: Emerging geographies of production, consumption and exchange. Geoforum 2019,
99, 154–159. [CrossRef]
14. United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019). World Population Prospects. 2019.
ST/ESA/SER.A/423. Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/publications/files/wpp2019_highlights.pdf (accessed
on 24 April 2023).
15. Thyberg, K.L.; Tonjes, D.J. Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2016, 106, 110–123. [CrossRef]
16. Lundqvist, J.; de Fraiture, C.; Molden, D. Saving Water: From Field to Fork: Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain; Stockholm
International Water Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2018.
17. Godfray, H.C.J.; Garnett, T. Food security and sustainable intensification. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2014, 369, 201–202.
[CrossRef]
18. Roser, M.; Ritchie, H.; Rosado, P. Food Supply. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/food-supply (accessed on
24 April 2023).
19. Levis, J.W.; Barlaz, M.A. Is biodegradability a desirable attribute for discarded solid waste? Perspectives from a national landfill
greenhouse gas inventory model. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 5470–5476. [CrossRef]
20. IPCC Climate Change 2013. The Physical Science Basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Stocker, T.F.D., Qin, G.K., Plattner, M., Tignor, S.K., Allen, J., Boschung, A., Nauels, Y.,
Xia, V., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013.
21. USEPA. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2009; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC,
USA, 2011.
22. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture. In Moving Forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019.
23. World Economic Forum. Incentivising Food Systems Transformation. Available online: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/
WEF_Incentivizing_Food_Systems_Transformation.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2023).
24. Bennett, M.K. Wheat Studies of the Food Research Institute; Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA, 1941.
25. Mondéjar-Jiménez, J.; Ferrari, G.; Secondi, L.; Principato, L. From the table to waste: An exploratory study on behaviour towards
food waste of Spanish and Italian youths. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 138, 8–18. [CrossRef]
26. Schanes, K.; Dobernig, K.; Gözet, B. Food waste matters—A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy
implications. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 978–991. [CrossRef]
27. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol.
2009, 29, 309–317. [CrossRef]
28. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
29. Graham-Rowe, E.; Jessop, D.C.; Sparks, P. Predicting household food waste reduction using an extended theory of planned
behaviour. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 101, 194–202. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597 17 of 18

30. Southerton, D.; Yates, L. Exploring Food Waste through the Lens of Social Practice Theories. Waste Manag. Sustain. Consum. 2018,
149, 133–149.
31. Evans, D. Beyond the throwaway society: Ordinary domestic practice and a sociological approach to household food waste.
Sociology 2011, 46, 41–56. [CrossRef]
32. Evans, D. Blaming the consumer once again: The social and material con- texts of everyday food waste practices in some English
households. Crit. Public Health 2011, 21, 429–440. [CrossRef]
33. Nosulenko, V.N.; Barabanshikov, V.A.; Brushlinsky, A.V.; Rabardel, P. Man–technology interaction: Some of the Russian
approaches. Theor. Issues Ergon. 2005, 6, 359–383. [CrossRef]
34. Farr-Wharton, G.; Choi, J.H.J.; Foth, M. Food talks back: Exploring the role of mobile applications in reducing domestic food
wastage. In Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures: The Future of
Design, New York, NY, USA, 21–26 December 2018; pp. 352–361.
35. Major, A.M. Norm origin and development in cyberspace: Models of cyber-norm evolution. Wash. Univ. Law Q 2000, 78, 59.
36. Saphores, J.D.; Xu, L. E-shopping changes and the state of E-grocery shopping in the US-Evidence from national travel and time
use surveys. Res. Transp. Econ. 2021, 87, 100864. [CrossRef]
37. Van Rompaey, S. Online Now Accounts for 7.2% of Grocery Market Share. Available online: https://www.retaildetail.eu/news/
food/online-groceries-now-account-for-7-2-market-share/ (accessed on 24 April 2023).
38. Mallinson, L.J.; Russell, J.M.; Barker, M.E. Attitudes and behaviour towards convenience food and food waste in the United
Kingdom. Appetite 2016, 103, 17–28. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Kollat, D.T.; Willett, R.P. Customer impulse purchasing behavior. J. Mark. Res. 1967, 4, 21–31. [CrossRef]
40. Mattila, A.S.; Wirtz, J. The role of store environmental stimulation and social factors on impulse purchasing. J. Serv. Mark. 2008,
22, 562–567. [CrossRef]
41. Stern, H. The significance of impulse buying today. J. Mark. 1962, 26, 59–62. [CrossRef]
42. Block, L.G.; Keller, P.A.; Vallen, B.; Williamson, S.; Birau, M.M.; Grinstein, A.; Tangari, A.H. The squander sequence: Understand-
ing food waste at each stage of the consumer decision-making process. J. Public Policy Mark. 2018, 35, 292–304. [CrossRef]
43. Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. Intuitive Prediction: Biases and Corrective Procedures. TIMS Stud. Manag. Sci. 1977, 12, 313–327.
44. O’Donoghue, T.; Rabin, M. Doing it now or later. Am. Econ. Rev. 1999, 89, 103–124. [CrossRef]
45. Neff, R.A.; Spiker, M.L.; Truant, P.L. Wasted Food: U.S. Consumers’ Reported Awareness, Attitudes, and Behaviors. PLoS ONE
2015, 10, e0127881. [CrossRef]
46. Lee, K.C. Grocery shopping, food waste, and the retail landscape of cities: The case of Seoul. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 325–334.
[CrossRef]
47. Abratt, R.; Goodey, S.D. Unplanned buying and in-store stimuli in supermarkets. Manag. Decis. Econ. 1990, 11, 111–121.
[CrossRef]
48. Woodside, A.G.; Waddle, G.L. Sales effects of in-store advertising. J. Advert. Res. 1975, 15, 29–33.
49. Wilkinson, J.B.; Mason, J.B.; Paksoy, C.H. Assessing the impact of short-term supermarket strategy variables. J. Mark. Res. 1982,
19, 72–86. [CrossRef]
50. Read, D.; Loewenstein, G. Diversification bias: Explaining the discrepancy in variety seeking between combined and separated
choices. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 1995, 1, 34. [CrossRef]
51. Bevelander, K.E.; Anschütz, D.J.; Engels, R.C. Social modeling of food purchases at supermarkets in teenage girls. Appetite 2011,
57, 99–104. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Giordano, C.; Alboni, F.; Falasconi, L. Quantities, determinants, and awareness of households’ food waste in Italy: A comparison
between diary and questionnaires quantities. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3381. [CrossRef]
53. Teng, C.C.; Chih, C.; Yang, W.J.; Chien, C.H. Determinants and Prevention Strategies for Household Food Waste: An Exploratory
Study in Taiwan. Foods 2021, 10, 2331. [CrossRef]
54. Ghinea, C.; Ghiuta, O.A. Household food waste generation: Young consumers behaviour, habits and attitudes. Int. J. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2019, 16, 2185–2200. [CrossRef]
55. White, K.; Lily, L.; Darren, W.D.; Robin, J.B.R. When do consumers avoid imperfections? Superficial packaging damage as a
contamination cue. J. Mark. Res. 2016, 53, 110–123. [CrossRef]
56. Terpstra, M.J.; Steenbekkers, L.P.A.; de Maertelaere, N.C.M.; Nijhuis, S. Food storage and disposal: Consumer practices and
knowledge. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 526–533. [CrossRef]
57. Visschers, V.H.M.; Wickli, N.; Siegrist, M. Sorting out food waste behaviour: A survey on the motivators and barriers of
self-reported amounts of food waste in households. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 66–78. [CrossRef]
58. Cappellini, B. The sacrifice of re-use: The travels of leftovers and family relations. J. Consum. Behav. 2009, 8, 365–375. [CrossRef]
59. Lyndhurst, B. Food Behaviour Consumer Research-Findings from the Quantitative Survey. 2009. RWM005-001. Available
online: https://wrap.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-12/Food-behaviour-consumer-research-quantitative-phase.pdf (accessed
on 24 April 2023).
60. Hebrok, M.; Boks, C. Household food waste: Drivers and potential intervention points for design—An extensive review. J. Clean.
Prod. 2017, 151, 380–392. [CrossRef]
61. Lewin, K. Forces Behind Food Habits and Methods of Change. In National Research Council. The Problem of Changing Food Habits:
Report of the Committee on Food Habits 1941–1943; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1943.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10597 18 of 18

62. Graham-Rowe, E.; Jessop, D.C.; Sparks, P. Identifying motivations and barriers to minimising household food waste. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 84, 15–23. [CrossRef]
63. Rigal, N.; Champel, C.; Hébel, P.; Lahlou, S. Food portion at ages 8–11 and obesogeny: The amount of food given to children
varies with the mother’s education and the child’s appetite arousal. Soc. Sci Med. 2019, 228, 111–116. [CrossRef]
64. Wang, P.; McCarthy, B.; Kapetanaki, A.B. To be ethical or to be good? The impact of ‘Good Provider’ and moral norms on food
waste decisions in two countries. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2021, 69, 102300. [CrossRef]
65. Sirieix, L.; Lála, J.; Kocmanová, K. Understanding the antecedents of consumers’ attitudes towards doggy bags in restaurants:
Concern about food waste, culture, norms and emotions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 34, 153–158. [CrossRef]
66. Aronsson, K.; Gottzén, L. Generational positions at a family dinner: Food morality and social order. Lang. Soc. 2011, 40, 405–426.
[CrossRef]
67. Lazell, J. Consumer food waste behaviour in universities: Sharing as a means of prevention. J. Consum. Behav. 2016, 15, 430–439.
[CrossRef]
68. Morton, L.W.; Bitto, E.A.; Oakland, M.J.; Sand, M. Accessing food resources: Rural and urban patterns of giving and getting food.
Agric. Hum. Values 2008, 25, 107–119. [CrossRef]
69. Hubbub. The Community Fridge Initiative. Available online: www.hubbub.org.uk (accessed on 24 April 2023).
70. Morone, P.; Falcone, P.M.; Imbert, E.; Morone, A. Does food sharing lead to food waste reduction? An experimental analysis to
assess challenges and opportunities of a new consumption model. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 185, 749–760. [CrossRef]
71. Nguyen, H.P.; Chen, S.; Mukherjee, S. Reverse stigma in the Freegan community. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1877–1884. [CrossRef]
72. Kniazeva, M.; Venkatesh, A. Food for thought: A study of food consumption in postmodern US culture. J. Consum. Behav. 2007,
6, 419–435. [CrossRef]
73. Choi, T.M.; Guo, S.; Liu, N.; Shi, X. Values of food leftover sharing platforms in the sharing economy. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019,
213, 23–31. [CrossRef]
74. The Socioscope. Available online: https://thesocioscope.org (accessed on 24 April 2023).
75. Turner, J.C.; Brown, R.J.; Tajfel, H. Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1979,
9, 187–204. [CrossRef]
76. Sparks, B.A.; Browning, V. The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions and perception of trust. Tour. Manag. 2011,
32, 1310–1323. [CrossRef]
77. Harvey, J.; Smith, A.; Goulding, J.; Branco Illodo, I. Food sharing, redistribution, and waste reduction via mobile applications:
A social network analysis. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2019, 88, 437–448. [CrossRef]
78. Heitmayer, M.; Lahlou, S. Why Are Smartphones Disruptive? An Empirical Study of Smartphone Use in Real-Life Contexts.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 116, 106637. [CrossRef]
79. Engelbutzeder, P.; Randell, D.; Landwehr, M.; Aal, K.; Stevens, G.; Wulf, V. From surplus and scarcity towards abundance:
Understanding the use of ICT in food resource sharing practices: “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to
fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.”—Lao Tsu. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 2023. [CrossRef]
80. Heitmayer, M. Patterns of multi-device use with the smartphone. A video-ethnographic study of young adults’ multi-device use
with smartphones in naturally occurring contexts. Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep. 2022, 8, 100244. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.