The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 26 of the 66 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage?
Open accessAbstract
The 2019-2020 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a public health issue. Lockdown is among options suggested to reduce spread of the virus. This study aimed to determining the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on Tunisian consumer awareness, attitudes and behaviors related to food wastage. An online survey was conducted during the first 2 weeks of COVID-19 lockdown. The survey collected information on demographic data, awareness and attitudes toward food waste, food purchase behavior and household food expenditure estimation; extent of household food waste; willingness and information needs to reduce food waste. This study included 284 respondents. About 89% of respondents claimed to be aware of food waste, and the COVID-19 lockdown would impact for 93% of respondents, their waste levels, and for 80%, their grocery shopping habits. Interestingly, the COVID-19 lockdown improved food shopping performances and pushed toward a positive behavioral change regarding food wastage: 85% respondents declared nothing of what they bought would be discarded, and most of the respondents have set up a strategy of saving, storing and eating leftovers. The most cited reasons given for discarding food were overcooking, inappropriate storage and overbuying. Consumers' changes in food waste prevention might be probably driven more by the socioeconomical context of the COVID-19 lockdown (i.e. food availability, restricted movements, loss of income), than by a pro-environmental concern. Finally, our study pointed out the consumers' needs of information for taking further action. In conclusion, our study can constitute a basis to further promote household food waste prevention behavior, outlasting the COVID-19 crisis.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This online survey of 284 Tunisian consumers during the first two weeks of COVID-19 lockdown examined how confinement affected household food waste awareness and practices. It reports that most respondents said lockdown changed their waste levels and shopping habits, with many adopting saving, storage, and leftover-eating strategies, though the authors attribute these shifts mainly to socioeconomic pressures rather than environmental concern.
Key findings
- 89% of respondents said they were aware of food waste; 93% said lockdown would affect their waste levels, and 80% said it changed their grocery shopping habits.
- 85% stated that none of the food they bought would be discarded; 58% usually discarded a low share of purchased food, 29.7% none, 8.2% a reasonable amount, and 3.9% too much.
- For uneaten food, 54% ate it the next day, 18% gave it to domestic animals, 13% froze it, 3% donated it, 1% composted it, and 10% discarded it. The most cited reasons for discarding food were overcooking (35%), long refrigerator storage (30%), and overbuying (10%).
- 48% were ready to change their food-waste behavior, 24% said they probably would, 27% said they already did what they could, and 1% would do nothing; 24% wanted information on environmental impacts and 10% on economic impacts, while 25% did not know what they needed.
Methods
- A self-administered online questionnaire in French was conducted in Tunisia from March 24 to April 7, 2020, covering the first two weeks of COVID-19 lockdown. It had 23 single- and multiple-choice questions across six sections plus sociodemographic items; recruitment was voluntary via institutional websites, social media, and email, and pupils/students living with parents were excluded.
- The study included 284 respondents: 72% women, 54% in households with more than four members, 77% professionally active, and 96% highly educated.
- Analysis used frequency counts and percentages in Microsoft Excel, with chi-square tests of independence in GraphPad Prism version 8 and significance set at p < 0.05; survey weights were applied in chi-square analyses.
Limitations
- Stated: the non-probabilistic voluntary online sample cannot represent the adult Tunisian population; online surveys exclude people without internet or comfort with technology, such as low-income, less educated, or elderly individuals, and do not allow in-depth analysis.
- Stated: self-reported waste levels are likely underreported while efforts are overreported, and the food-category waste estimates should be interpreted cautiously; the authors recommend qualitative follow-up.
- Evident: the design relies on self-report and future intentions rather than objective waste measurement, and the sample’s skew toward women, educated, and professionally active respondents limits generalizability.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
61 Own result · 16 Sources not found · 15 Own interpretation · 8 Supported · 7 Partly supported · 7 No full text of the sources · 5 Not checked yet · 3 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Based on previous studies on consumers' behaviors (Neff et al. 2015; Qi and Roe 2016; van Geffen et al. 2020), food waste prevention during COVID-19 crisis can be thus more associated with direct personal benefits than to pro-environmental concern.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Quantity of food wasted and extent of household food waste during COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Neff et al. 2015 source
The Discussion reports that saving money topped U.S. respondents’ motivations for reducing food discards, while environmental concerns ranked last. This supports the prior-consumer-behavior finding for which Neff et al. is cited; the COVID-19 application is the citing authors’ inference. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites Qi and Roe 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In Results > Principal Components Analysis (page not provided), the paper examines perceived personal benefits of wasting food, such as saving time and reducing foodborne-illness risk—not direct benefits of preventing waste. Results > Attitudes and Opinions (page not provided) finds that general guilt about food waste exceeds specific environmental concern. It does not compare personal benefits with environmental concern as motivations for prevention, and its pre-pandemic survey does not address behavior during COVID-19. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Partly supportedcites van Geffen et al. 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The review’s “Problem awareness” section says awareness of the economic costs of food waste is often more important and prevalent than awareness of its social or environmental consequences. That supports the comparison between personal benefits and environmental concern, but the cited paper does not address food waste prevention during the COVID-19 crisis. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The motivation could be based on food availability (Hall et al. 2009) and economical problem, rather than an environmental concern (Neff et al. 2015; Qi and Roe 2016).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Food purchase and preparation behaviors and attitudes toward COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Hall et al. 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page not provided) links concern about food shortages to food prices, supporting a possible food-availability concern. It also says food waste had received little discussion; it does not establish that food availability motivated increased awareness of food waste. The economic and environmental comparison is attached to other citations, not Hall et al. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Supportedcites Neff et al. 2015 source
The Results (Attitudes and Motivations) identify saving money as the most important reported motivation for reducing food discards. The Discussion says environmental concerns ranked last and suggests budget-focused messages may resonate more with American consumers. The citing sentence attaches Hall et al. to food availability, so that part is not attributed to Neff et al. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Partly supportedcites Qi and Roe 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Attitudes and Opinions; page unavailable) show that general guilt about food waste exceeded environmental concern, supporting the possibility of non-environmental motivations. But the paper does not show economic concerns outweighing environmental ones: 42.1% agreed that food waste wastes money, compared with 58.4% who agreed it is bad for the environment. The food-availability portion is cited to Hall et al., not Qi and Roe. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Giordano et al. (2019) have established a negative impact of frequency of grocery shopping on household food waste quantities.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Food purchase and preparation behaviors and attitudes toward COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Giordano et al. (2019) source
The “Frequency of grocery shopping” section reports that households shopping less frequently had significantly more food waste than those shopping more frequently. This supports the claimed negative relationship between shopping frequency and household food waste quantities. (LLM, conf=0.93)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“These behaviors are known to control the level of domestic food waste (van Geffen et al. 2020).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Quantity of food wasted and extent of household food waste during COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Supportedcites van Geffen et al. 2020 source
In “Behaviours Leading to Food Waste,” the review links adequate storing practices to lower household food waste and says saving and eating leftovers lead to less waste. It also states that these behaviours influence food-waste levels at home. (LLM, conf=0.94)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In fact, planning has been shown to prevent overbuying and overcooking (van Geffen et al. 2020).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Quantity of food wasted and extent of household food waste during COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites van Geffen et al. 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Goal Striving: Abilities and Opportunities,” the review says planning can prevent overbuying and overcooking, but only when people accurately predict how much is needed. The claim omits that condition and states the effect more definitively than the passage does. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Statistical analysis also revealed a significant relation between reported efforts to control food waste levels and number of household occupants.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Awareness and attitude toward food wastage during COVID-19 lockdown
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Age and education increased significantly reported efforts to control food wastage during COVID-19 lockdown.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Awareness and attitude toward food wastage during COVID-19 lockdown
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the COVID-19 lockdown would impact for 93% of respondents, their waste levels”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“1.4% stated that they had an interest in the issue of food waste in the past, but now they do not care about it.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Awareness and attitude toward food wastage during COVID-19 lockdown
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and for 80%, their grocery shopping habits.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 26
- It may state two separate claims as one. 23
- Not yet classified. 9
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In order to further improve the panel’s representativeness, survey weights were applied and used in all Chi-square analyses (Neff et al. 2015).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Neff et al. 2015 source
The Results section states that survey weights were applied to improve the sample’s representativeness and used in all analyses, which includes the chi-square analyses reported immediately afterward. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Hall et al. (2009) have shown that food waste is positively correlated with food availability.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Awareness and attitude toward food wastage during COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hall et al. (2009) source
The Introduction describes a progressive increase in per-capita US food supply, and the Results (Figure 1C–D) report a concurrent increase in estimated food waste from 1974 to 2003. The Discussion also links increased food availability with increased waste. These passages support the claimed positive association in the US over that period; page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.88)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Making food shopping list is considered as an efficient food waste prevention tool at the household level, by preventing the purchase of surplus foods (van Geffen et al. 2020).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Food purchase and preparation behaviors and attitudes toward COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Supportedcites van Geffen et al. 2020 source
The “Behaviours Leading to Food Waste” section says that using a shopping list reduces food waste because planning improves purchasing accuracy and prevents surplus purchases. The “Goal Striving: Abilities and Opportunities” section adds that this depends on accurately predicting how much food is needed. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Shopping behavior is considered as key to reducing food waste (Farr-Wharton et al. 2014; UNEP 2014; Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2015).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Food purchase and preparation behaviors and attitudes toward COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Farr-Wharton et al. 2014 source
The Discussion identifies food purchasing as one of the behaviours behind most expired domestic food waste. It also says that better-informed purchasing could reduce stockpiling and the resulting waste, supporting the claim that shopping behaviour matters for waste reduction. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not matchedcites UNEP 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2015 source
Section 3.1 says consumers’ food-waste behaviors are directly related to planning and shopping routines. Section 4.2 also identifies over-purchasing as a cause of household waste and discusses retail actions to avoid it. Together, these support treating shopping behavior as important to reducing food waste. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“recent findings have pointed out that people who are price oriented and/or have an attraction to special offers tend to waste less (Jörissen et al. 2015; van Geffen et al. 2020).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Food purchase and preparation behaviors and attitudes toward COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Jörissen et al. 2015 source
In Shopping Habits (p. 17), the paper reports that households treating price as important waste less food, and its own survey finds that people drawn to special offers waste less on average. The Discussion (p. 13) repeats the special-offers finding while noting that some other studies found the opposite trend. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Supportedcites van Geffen et al. 2020 source
The review’s ‘Behaviours Leading to Food Waste’ section directly says that recent research finds price-oriented people and those attracted to special offers seem to waste less. The citing sentence preserves that finding’s qualified wording. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Farr-Wharton et al. (2014) and Jörissen et al. (2015) have pointed out the need to provide more information on the shelf life of fresh food and leftovers.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Willingness and information needs to reduce household food waste
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Farr-Wharton et al. 2014 source
In “Food cooking and consumption practices,” the paper identifies uncertainty about when leftover ingredients expire and explicitly calls for informing consumers about the shelf life of stored foods. “Food shopping and purchasing practices” also describes participants’ lack of knowledge about preserving fresh produce to prolong its shelf life. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites Jörissen et al. 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.5 (p. 12) says households need more information about product freshness and durability, supporting the shelf-life point for fresh food. It also calls for recipes using leftovers, but does not identify a need for information about how long leftovers remain safe or usable. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Qi and Roe (2016) have indicated that for a majority of households, enhancing meal safety and freshness may sometimes require wasting food.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Quantity of food wasted and extent of household food waste during COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Qi and Roe 2016 source
The Discussion and Implications section states almost exactly that a majority of households find that enhancing meal safety and freshness may sometimes require wasting food. The Results report majority agreement with the related survey statements, so the claim accurately conveys a reported perception, not an objective necessity. (LLM, conf=0.95)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Survey respondents tend to substantially under-report their waste levels and in contrast to over-report their effort levels (Neff et al. 2015; Qi and Roe 2016; van Geffen et al. 2020).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Quantity of food wasted and extent of household food waste during COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Neff et al. 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion says U.S. respondents as a group are substantially underreporting their food waste, but says only that they may be overreporting their effort. The citing sentence presents both tendencies as established and does not retain that uncertainty. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites Qi and Roe 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Limitations section says self-reported food-waste amounts often yield downwardly biased estimates, supporting the under-reporting point. It does not establish that the bias is substantial or that respondents over-report their efforts; the study says it did not assess self-reported individual food-waste behaviors. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Partly supportedcites van Geffen et al. 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Goal Setting: Motivation to Change” (page unavailable), the review says people generally underestimate how much food they waste themselves, supporting the direction of the waste-level claim. It does not establish that survey respondents substantially under-report measured waste levels, and the passages found do not say they over-report their efforts to avoid waste. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Information can increase food waste awareness, which in turn can promote pro-environmental behavior change (van Geffen et al. 2020).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Willingness and information needs to reduce household food waste
What the sources say
- Supportedcites van Geffen et al. 2020 source
The “Information campaigns” section says campaigns provide information to increase awareness of food waste, with the aim of reducing it. The “Goal Setting: Motivation to Change” section links greater problem awareness to more waste-prevention behaviour. The review cautions that raising awareness alone is often insufficient, which is consistent with the claim’s use of “can.” (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Significant relations have been reported between household discards, age and parental status (Neff et al. 2015; Shanes et al. 2018) as well as between food waste, household income and number of household occupants (Jörissen et al. 2015; Giordano et al. 2018).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Quantity of food wasted and extent of household food waste during COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Neff et al. 2015 source
The Results (Awareness and Knowledge) state that age and parental status were significantly, though non-linearly, associated with self-reported estimates of household discards. The income and household-occupant claims are attached to other citations, not Neff et al. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites Shanes et al. 2018 source
The cited review is attached to the first clause, concerning age and parental status. Section 3.4 reports that most studies find a negative correlation between age and food waste, though findings are mixed, and that households with children tend to produce more food waste. The conclusion repeats both patterns. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites Jörissen et al. 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The citation to Jörissen et al. is attached to the clause about income and household occupants, not the earlier clause about age and parental status. Section 4.3 (p. 8) reports significantly lower food waste per person in households with two or more occupants than in single-person households. Section 4.1 (p. 5) describes respondents’ income groups, but does not establish a significant relationship between income and food waste. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“36% of the respondents affirmed to spend monthly between US$ 100 and 175, 32% over US$ 175 for food, 27% between US$ 35 and 100 and 5% less than US$ 35.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Food purchase and preparation behaviors and attitudes toward COVID-19 lockdown
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“most of the respondents have set up a strategy of saving, storing and eating leftovers.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Abstract
Not yet classified.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“0.7% had no opinions about this issue.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Awareness and attitude toward food wastage during COVID-19 lockdown
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“our findings indicate a rise of 66% for shopping in supermarkets.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Food purchase and preparation behaviors and attitudes toward COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sassi et al. (2016)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Not yet classified.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our study pointed out the consumers’ needs of information for taking further action.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A large majority (91.9%) of respondents affirmed that they worry about food waste and try to avoid it when they can.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Awareness and attitude toward food wastage during COVID-19 lockdown
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There was an increase in food waste awareness, when compared to INC data (71%) (INC 2017).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Awareness and attitude toward food wastage during COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites INC 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Not yet classified.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“food shopping was performed once a week by 39.8% of respondents, two or three times a week by 31%, daily by 15%, once every 2 weeks by 7.5% and once a month by 3.5%, and 3.2% declared to rarely doing it.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Food purchase and preparation behaviors and attitudes toward COVID-19 lockdown
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“64.3% buy their foods from supermarkets, whereas 29.0% buy their from small retailers, 2.1% from hard discount stores and only 2.5% from traditional local markets”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Food purchase and preparation behaviors and attitudes toward COVID-19 lockdown
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Respondents want to be better informed about the negative impacts of food waste on the environment (24%) and on the economy (10%).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Willingness and information needs to reduce household food waste
Not yet classified.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the most wasted food group is bakery products, followed by vegetables and to a lesser extent fruits.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Quantity of food wasted and extent of household food waste during COVID-19 lockdown
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“most of the respondents usually discard food items they bought, even though this quantity wasted is generally small.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Quantity of food wasted and extent of household food waste during COVID-19 lockdown
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, 2.5% are in demand of advices how to cook leftovers (0.4%) and how to better estimate the portion size (0.4%), and of information on organizations and initiatives dealing with food wastage prevention and reduction (1.7%).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Willingness and information needs to reduce household food waste
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Women, persons more than 40 years old and university-educated people tend to prevent wastage of leftovers by freezing, donate or recycling them, whereas as men and less educated people tend to throwing them away more or to use them for animal feeding.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Quantity of food wasted and extent of household food waste during COVID-19 lockdown
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Respondents also expressed concerns about the packaging, specifically for the size (18%) and clear labels (7%).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Willingness and information needs to reduce household food waste
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“it has almost similar to that from Sassi et al. (2016), in terms of gender, education and professional activity.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sassi et al. (2016)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Significant positive associations were found between future intention to food wastage reduction and number of occupants in the household and education (Table 3).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Willingness and information needs to reduce household food waste
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Demographics (Table 1) indicate that 72% of the respondents are women, 54% live in households with more than 4 members, 77% were active professionally and 96% were highly educated.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“respondents overwhelmingly declared to try to control their food waste levels during the COVID-19 lockdown, whereas only 2% affirmed that the COVID-19 lockdown would not impact their waste levels”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Awareness and attitude toward food wastage during COVID-19 lockdown
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“they cannot reach people that are not comfortable with technology or don't have access to technology or the internet, such low income, poorly educated persons or elderly.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“According to Durante (2016), individuals would be more strategic about how they spend their money under stress.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Food purchase and preparation behaviors and attitudes toward COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Durante (2016) source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Over cooking was probably related to the difficulty to estimate how much to cook per person or how to cook the right portions, but also to Tunisian culture, customs and traditions, such as hospitality, food perceived as wealth and the good mother identity.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Quantity of food wasted and extent of household food waste during COVID-19 lockdown
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“stressed consumers increase spending on necessities and spend less on discretionary items.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Food purchase and preparation behaviors and attitudes toward COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Durante (2016) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Because food waste is partly attributable to consumers (FAO 2015)”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Awareness and attitude toward food wastage during COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites FAO 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This could be related to Tunisian culture, customs and Muslim-driven traditions, such as the act of throwing food considered as unacceptable.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Quantity of food wasted and extent of household food waste during COVID-19 lockdown
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Tunisian per capita food waste reached 112 kg/year in 2017 (INC 2018).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites INC 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the restriction on eating out increased home cooking and consequently the use of bought food products.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Awareness and attitude toward food wastage during COVID-19 lockdown
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings suggest a better food planning by shoppers during COVID-19 lockdown: food has been probably purchased with thought to how it would be used.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Quantity of food wasted and extent of household food waste during COVID-19 lockdown
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“This food waste represents 5% of food expenditures per year (US$ 197 million, INC 2017).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites INC 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Respondents have developed positive attitudes toward food waste prevention; during the two first weeks of COVID-19 lockdown, they have adapted their habits that have been found to be close to the good practices recommended by FAO (UNEP 2014).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Conclusion and recommendations
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites UNEP 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“changes in customers’ behaviors toward food waste have been shown to be related to the external factors such as economic crisis in Greece (Abeliotis et al. 2014) and in Italy”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Awareness and attitude toward food wastage during COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“about the half of respondents declared throwing food.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sassi et al. (2016)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainn = 281- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The change of behavior was probably associated with a loss of income and to a fear of food shortages, impairing food availability.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Quantity of food wasted and extent of household food waste during COVID-19 lockdown
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The COVID-19 lockdown led to a loss of income-earning opportunities, mainly for independent workers.
- Rests on an assumption: There was a fear of food shortages that impaired food availability during the COVID-19 lockdown.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“COVID-19 outbreak provides the opportunity to keep these new behaviors in place after this crisis to improve consumers’ behaviors from a sustainability standpoint.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Willingness and information needs to reduce household food waste
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“According to Coldiretti-SWG (2011), Italians have reduced food waste by 57% because of the economic crisis.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Awareness and attitude toward food wastage during COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Coldiretti-SWG (2011)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“online surveys do not allow a depth analysis of the results.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Giordano et al. (2018) have found no evidence of either a positive or negative relationship between the purchase of discounted food products and household food waste quantities.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Food purchase and preparation behaviors and attitudes toward COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Giordano et al. 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“According to the Tunisian Ministry of Agriculture (2020), they are unlikely, since adequate stores of staples remain available.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Quantity of food wasted and extent of household food waste during COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tunisian Ministry of Agriculture (2020)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“awareness campaigns about food wastage have been launched in Tunisia by the national institutions and non-governmental organizations (INC 2018), but have a limited impact.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Willingness and information needs to reduce household food waste
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites INC 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Not yet classified.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Our results are consistent with those reported by Pearson et al. (2013), Arous et al. (2017) and Hebrok and Boks (2017), indicating that buying and cooking too much, not finishing meals and inappropriate food storage techniques were recognized as significant drivers of food waste by consumers.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Quantity of food wasted and extent of household food waste during COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pearson et al. 2013
- Not matchedcites Arous et al. 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hebrok and Boks 2017 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Sassi et al. (2016) have also reported food safety as the main reasons of food waste in Tunisian households.”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Quantity of food wasted and extent of household food waste during COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sassi et al. 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Better organization and planning by most pre-disaster shoppers have been observed during winter storm and hurricane seasons in the USA (Kulemeka 2010).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Quantity of food wasted and extent of household food waste during COVID-19 lockdown
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kulemeka 2010
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Several countries have instituted policies to encourage household waste reduction and recycling, by for instance, implanting tariff-based waste management systems (Chalak et al. 2016).”
§ COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? > Results and discussion > Willingness and information needs to reduce household food waste
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chalak et al. 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
No previous study has investigated the link between lockdown or quarantine and household food waste management.
“To the best of our knowledge, no previous study investigated the link between lockdown or quarantine and household food waste management.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Tunisians face food insecurity because of the consecutive economic crisis, with 15.2% poverty.
“Because of the consecutive economical crisis, Tunisians (15.2% of poverty) face food insecurity.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In most countries, government announcement of lockdown led to panic buying of food and anticipated shortages of goods and services.
“In most countries, government announcement of lockdown has led to a panic buying of food, to anticipated shortages of goods and services.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The COVID-19 lockdown led to a loss of income-earning opportunities, mainly for independent workers.
“COVID-19 lockdown has led to a loss of income-earning opportunities, mainly for independent workers which could cause a contraction of consumption.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There was a fear of food shortages that impaired food availability during the COVID-19 lockdown.
“The change of behavior was probably associated with a loss of income and to a fear of food shortages, impairing food availability.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Consumers worry about food poisoning when making food discard decisions.
“Consumers worry about food poisoning when making food discard decisions.”
Citations
Cites
Wang, C., Pan, R., Wan, X., Tan, Y., Xu, L., Ho, C. S., & Ho, R. C. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17051729 · Cited by 9,923
(2011) · FAO eBooks · Cited by 3,368
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.
Rampal, L., & Liew, B. S. (2020) · PubMed · Cited by 2,115
Schanes, K., Dobernig, K., & Gözet, B. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.030 · Cited by 1,365
Consumer-related food waste: causes and potential for action
Aschemann-Witzel, J., De Hooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T., & Oostindjer, M. (2015) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su7066457 · Cited by 910
The Progressive Increase of Food Waste in America and Its Environmental Impact
Hall, K. D., Guo, J., Dore, M., & Chow, C. C. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007940 · Cited by 748 · cited 1×
“The motivation could be based on food availability (Hall et al.”
BackgroundEstimates of European food waste levels
Stenmarck, Å., Jensen, C., Quested, T., & Moates, G. (2016) · EU · doi:10.13140/rg.2.1.4658.4721 · Cited by 677
Household food waste: drivers and potential intervention points for design – an extensive review
Hebrok, M., & Boks, C. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.069 · Cited by 501
Methodology for Designing University Business Curricula with an Impact on the Family Economy
de Vries, E., Trampe, D., & Fennis, B. M. (2025) · ACR North American Advances · doi:10.53555/acr.v2i4 · Cited by 476
Wasted Food: U.S. Consumers' Reported Awareness, Attitudes, and Behaviors
Neff, R. A., Spiker, M. L., & Truant, P. L. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127881 · Cited by 461
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Dalilawati, Z., & Hassan, K. A. (2019). Factors Influencing household food waste behaviour in Malaysia. International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management, 3, 56–71.
- TAP (Tunisia Africa Press Agency) (2020). Coronavirus: La moyenne des achats quotidiens de produits alimentaires, multipliée par 10. https://www.tap.info.tn/fr/Portail-Economie/12435385-coronavirus-la. Accessed 7 April 2020.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Increased plastic pollution due to COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and recommendations
Silva, A. L. P., Prata, J. C., Walker, T. R., Duarte, A. C., Ouyang, W., Barceló, ., & Rocha‐Santos, T. (2020) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2020.126683 · Cited by 1,098
Sharma, H. B., Vanapalli, K. R., Cheela, V. R. S., Ranjan, V. P., Jaglan, A. K., Dubey, B., Goel, S., & Bhattacharya, J. (2020) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105052 · Cited by 806
“Moreover, in a crisis, consumers prefer to save than to throw which ultimately resulted in less waste generation (Durante and Laran, 2016; Jribi et al., 2020).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialNon-pharmaceutical interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic: A review
Perra, N. (2021) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2021.02.001 · Cited by 540
Silva, A. L. P., Prata, J. C., Walker, T. R., Campos, D., Duarte, A. C., Soares, A. M. V. M., Barceló, ., & Rocha‐Santos, T. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140565 · Cited by 633
Environmental effects of COVID-19 pandemic and potential strategies of sustainability
Rume, T., & Islam, S. M. D.-U. (2020) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04965 · Cited by 534
Metadata
- Authors
- Jribi, S., Ben Ismail, H., Doggui, D., & Debbabi, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Carthage (TN)
- Corresponding author
- Debbabi, Hajer
- Venue
- Environment, Development and Sustainability
- Published
- 2020-04-19
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 3939-3955
- ISSN
- 1387-585X (ISSN-L)
- 1573-2975
- PMC
- PMC7166255
- OpenAlex
- W3016757822
- Cited by
- 473
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 119 · 2021: 145 · 2020: 52
- FWCI
- 62.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Environment Development and Sustainability (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Keywords
- COVID-19 lockdown, household food waste, food waste prevention, consumer awareness, consumer attitudes, food purchase behavior, food expenditure, leftover food, food storage, information needs, Tunisia
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
