CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 276Food Waste Reduction and SustainabilityAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

Domestic food practices: A study of food management behaviors and the role of food preparation planning in reducing waste

Open access
Romani, Simona, Grappi, Silvia, Bagozzi, Richard P., Barone, Ada Maria·2018·Appetite
DOI 10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.093
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recent research has started to show the key role of daily food provision practices in affecting household food waste. Building on and extending these previous contributions, the objective of this paper is to investigate how individuals' everyday practices regarding food (e.g., shopping, cooking, eating, etc.) lead to food waste, and how policy makers and the food industry can implement effective strategies to influence such practices and ultimately help consumers reduce food waste. The research performs three Studies; a critical incident qualitative study (Study 1; N = 514) and a quantitative, survey-based study (Study 2; N = 456) to identify and examine relevant food management behaviors associated with domestic waste. Lastly, findings from a field experiment (Study 3; N = 210) suggest that a specific educational intervention, directed at increasing consumers' perceived skills related to food preparation planning behaviors, reduces domestic food waste. Implications of the research for policy makers and the food industry are discussed.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper examines how everyday domestic food management behaviors—especially storage, preparation, purchasing, and meal planning—relate to household food waste, using three studies in Italy. It finds that poor food preparation planning is a key barrier and that an educational intervention aimed at improving meal-planning skills reduces self-reported domestic food waste.

Key findings

  • Study 1 (N = 514) identified eight barrier categories; domestic food storage disorganization was most frequent (32%), followed by domestic food preparation (16%), lack of purchase planning (12%), lack of in-store food control (11%), lack of meal planning (10%), rejection of leftovers (8%), excessive purchasing due to in-store influences (8%), and miscellaneous reasons (3%).
  • Study 2 (N = 456) produced three consumer segments: “Virtuous” (158, 34.6%), “Moderate” (224, 49.1%), and “Waster” (74, 16.3%); lack of planning for domestic food preparation appeared as the most significant barrier across segments.
  • Study 3 (N = 210) found a significant main effect of the educational intervention on post-test food waste (F = 11.00, p < .001, partial eta squared = .05), with no significant pretest main effect (F = .44, p = .51) or pretest × intervention interaction (F = .05, p = .82).
  • In Study 3, the intervention influenced perceived meal-planning skills (.48, p < .05), planning skills had a marginally significant effect on food waste (−97.69, p < .10), and the indirect effect was significant at α = .05.

Methods

  • Study 1 used a critical incident technique survey: 103 undergraduate interviewers recruited a convenience sample of 514 Italian adults responsible for shopping and cooking; 682 responses were coded into eight categories, with 88% inter-judge agreement.
  • Study 2 used survey data from Italian consumers responsible for shopping and cooking; a preliminary measurement sample (N = 287) supported CFA validity/reliability, and the main sample (N = 456) was analyzed with a two-step cluster analysis (Ward’s method then k-means, 3-cluster solution), ANOVA/Tukey tests, and chi-square tests.
  • Study 3 used a longitudinal field experiment with a Solomon four-group design (N = 210 Italian adults responsible for shopping/cooking, with at least one child in the household); participants completed one-week pre/post food diaries, and the intervention was reading an educational article on organizing a weekly menu. Analysis used ANCOVA and mediation analysis with bootstrapping.

Limitations

  • The paper states that data came from single sources and were self-reported, so some error is likely and respondents may exaggerate waste minimization; future research should monitor actual waste behaviors.
  • The paper states that clustering may yield varying results with different techniques, and that the studies used convenience samples rather than representative general-population samples.
  • Evident from the text: all three studies were conducted in Italy, Study 1 relied on memory recall, and Study 3 used self-reported diaries and student-recruited participants, with about 9% attrition.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.093

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 40 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    A lack of purchase planning was a frequent response category, with 12% admitting to doing little or nothing to prepare a shopping list.

    “A lack of purchase planning was the next most frequent response category: 12 percent admitted to doing little or nothing to prepare a shopping list.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The Virtuous segment is higher on the socio-psychological constructs associated with the minimization of food waste (personal norms, subjective norms).

    “Furthermore, this segment is higher on the socio-psychological constructs associated with the minimization of food waste (i.e., personal norms, subjective norms).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The absence of appropriate checking on products while shopping was a factor in food waste, at 11%.

    “The absence of appropriate checking on products while shopping was another factor (11%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The rejection of leftovers was evident among respondents as a cause of domestic food waste, at 8%.

    “The rejection of leftovers was also evident among respondents (8%) as a cause of domestic food waste.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The elbow criterion suggested a 3-cluster solution.

    “The elbow criterion suggested a 3-cluster solution.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 17
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 19

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Cluster 3, labeled 'Waster', comprises 74 individuals (16.3% of the sample) who score the highest on food waste and lowest on intentions not to waste.

    “Cluster 3, labeled as”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    A miscellaneous category contains 3% of respondents who claim that food is wasted because of bad communication within the household and limited food literacy.

    “In addition, a miscellaneous category contains respondents (3%) who claim that food is wasted because of bad communication within the household and limited food literacy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Cluster 1, labeled 'Virtuous', comprises 158 individuals (34.6% of the sample) who are the least engaged in food waste and exhibit the strongest intentions not to waste.

    “Cluster 1, labeled as”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    All construct reliability values in the preliminary assessment were satisfactory, ranging from 0.71 to 0.83, demonstrating acceptable reliability.

    “All construct reliability values were satisfactory, ranging from a minimum of 0.71 to a maximum of 0.83, demonstrating acceptable reliability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Significant differences between the clusters were found using Hotelling's trace statistic (T=3.08, F(44,862)=30.17, p<0.001), providing strong evidence for the internal validity of the 3-cluster solution.

    “Significant differences between the clusters were found by using Hotelling's trace statistic (T = 3.08, F (44, 862) = 30.17,p< 0.001), providing strong evidence for the internal validity of the 3-cluster solution.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Random and nonsystematic placing of food items results in food becoming easily lost and often expiring before being used, and low visibility of food items in the refrigerator also results in food waste.

    “Random and nonsystematic placing of food items resulted in food becoming easily lost and often expiring before being used; in addition, the low visibility of food items in the refrigerator, particularly of those located towards the back, also resulted in food waste.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Farr-Wharton et al. (2014) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    At the purchase stage consumers often rely on food shopping routines and admit to regularly buying more food than needed or food products they never use, thereby increasing food waste.

    “At the purchase stage consumers often rely on food shopping routines (Maubach, Hoek, & McCreanor, 2009) and admit to regularly buying more food than needed (Evans, 2012) or food products they never use (Wansink, Brasel, & Amjad, 2000), thereby increasing food waste.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Maubach, Hoek, & McCreanor, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Evans, 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Wansink, Brasel, & Amjad, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The measurement model for the preliminary assessment showed excellent fit (χ2(188)=287.71; CFI=.96; NNFI=.95; SRMR=.05; RMSEA=.04), with all factor loadings significant (0.61-0.93), suggesting convergent validity.

    “The fit of the model was excellent (χ 2 (188) = 287.71;CFI = .96;NNFI = .95;SRMR = .05;RMSEA = .04),all factor loadings were significant, ranging from a minimum of 0.61 to a maximum of 0.93, which, along with the overall fit, suggests achievement of convergent validity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    All average variances extracted (AVE) in the preliminary assessment were above .50 (0.50-0.69), and likelihood ratio tests confirmed discriminant validity.

    “All the average variances extracted (AVE) were above the recommended threshold of .50(ranging from a minimum of 0.50 to a maximum of 0.69), and the likelihood ratio tests further confirmed that the measures of all variables exhibited discriminant validity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Specific interventions directed at consumers could improve their food provisioning routines and strongly decrease food waste.

    “However, the results illustrated by previous research also suggest that specific interventions directed at consumers could improve their food provisioning routines and strongly decrease food waste.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Inter-judge agreement on assigning the events to the eight categories was 88%.

    “Inter-judge agreement on assigning the events to the eight categories, based on the third person's sorting of the responses, was 88%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    These findings validate the results obtained in previous research but also add two more behaviors associated with domestic food preparation and in-store food control during purchasing compared to previous studies.

    “These findings validate the results obtained in previous research but also, compared to previous studies (Stancu et al., 2016;Stefan et al. 2013), add two more behaviors associated with domestic food preparation and in-store food control during purchasing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Stancu et al., 2016 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Stefan et al. 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Planning and shopping routines explain most of the variance in food waste, with shopping routines having the larger influence.

    “Based on Stefan et al. (2013), we conclude that planning and shopping routines explain most of the variance in food waste, with the latter having the larger influence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stefan et al. (2013) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Avoiding food waste is not simply a willed, goal-oriented or planned behavior; it also requires important changes in consumers' daily food provisioning routines.

    “These findings seem to imply that avoiding food waste is not simply a willed, goal-oriented or planned behavior: it also requires important changes in the consumers' daily food provisioning routines.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The studies used convenience samples, albeit with actual adults in households.

    “Third, our studies used convenience samples, albeit with actual adults in households.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Stancu et al.'s model shows that in addition to planning and shopping routines, leftovers-reuse routines are important determinants of reported food waste.

    “Their model also shows that in addition to planning and shopping routines, leftovers-reuse routines are important determinants of reported food waste.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stancu et al. (2016) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Even in the absence of food purchase planning and preparation, reusing products and meals could contribute to lower levels of food waste.

    “Even in the absence of food purchase planning and preparation, reusing products and meals could contribute to lower levels of food waste.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stancu et al. (2016) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The lack of concern scale had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.89.

    “1.87 1.21 α= 0.89 Lack of concern”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The majority of Europeans point to individual responsibility when it comes to ways of reducing food waste, with 63% saying that better food-related practices in terms of planning and shopping would help to reduce waste.

    “According to Flash Eurobarometer 425 (2015), the majority of Europeans point to individual responsibility when it comes to ways of reducing food waste, with 63% saying that better food-related practices in terms of planning and shopping would help to reduce waste.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Flash Eurobarometer 425 (2015)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The amount of waste in the household has grown relentlessly over time with the increase in disposable incomes and consequent change in lifestyles.

    “With the increase in disposable incomes, and the consequent change in lifestyles, the amount of waste in the household has grown relentlessly over time (Parfitt et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Parfitt et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Twenty-two respondents (about 9% of the sample) abandoned the research in progress.

    “Twenty-two respondents (corresponding to about 9% of the sample) abandoned the research in progress.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Stancu et al. (2016) confirm Stefan et al.'s evidence of drivers of food waste behavior, emphasizing the additional role of habit in food waste.

    “Stancu et al. (2016) confirm Stefan et al.'s evidence of drivers of food waste behavior, emphasizing the additional role of habit in food waste.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Stancu et al. (2016) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Stefan et al.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    No differences were found among the experimental groups in terms of frequency distributions for age, gender, number of household members, and number of children.

    “No differences were found among the experimental groups in terms of frequency distributions for age (chi-square (df) = 448.57(462); p = .66),gender (chi-square (df) = 21.98 (11); p = .05),number of household members (chi-square (df) = 54.14 (55); p = .51),and number of children (chi-square (df) = 39.53 (44); p = .66).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Estimates report waste by consumers as between 95-115 Kg annually per capita in Europe and North America.

    “Specifically, estimates report waste by consumers as between 95-115 Kg annually per capita in Europe and North America (FAO, 2011;WRAP, 2009;2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites FAO, 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites WRAP, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites WRAP, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Mallinson, Russell, and Barker (2016) attributed the large proportion of food waste generated by heavy users of convenience food to their lack of advance planning.

    “Again, Mallinson, Russell, and Barker (2016) attributed the large proportion of food waste, generated by heavy users of convenience food, to their lack of advance planning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mallinson, Russell, and Barker (2016) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If ability to plan meals increases, an individual can consequently plan shopping and cooking in a better way, reducing overstocking and leftovers frequently associated with food waste.

    “For example, if ability to plan meals increases, an individual can consequently plan shopping and cooking in a better way, reducing overstocking and leftovers frequently associated with food waste.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The personal norms scale had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.71.

    “Personal norms adapted from Osterhus, 1997 6.15 1.07 α= 0.71”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    As self-reported data were used, some error is likely in the behaviors recorded.

    “As self-reported data were used, some error is likely in the behaviors recorded.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The sensitive nature of the topic suggests the possibility that respondents might exaggerate their reporting of waste minimization.

    “The sensitive nature of the topic also suggests the possibility that respondents might exaggerate their reporting of waste minimization.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    All respondents in the groups receiving the intervention article answered correctly to the open-ended question about its content.

    “Finally, for the groups receiving the intervention article we checked the correct reading of it with an open-ended question about its content.All respondents answered correctly.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The social norms scale had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.87.

    “Social norms adapted from Spangenberg et al., 2003 4.88 1.17 α= 0.87”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    Laboratory settings are suboptimal in food research because they usually have low external validity, limiting generalizability.

    “Third, laboratory settings are suboptimal in food research because they usually have low external validity, thereby limiting the possibility of generalizing from the findings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    This type of knowledge is necessary to validly attribute positive results, at least in part, to these specific interventions.

    “Although difficult to obtain, this type of knowledge is necessary to validly attribute positive results, at least in part, to these specific interventions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Different clustering techniques might yield varying results.

    “Second, while clustering allows the identification of individual segments of consumers, as has been done here, different techniques might yield varying results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
34 of 34

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There are many barriers to reducing domestic food waste to a minimum.

    “Given the magnitude of this phenomenon, it is likely that there are many barriers to reducing domestic food waste to a minimum.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Consumer household food waste is a significant issue for consumers, retailers, producers, and society at large.

    “As consumer household food waste is a significant issue for consumers, retailers, producers, and society at large”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The clustering method reported is the most robust and provides the most practical relevance.

    “Other algorithms were considered, but the method reported is the most robust and provides the most practical relevance.”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It is not feasible to prevent all food waste at the consumer level given limited time, perishability, and other logistical challenges.

    “And given limited time, perishability, and other logistical challenges, it is not feasible to prevent all food waste at the consumer level.[53]”

    From Relationship between food waste, diet quality, and environmental sustainability (2018) · cites this paper as [53]

  • Planning food purchases based on household food stocks can reduce food waste due to over-purchasing.

    “Increased efforts to plan food purchases based on household food stocks is one way that consumers can reduce food waste due to over-purchasing;[53, 54]”

    From Relationship between food waste, diet quality, and environmental sustainability (2018) · cites this paper as [53]

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(44, 862) = 30.17reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F (44, 862) = 30.17,p < .001”

  • Consistentt(29) = 15.86reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(29) = 15.86,p < .001”

  • Consistentt(29) = 13.32reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(29) = 13.32,p < .001”

  • Consistentt(29) = 5.22reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(29) = 5.22, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(29) = 4.63reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(29) = 4.63, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(29) = 4.68reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(29) = 4.68, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(208) = 3.36reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t (208) = 3.36, p < .001”

7 of 7

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Jones, 2016, Tech innovations that could reduce food waste, The Guardian

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Romani, S., Grappi, S., Bagozzi, R. P., & Barone, A. M.
Affiliations
  • Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli (IT)
  • University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (IT)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Grappi, Silvia
ORCID
Venue
Appetite
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-02
Volume
121
Pages
215-227
ISSN
0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.093
OpenAlex
W2770508173
Semantic Scholar
5106aff61174ca1e0c6a25838c293ebdd4a21918
Cited by
276
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 5
FWCI
16.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Appetite (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Goldsmiths (University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • IRIS UNIMORE (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • IRIS - Institutional Research Information System (Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
household food waste, food waste reduction, food shopping behavior, cooking behavior, food waste policy, food industry strategy
MeSH terms
Adult, Choice Behavior, Consumer Behavior, Cooking, Family Characteristics, Female, Food Preferences, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Socioeconomic Factors, Health Behavior, Cluster Analysis, Qualitative Research

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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