Cited by 24Food Waste Reduction and SustainabilityInnovative Human-Technology InteractionEnvironmental Education and Sustainability

Identification of different user types for designing household food waste interventions

Open access
Coskun, Aykut·2021·International Journal of Sustainable Engineering

Abstract

To date, designers have developed various interventions to support users in reducing their household food waste. When designing food waste interventions, it is essential to have a clear understanding of target users’ characteristics and consider the diversity in these characteristics. Although there are studies exploring user diversity in the context of sustainable behaviours, the literature lacks studies investigating food waste as a case. This paper explores user diversity in household food waste behaviour and identifies four user types that need to be considered when designing food waste interventions: Conservers, Considerates, Reluctants, and Prodigals. It further gives suggestions on how designers can select target user types and interventions according to their characteristics. It concludes that a design team should target all of the user types in a target population as much as possible and use a combination of different interventions types to create an impactful solution.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/19397038.2021.1886372

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Eco-feedback has shown to provide a starting point and motivation to act but is expected to perform better if accuracy, specificity, and a combination of persuasive strategies are combined.

    “Eco-feedback has shown to provide a starting point and motivation to act but is expected to perform better if accuracy, specificity, and a combination of persuasive strategies are combined [see also Coskun (2021)].”

    From Eco-Feedback for Food Waste Reduction in a Student Residence (2021) · cites this paper as Coskun (2021)

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says technological food-waste interventions can increase awareness and trigger self-reflection, which supports the idea of a starting point for action. Section 4.2 (page unavailable) suggests that combining a waste diary with food sharing may influence more user types. Neither passage establishes that eco-feedback performs better when it is more accurate or specific, or when combined with persuasive strategies. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [5]5. Broms, L., M. Bang, and S. I. Hjelm. 2009. "Persuasive Engagement: Exploiting Lifestyle as a Driving Force to Promote Energy-aware Use Patterns and Behaviors." In Proceedings of DRS 2009, edited by D. Daling, C. Rust, L. Chen, P. Ashton, and K. Freidman, 369/1-10. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.
  2. [9]9. Coskun, A., and C. Erbug. 2014. "User Diversity in Design for Behavior Change." In Proceedings of DRS 2014, edited by K. Lim, K. Niedderer, J. Redström, E. Stolterman, and A. Valtonen, A., 546-559. Umeå, Sweden: Umeå Institute of Design.
  3. [24]24. Karaca, E., and I. Altun. 2017. "Toplumsal Cinsiyetin Geleneksel Türk Mutfağına Yansıması." Motif Akademi Halkbilimi Dergisi 10 (20): 335-342.
  4. [48]48. Konstan, E. Chi, and K. Höök edited by, 2337-2346. New York, NY: ACM.
  5. [51]51. UN. 2015. "Goal 12: Ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns. Https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable- consumption-production/ Visschers, V. H., Wickli, N., & Siegrist, M. (2016). Sorting Out Food Waste Behaviour: A Survey on the Motivators and Barriers of Self-reported Amounts of Food Waste in Households." Journal of Environmental Psychology 45: 66-78.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coskun, A.
Affiliations
Koc University - Arcelik Research Center for Creative Industries (KUAR), Koc University, Zekeriyakoy, İstanbul, Turkey
Venue
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering
Published
2021-02-16
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
609-617
ISSN
  • 1939-7038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-7046
OpenAlex
W3131209615
Cited by
24
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Sustainable Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
Keywords
household food waste, food waste reduction, user types, user heterogeneity, design interventions, sustainable behavior, behavior change, sustainable design

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.

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