Reframing communications that encourage individuals to reduce food waste
Open accessAbstract
The waste of edible food throughout the food chain is recognised as a global issue and academic research focuses on how to encourage reductions in this waste. At the consumer level, governments are investing in communication campaigns that encourage individuals to reduce the amount of edible food discarded in their home-based activities. The specific aims of this paper were to identify causes of food waste and what experts recommend for reducing the problem, to identify gaps between information provided in food waste communication campaigns and the experts recommendations, and finally to empirically identify further gaps between individuals’ knowledge of food waste with a framework of the expert recommendations. In terms of findings, the literature review identified a range of causes and nine relevant expert recommendations for reducing this waste. An evaluation of a number of major consumer-focused communication campaigns available in Australia and New Zealand provided evidence that these campaigns were addressing some of the recommendations from experts. A subsequent qualitative investigation of household members’ knowledge of the issues of food discard showed that individuals’ understandings can be prioritised in terms of the expert recommendations and the communication messages in the campaigns. Further research is identified based on these findings.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 47
- Authors
- Pearson, D., Mirosa, M., Andrews, L., & Kerr, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Canberra (AU)
- University of Otago (NZ)
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Pearson, David
- Venue
- Communication Research and Practice
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-07-26
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 137-154
- ISSN
- 2204-1451 (ISSN-L)
- 2206-3374
- OpenAlex
- W2490719052
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 2.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Communication Research and Practice (publishedVersion)
- Acquire (CQUniversity) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Otago University Research Archive (University of Otago) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Otago
- University of Canberra
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Keywords
- food waste, consumer behavior, expert recommendations, knowledge gaps, food waste causes, reframing, New Zealand
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