Cited by 145Food Waste Reduction and SustainabilityEconomics of Agriculture and Food MarketsNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

Italian consumers’ income and food waste behavior

Open access
Setti, Marco, Falasconi, Luca, Segrè, Andrea, Cusano, Ilaria, Vittuari, Matteo·2016·British Food Journal

Abstract

Purpose: – The purpose of this paper is to provide insights on the relationships between consumers’ income and household food waste behaviors. Design/methodology/approach: – Attitude toward food waste is a paradigmatic (economic) non-standard decision making. Based on behavioral economics concepts and empirical evidences, the study analyzes the frequency of household food waste and its main drivers with a focus on individual income. Through a panel of 1,403 Italian consumers, food waste behavior and its determinants are modeled for five food typologies using proportional odds models that adopt stepwise procedures and genetic algorithms. Findings: – Results suggest the existence of complex relationships between per capita income and household food waste behavior. When considering food typologies that include high value added products, this relation can be explained by an inverse U-shaped curve: mid-to-low income consumers purchase higher amounts of lower quality products and waste more food. Research limitations/implications: – The research highlights the importance of understanding the main socio-economic and behavioral determinants of household food waste, and the need for further researches. Practical implications: – The research motivates specific pricing, commercial and policy strategies as well as organizational technological, and educational solutions to prevent/reduce household food waste. Social implications: – Lower income class consumers show a greater attitude to waste certain food typologies. In turn, this implies that food waste can further worse economic inequality and relative poverty. Originality/value: – The study identifies different patterns of relationship among individual income and consumers’ food waste behavior, and describes the conditions that limit a household “Food Waste Kuznets Curve.”

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 · 10.1108/bfj-11-2015-0427

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Setti et al. (2016) show a high degree of ethical concern related to food waste (86%).

    “Similarly, Setti et al. (2016) show a high degree of ethical concern related to food waste (86%).”

    From Food waste matters - A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications (2018) · cites this paper as Setti et al., 2016

    The indexed copy contains an IRIS repository entry and a link to a PDF, but no accessible passage from the paper’s findings. Searches for ethical concern and 86% found no relevant passage, so the attributed percentage cannot be checked against our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Households that spend more money on groceries per person tend to produce more food waste per person.

    “In turn, households that spend more money on groceries per person tend to produce more food waste per person (Parizeau et al., 2015;Setti et al., 2016).”

    From Food waste matters - A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications (2018) · cites this paper as Setti et al., 2016

    The supplied passages are repository metadata and an unrelated ASN notice, not findings about grocery spending or food waste. Searches for per-person grocery expenditure and food waste found no usable passage establishing the claimed relationship in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Consumers who buy local products on a regular basis tend to significantly limit (up to 90%) the frequency of wasting vegetables.

    “Setti et al. (2016) reveal that consumers who buy local products on a regular basis tend to significantly limit (up to 90%) the frequency of wasting vegetables.”

    From Food waste matters - A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications (2018) · cites this paper as Setti et al., 2016

    The supplied passages are from an IRIS repository listing, not the paper’s results. Searches for regular local-product purchases, vegetable waste, and the 90% figure returned no relevant passage from our copy, so the attributed finding cannot be verified. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Households with different income levels differ with regards to which type of food is wasted.

    “as well as with regards to which type of food is wasted (Setti et al., 2016).”

    From Food waste matters - A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications (2018) · cites this paper as Setti et al., 2016

    The passages provided are a repository page, and searches for food types, income, and household waste found no Results or Discussion passage from the paper. The available abstract is not admissible evidence under the stated rubric, so our copy cannot verify whether households at different income levels waste different types of food. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    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

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Møller, H. , Hanssen, O.J. , Gustavsson, J. , Östergren, K. , Stenmarck, A. and Dekhtyar, P. (2014), “Report on review of (food) waste reporting methodology and practice”, FUSIONS project, Wageningen.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Setti, M., Falasconi, L., Segrè, A., Cusano, I., & Vittuari, M.
Affiliations
University of Bologna (IT)
Venue
British Food Journal
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2016-07-04
Volume
118
Issue
7
Pages
1731-1746
ISSN
0007-070X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2474325137
Cited by
145
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 8
FWCI
16.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Food Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economics of Agriculture and Food Markets
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
household food waste, consumer income, food waste behavior, Kuznets curve, socio-economic determinants, food quality, food waste reduction, relative poverty

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