Systematic review of factors influencing household food waste behaviour: Applying the theory of planned behaviour

Abstract

Globally, household food waste alone accounts for about $700 billion in environmental costs owing to the resources expended in producing discarded or uneaten food, along with social costs reaching approximately $900 billion. Reducing this waste by 25% could potentially feed 821 million chronically undernourished individuals. This systematic review examines household food waste behaviour using the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). Comprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed and EMBASE using Elsevier supplemented by additional articles from the reference lists. The procedure followed the PRISMA flowchart. A descriptive analysis was conducted to summarize the characteristics of the 42 included studies from 17 countries. Significantly, 95% of these articles were published between 1 January 2010 and 19 April 2024, in Scimago Q1 ranked journals. The findings demonstrate an intersection of TPB components in explaining household food waste behaviour. This study suggests that a holistic strategy targeting attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control is essential for effectively reducing household food waste. Additionally, tailored interventions that consider demographic and socioeconomic factors are necessary to address the diverse needs of different populations. The study concludes that public education targeting mindful consumption, effective policies and community initiatives can significantly reduce food waste.

Keywords: Attitude; food waste journey; food waste reduction strategies; perceived behavioural control; social norms; socioeconomic influences.

Figure 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Figure 2.

PRISMA table. Table Design: Page et al. (2020).

Figure 3.

(a) Counts of regions/countries and (b) journals. Journals: J1: Resources, Conservation & Recycling; J2: Journal of Cleaner Production; J3: Appetite; J4: Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services; J5: Socio-Economic Planning Sciences; J6: China Economic Review; J7: Foods; J8: Journal of Environmental Management; J9: Journal of Environmental Psychology; J10: Food Quality and Preference; J11: International Journal of Consumer Studies; J12: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health; J13: International Journal of Hospital Management; J14: Journal of Business Research; J15: Journal of Consumer Behavior; J16: Nutrition Bulletin; J17: Waste Management.

Figure 4.

(a) Date and (b) methodologies. Methodology: M1: SEM (structural equation modeling); M2: mixed-method; M3: CFA (confirmatory factor analysis); M4: PLS-SEM (partial least squares structural equation modeling); M5: correlation; M6: qualitative; M7: LCA (life cycle assessment); M8: regression; M9: Tobit regression methods; M10: case-control; M11: descriptive; M12: direct weighing; M13: EFA (exploratory factor analysis); M14: one-way experimental design; M15: propensity score matching; M16: questionnaire-based analysis; M17: RCTs (randomized Control Trials); M18: Spearman rank correlation coefficient; M19: Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Figure 5.

Intersectionality between attitude, subjective norms and PBC in household food waste behaviour (A = Attiq et al., 2021; B = Ananda et al., 2022; C = Laila et al., 2022; D = Amirudin and Gim, 2019; E = Aka and Buyukdag, 2021; F = Urrutia et al., 2019; G = Talwar et al., 2022; H = Hatab et al., 2022; I = Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2021; J = Liu et al., 2023; K = Stancu & Lahteenmaki, 2022). At: attitude; PBC: perceived behavioural control; SN: subjective norms.

Figure 6.

(a) Household food waste journey and (b) reduction strategies.