An interdisciplinary examination of behaviours and policy preferences for domestic food waste reduction: The case of households in Central Queensland, Australia

Globally, food waste has become a central issue in the management of municipal solid wastes. The collection and disposal of food waste (FW)is exposing environmental resources (land, water, air) to pollution levels pressure of unprecedented scale. In Australia alone, FW costs the economy close to AU$20 billion annually, and in each household, between $2,200 and $3,800 worth of food is being discarded per year. In the domestic food supply chain, understanding households’ attitudes and their behaviours towards domestic food waste (DFW) is crucial to implement realistic prevention and/or reduction policy options. Identifying communities’ preferred options is also crucial to create meaningful schemes that can motivate people to participate and adopt desirable behavioural changes. Despite these, householders’ non-market values relating to DFW are not adequately investigated and their policy implications are poorly understood. There are currently insufficient empirical data on DFW drivers from interdisciplinary standpoints. New research is therefore required to further the understanding of the conjunction of socioeconomic, environmental, and psychological, and policy preferences that householders have in regards to DFW. Such research would provide clear evidence on which to base policy settings and best-practices; in the absence of this, food waste will continue to be a growing global concern in relation to both economic and environmental sustainability. This research set out to address the identified gaps through a mixed methods approach, applying a case-study design in a regional Australian context. It was aimed at exploring householders’ preferences, willingness to pay for, and motivation to participate in DFW reduction options. The research was focused mainly on point-of-purchase and post-purchase stages of household food-related activities. These stages are essential components of a food supply chain that considerably influence householders’ decisions in food consumption and wastage. The research was conducted in the Rockhampton Regional Council and Livingstone Shire Council local government areas in Central Queensland, Australia. The underlying rationale for this case location is that regional areas face extra pressures on DFW reduction mainly due to the lack of economies of scale and limited access to recycling schemes compared with better-serviced metropolitan areas. In a preliminary exploration, two focus group discussions were conducted with 17 residents, to gain understanding of DFW drivers and preferences relating to prevention and reduction scenarios. Subsequently, an online survey was conducted with 587 residents. The quantitative research data were drawn from three main sub-categories of survey questions—Likert-type behaviours, sociodemographics, and questions relating to non-market valuation of DFW attributes. Factor analyses, multiple regressions, logistic regressions, choice modelling and contingent valuation techniques were used to analyse a range of relationships between response and explanatory variables. The mixed approach to data gathering and analyses was instrumental to reveal complex conceptual constructs in DFW issues that would have been difficult to reveal if only a qualitative or quantitative approach was used. Results from the qualitative analyses revealed a range of trade-offs that influenced the preferences for, and participation in, DFW prevention and diversion options. Overall, the participants appeared to prefer diversion through backyard composting over prevention (e.g. via education to avoid overconsumption and over-purchasing). In the quantitative analyses, a range of significant behavioural and socio-demographic predictor variables were identified. The level of support and value attached to the suggested DFW diversion option significantly varied across the residents surveyed. This indicates that it would be costly for Councils to simultaneously implement several options in an attempt to cater to the householders’ variable preferences. In that regard, the case study suggests that DFW diversion must be considered as one viable option. This would mean implementing avoidance as a non-optional measure, prompting the need to practice behavioural changes. Overall, this research offers novel contributions to the DFW literature in terms of its interdisciplinary approach and key findings that inform conceptual advances and practical applications for future studies. The focus of the study on a regional context highlights the relevance of acknowledging regional community preferences, perspectives, and challenges relating to DFW. The research also provides policy-makers with exploratory and explanatory insights into understanding behaviours that can underpin and/or inform practical policy interventions, especially those that will be valuable at local government levels in Australia and elsewhere.