Does Food Shopping Behaviour Determine Food Waste Vulnerability in Private Households? Quantitative Analysis on Case Studies from Germany

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear colleague,

I read your paper and enjoyed some parts of it, but I think it still is in draft version. 

First, I really appreciated the introduction, with straight comments about how atomized is the study of food waste. I fully agree and it is rare to find this considerations so clearly stated. 

I will proceed with specific comments: 

Paragraph 63-75: about definition and classification of avoidable and not avoidable, extensive work has been done already and an official classification has been adopted by the EU Member States. See European Commission. EC Delegated Decision, C. 3211 Final and Annex. Supplementing Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as Regards a Common Methodology and Minimum Quality Requirements for the Uniform Measurement of Levels of Food Waste. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2019/EN/C-2019–3211-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF   

Line 77-80: I did not understand the meaning of the sentence "In addition, in private households with several family members, there is no need to have an overview of whether and who disposes of how much in the household or who is even a household member in an intercultural comparison [28], so that the head of the household does not have complete knowledge of food waste in their own household". Why there is no need? This statement should be explained further. In my view, if in a house children waste the most at dinner, and they especially waste a specific food group (i.e. pasta), always with the reason "too much", then we have enough evidence to set specific interventions for this type of wasteful behavior. 

Line 80-83: "Last but not least, the recording of food waste in private households is arbitrary if disposal at work, at school, during leisure time or other outings outside the private home is not taken into account [29], because it is neither manually and factually done at home nor can it be verified in a waste bin assigned to the household" It is true, but this is why we usually observe different locations where food waste happens. In aggregated terms, it is more relevant to find out that in a certain school canteens the vegs are NEVER eaten by children, rather that one single child never eats vegs (in terms of policy intervention potential). 

Line 84-86: "This also applies to beverages of all kinds, although excluding the most important foodstuff "water", which is generally not disposed of in a waste bin and is displaced much more quickly in disposal behaviour than "solid" foods [30]" water has been classified by the EU harmonized definition and quantification methodology: it is not mandatory to report about it and it is not considered food waste. 

Lines 89-92: "This also applies to beverages of all kinds, although excluding the most important foodstuff "water", which is generally not disposed of in a waste bin and is displaced much more quickly in disposal behaviour than  "solid" foods [30]" This is not correct: through the diary method, we openly ask to respondents to check if the product they waste is edible or not in their view, so we can observe if this perception changes over time. The diary is considered a reliable method from the EU methodology, despite its limitations in accounting. 

Line 94-96: studies that have been run based on the EU accounting method (based on FUSIONS project) are not rudimentary: they are all included in the same definitional framework, methods are standardized and studies barely comparable. Studies based on questionnaires (aiming at quantifying) are not reliable. More about gaps in the scientific literature in his editorial (not to be cited, just for our internal academic discussion!) : "Household Food Waste from an International Perspective"

Lines 105-108: "Although 105 various large-scale surveys on the topic of food waste are available specifically for Germany [10, 34-35], the sufficiently incompatible data in an example like Germany, which tends to be well documented, show how uncertain the data on global or national food waste cited in the literature are calculated." Here you have missed Herzberg et al. 2020 "Characteristics and Determinants of Domestic Food Waste: A Representative Diary Study across Germany". This is an excellent and representative study for Germany, based on diaries. 

The paragraph "network analysis" seems out of context. As I reader, i am clearly following a critical review of existing studies about food waste with their limitations, then I read "network analysis". This is interrupting the flow when reading! I would suggest to integrate a little part of this paragraph in the earlier one, for instance by saying "to this end, in the current paper we adopted the Network analysis method, which show (advantages) if compared to current mainstream methodologies". Some of the details provided in this detail would fit better in the methodology section. 

Line 170: you missed two points at the end of the sentence ("the aim of the study is:"

Line 242/247: however repeated too much, it interrupts the flow

Line 268: data preparation should be in bold

In the whole paragraph methodology, it is never mentioned that you used the network analysis. This should be stated clearly and then, explained (like in the previous paragraph). 

Goals and hypothesis: 

Line 177: "To relate attitudes, actual shopping behaviour and actual food waste behaviour, from which contradictions and lack of congruence can explicitly emerge."How can you assess actual waste behavior through questionnaires? This is not possible. You can assess only self-perception. 

Line 179: "waste susceptibility": what do you mean by that? you never defined it before, but here you state that you want to measure it

Line 183: I did not understand how you can mirror the results on private households with the best-case answers of retailers and primary producers. I did not find an interview to producers and retailers. Did I miss it?

Discussions: poor in literature discussion, it could be improved. 

Limitations (bold the title):

1. there is already literature concluding this limitation, not mentioned here.

While I appreciate the clarity of the list, it is really unfriendly the strong difference between the first part of the paper (a narrative) and the last (a list of points). In my opinion, it undermines the flow of the paper. 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

I read your paper and enjoyed some parts of it, but I think it still is in draft version. 

First, I really appreciated the introduction, with straight comments about how atomized is the study of food waste. I fully agree and it is rare to find this considerations so clearly stated. 

I will proceed with specific comments: 

Paragraph 63-75: about definition and classification of avoidable and not avoidable, extensive work has been done already and an official classification has been adopted by the EU Member States. See European Commission. EC Delegated Decision, C. 3211 Final and Annex. Supplementing Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as Regards a Common Methodology and Minimum Quality Requirements for the Uniform Measurement of Levels of Food Waste. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2019/EN/C-2019–3211-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF   

The source was added (lines 80-83)

Line 77-80: I did not understand the meaning of the sentence "In addition, in private households with several family members, there is no need to have an overview of whether and who disposes of how much in the household or who is even a household member in an intercultural comparison [28], so that the head of the household does not have complete knowledge of food waste in their own household". Why there is no need? This statement should be explained further. In my view, if in a house children waste the most at dinner, and they especially waste a specific food group (i.e. pasta), always with the reason "too much", then we have enough evidence to set specific interventions for this type of wasteful behavior. 

This was a translation error. The context has been corrected (lines 84-87)

Line 80-83: "Last but not least, the recording of food waste in private households is arbitrary if disposal at work, at school, during leisure time or other outings outside the private home is not taken into account [29], because it is neither manually and factually done at home nor can it be verified in a waste bin assigned to the household" It is true, but this is why we usually observe different locations where food waste happens. In aggregated terms, it is more relevant to find out that in a certain school canteens the vegs are NEVER eaten by children, rather that one single child never eats vegs (in terms of policy intervention potential). 

The statement was added in lines 104-111

Line 84-86: "This also applies to beverages of all kinds, although excluding the most important foodstuff "water", which is generally not disposed of in a waste bin and is displaced much more quickly in disposal behaviour than "solid" foods [30]" water has been classified by the EU harmonized definition and quantification methodology: it is not mandatory to report about it and it is not considered food waste. 

The statement was added in lines 111-118

Lines 89-92: "This also applies to beverages of all kinds, although excluding the most important foodstuff "water", which is generally not disposed of in a waste bin and is displaced much more quickly in disposal behaviour than  "solid" foods [30]" This is not correct: through the diary method, we openly ask to respondents to check if the product they waste is edible or not in their view, so we can observe if this perception changes over time. The diary is considered a reliable method from the EU methodology, despite its limitations in accounting. 

The statement was added in lines 115-118

Line 94-96: studies that have been run based on the EU accounting method (based on FUSIONS project) are not rudimentary: they are all included in the same definitional framework, methods are standardized and studies barely comparable. Studies based on questionnaires (aiming at quantifying) are not reliable. More about gaps in the scientific literature in his editorial (not to be cited, just for our internal academic discussion!) : "Household Food Waste from an International Perspective"

The limitations of statements refer to the global context and to diverse national surveys that have no relation to the European Union's survey methods (lines 125-126)

Lines 105-108: "Although 105 various large-scale surveys on the topic of food waste are available specifically for Germany [10, 34-35], the sufficiently incompatible data in an example like Germany, which tends to be well documented, show how uncertain the data on global or national food waste cited in the literature are calculated." Here you have missed Herzberg et al. 2020 "Characteristics and Determinants of Domestic Food Waste: A Representative Diary Study across Germany". This is an excellent and representative study for Germany, based on diaries. 

The source was added (lines 141-143)

The paragraph "network analysis" seems out of context. As I reader, i am clearly following a critical review of existing studies about food waste with their limitations, then I read "network analysis". This is interrupting the flow when reading! I would suggest to integrate a little part of this paragraph in the earlier one, for instance by saying "to this end, in the current paper we adopted the Network analysis method, which show (advantages) if compared to current mainstream methodologies". Some of the details provided in this detail would fit better in the methodology section. 

The network section has been moved to the methods section (lines 361ff)

Line 170: you missed two points at the end of the sentence ("the aim of the study is:"

Corrected (line 210)

Line 242/247: however repeated too much, it interrupts the flow

For the measurement of representativeness, the statement made here is relevant with reference to Table 2

In the whole paragraph methodology, it is never mentioned that you used the network analysis. This should be stated clearly and then, explained (like in the previous paragraph). 

The network section has been moved to the methods section (lines 361ff)

 

Goals and hypothesis: 

Line 177: "To relate attitudes, actual shopping behaviour and actual food waste behaviour, from which contradictions and lack of congruence can explicitly emerge."How can you assess actual waste behavior through questionnaires? This is not possible. You can assess only self-perception. 

Line 179: "waste susceptibility": what do you mean by that? you never defined it before, but here you state that you want to measure it

Line 183: I did not understand how you can mirror the results on private households with the best-case answers of retailers and primary producers. I did not find an interview to producers and retailers. Did I miss it?

The statements were adjusted in terms of language and content (lines 209-227); Reference to expert interviews is made in the Methods section, Appendix D, and in the implications section

Discussions: poor in literature discussion, it could be improved. 

The section has been significantly expanded and secondary sources have been added as comparative benchmarks. (lines 573ff.)

there is already literature concluding this limitation, not mentioned here.

Sources were supplemented

While I appreciate the clarity of the list, it is really unfriendly the strong difference between the first part of the paper (a narrative) and the last (a list of points). In my opinion, it undermines the flow of the paper. 

The listing has been linguistically revised and supplemented (lines 740-780)

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The article deals with an interesting subject "perspective of retail geography" and I think the author has done it very well. Especially considering the fact that all data is collected during the Pandemic. The issue is well presented and the process for collecting data is impressive. The limitation section also shows the author is completely aware of its finding contribution. There are few issues that I think should be revised again as follow:

1. In the results section, Figures 3,4,5, and 6 apparently present four clusters but legends just covering sustainable and Spontaneous groups (If I am getting right!).

2. Some sentences are too long and difficult to read and comprehend e.g., 485-488 and there are more here and there which I strongly recommend going through and split it.

3. Line 495. What does Appendix 7 do here? any explanation?

4. I think Table 10 needs further elaboration. I found it rather confusing and very precise.

5. Section 7 should be reformulated. In this current way is difficult to follow and data are scattered. Using references also makes it more difficult to distinguish between the author's and referred literature's opinions. Also, I didn't understand the statement within lines 554 -562!

Last but not least what is/are the research contributions in the present scientific realm? is it the process? is it the results? suggestions? or...I didn't notice the issue and if there is/are any subtle cues that should be noticed for future research. We should notice that all data collected during the pandemic and for sure this factor could heavily impact people's shopping and food waste behavior. On other occasions, these results may not be applicable or could be if the author has any suggestions that could be followed by other actors/researchers.

Author Response

The article deals with an interesting subject "perspective of retail geography" and I think the author has done it very well. Especially considering the fact that all data is collected during the Pandemic. The issue is well presented and the process for collecting data is impressive. The limitation section also shows the author is completely aware of its finding contribution. There are few issues that I think should be revised again as follow:

1. In the results section, Figures 3,4,5, and 6 apparently present four clusters but legends just covering sustainable and Spontaneous groups (If I am getting right!).

Two selected examples were presented (lines 466-468)

2. Some sentences are too long and difficult to read and comprehend e.g., 485-488 and there are more here and there which I strongly recommend going through and split it.

Various statements were restructured.

3. Line 495. What does Appendix 7 do here? any explanation?

This was cancelled

4. I think Table 10 needs further elaboration. I found it rather confusing and very precise.

Table 10 has been cancelled and the text has been added to the part implications (lines 669ff.)

5. Section 7 should be reformulated. In this current way is difficult to follow and data are scattered. Using references also makes it more difficult to distinguish between the author's and referred literature's opinions. Also, I didn't understand the statement within lines 554 -562!

The statements were streamlined and supplemented with a new outlook on further research perspectives (lines 766ff.)

Last but not least what is/are the research contributions in the present scientific realm? is it the process? is it the results? suggestions? or...I didn't notice the issue and if there is/are any subtle cues that should be noticed for future research.

The discussion section was significantly expanded to link the own results with the previous discourse (lines 573ff.)

We should notice that all data collected during the pandemic and for sure this factor could heavily impact people's shopping and food waste behavior.

A critical reference to this is made under limitations (lines 857ff.)

On other occasions, these results may not be applicable or could be if the author has any suggestions that could be followed by other actors/researchers.

Outlooks are formulated in the section 7, esp. lines 774-779.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is well written. But, the discussion part should be strengthen by bibliographical references and the conclusion part should be  shorter.

Author Response

The discussion part has been extended. The conclusion part was formulated more compactly

see lines 573ff

lines 740ff

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 519: "In contrast to other studies, the present work was conducted as a full survey at the meso level." what do you mean by meso level? how are other studies conducted?

Line 528 : "Although questions about food disposal were asked in the six-page questionnaire, they were integrated into a broader context of statements and 529 questions about food and shopping. " Don't you think that one of the problems may have been the lenght of the questionnire?Six page it's a demanding job for respondents, usually in the food waste field it is suggested to reward respondent for such a committment, otherwise you incurr in the risk of self-selecting the "virtuous", in other words only those who care a lot about the topic and want to show how good they are. For instance, diary studies are paid or their validity is questionable. 

611: "The experience that a not insignificant number of subjects completely denies food waste occurrence in their household " this sentence is broken. It should be completed. 

625: what do you mean by "natural" product? In a supermarket, not even an apple is natural, if you mean catch from the three and sold directly. There is no definition of "natural" in the food definitions of the EU. So, you should specify or reword.

654 : "The collected data combine three data worlds, that of attitude sets, shopping behaviour and disposal behaviour." what about the data collected through interviews to retailers? why are you focusing again only on the consumers' survey?

The results of the interviews to retaiklers should be well presented in the results section, insted there is only one mention in lines 618-622. How these interview interact with your households questionnaire (if it does)? if not relevant, then I would suggest not to mention it, because it creates expectation in the reader. 

On the whole, the results section is not very clear, it does not integrate much literature and it contains a lot of speculation (?) about food waste that seems to be unrelated to your study. in other words, something that could become a nice chapter for a book, but it is not suitable for a journal article, where clear scope, methodology and results need to emerge, with their novelty and boundaries. Also, clarity of the text is sometimes absent (very long sentences, I suppose that English editing might be useful). Please, be aware that my final choice does not depend on the English, even if I think it should be improved. 

I am really confused on the goal-scope-methodology-result-novelty nexus, maybe because the article is very long and it contains sections that it is not clear if are results deriving from your survey or your personal speculations. It is somehow confusing also the role of the retailers interviews. 

I would suggest to focus exactly on the result you have and re-write the sections results and implication and discussion accordingly, highlighting the originality of your results against existing literature.  

Author Response

Line 519: "In contrast to other studies, the present work was conducted as a full survey at the meso level." what do you mean by meso level? how are other studies conducted?

Reference was deleted

 

Line 528 : "Although questions about food disposal were asked in the six-page questionnaire, they were integrated into a broader context of statements and 529 questions about food and shopping. " Don't you think that one of the problems may have been the lenght of the questionnire?Six page it's a demanding job for respondents, usually in the food waste field it is suggested to reward respondent for such a committment, otherwise you incurr in the risk of self-selecting the "virtuous", in other words only those who care a lot about the topic and want to show how good they are. For instance, diary studies are paid or their validity is questionable. 

In order to identify psychographic correlations, an appropriately adapted questionnaire is required. The response rate of 1,458 questionnaires is sufficient in absolute terms to draw sufficiently well-founded conclusions from this. Our own approach is subject to appropriate self-criticism.

 

611: "The experience that a not insignificant number of subjects completely denies food waste occurrence in their household " this sentence is broken. It should be completed. 

The sentence structure was adjusted

625: what do you mean by "natural" product? In a supermarket, not even an apple is natural, if you mean catch from the three and sold directly. There is no definition of "natural" in the food definitions of the EU. So, you should specify or reword.

changed to fresh poducts

654 : "The collected data combine three data worlds, that of attitude sets, shopping behaviour and disposal behaviour." what about the data collected through interviews to retailers? why are you focusing again only on the consumers' survey?

The core data set is the quantitative survey of private households. The latter are therefore the focus of our own discussion. Expert discussions with producers and marketers serve to find applied solutions to prevent food waste even before the products reach the households. Producers and marketers are understood as communicative channels for private households, from which the latter can learn and act.

 

The results of the interviews to retaiklers should be well presented in the results section, insted there is only one mention in lines 618-622. How these interview interact with your households questionnaire (if it does)? if not relevant, then I would suggest not to mention it, because it creates expectation in the reader. 

For this purpose, the text was rearranged and the expert interviews were transferred to the results section.

On the whole, the results section is not very clear, it does not integrate much literature and it contains a lot of speculation (?) about food waste that seems to be unrelated to your study. in other words, something that could become a nice chapter for a book, but it is not suitable for a journal article, where clear scope, methodology and results need to emerge, with their novelty and boundaries. Also, clarity of the text is sometimes absent (very long sentences, I suppose that English editing might be useful). Please, be aware that my final choice does not depend on the English, even if I think it should be improved. 

I am really confused on the goal-scope-methodology-result-novelty nexus, maybe because the article is very long and it contains sections that it is not clear if are results deriving from your survey or your personal speculations. It is somehow confusing also the role of the retailers interviews. 

I would suggest to focus exactly on the result you have and re-write the sections results and implication and discussion accordingly, highlighting the originality of your results against existing literature.  

The text has been modified in various places to emphasize the novel perspectives presented here over the mainstream literature. This relates primarily to the importance of situational criteria (operational forms and product characteristics) in explaining food waste. Speculative statements do not exist. Statements are interpreted appropriately based on the data presented.

The length of the elaboration aims to be sufficiently transparent, especially in the approach.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I wish you all the best for future studies.