Insights into Awareness and Perceptions of Food Waste and School Catering Practices: A Student-Centered Study in Rezekne City, Latvia

Abstract

A fundamental step to foster a sustainable future is enhancing students’ awareness of responsible food consumption. The present research study assessed students’ awareness of food waste (FW) issues, attitudes towards school catering and lunch management, and the reasons for plate waste (PW) in Rezekne city schools, Latvia. A survey was conducted in April 2024 involving 944 students in grades 2 to 7 across four selected schools (S1, S2, S3, and S4), provided with state and municipality-funded free lunches. Statistical analysis methods (Mean ± SD, Kruskal–Wallis H test, Mann–Whitney U post hoc test, and Spearman’s correlation analysis) were used to analyze the results. The findings revealed limited awareness and knowledge of students about FW issues, and generally indifferent attitude towards FW and school meals. In addition, significant dissatisfaction with the sensory qualities of meals was observed, yet sensory satisfaction did not correlate with FW levels, pointing to broader issues within the catering model. The restrictive pre-served portion system was found ineffective in reducing FW and fostering responsible consumption. A sustainable catering model should empower students to independently choose the type and quantity of food, combining their abilities and motivation with practical actions. These findings provide a basis for strategies aimed at reducing FW and promoting responsible and sustainable food consumption in Latvian schools.

1. Introduction

FW is a global problem having major implications for environmental sustainability, economic efficiency, and social equality [1,2], thereby exacerbating hunger, overexploiting natural resources, and contributing to greenhouse gas emissions [3]. According to the World Food Programme (WFP) [4], approximately a third (1.3 billion tonnes) of food produced annually for human consumption, with a monetary value of USD 1 trillion, is lost or wasted in the food supply chain (FSC). This quantity of food could potentially feed 2 billion people, which is twice the current number of undernourished people worldwide. In addition, FW is a major contributor to carbon dioxide emissions [4].

Food loss and FW in the FSC are distinguished based on the stage at which they occur. Food loss occurs during the first three stages of the FSC—production, handling and storage, and processing—due to infrastructure limitations, environmental factors, and quality or safety standards, resulting in a reduction in the weight of edible food. In contrast, FW occurs in the final two stages—distribution and consumption—when food originally intended for human consumption is discarded, whether still edible or spoiled at the time of disposal [5,6,7,8].

The amount of FW in the FSC varies from country to country and is affected by factors such as income levels, urbanization, and economic growth [7,9]. In developing countries, FW is a major problem at the production and distribution stages [10,11], whereas in developed countries it is produced mostly at the consumption stage, including households and food service providers [7,11,12,13,14]. The European Union (EU) produces almost 57 million tonnes of FW annually, representing an economic loss of EUR 130 billion annually [15,16]. Research findings for the period 2019–2021 showed that 46% of FW in the EU was produced at the consumption stage [17,18,19]. In 2021 in the EU, according to Eurostat [16], FW per capita was 131 kg, with households (70 kg/capita) and food service providers (12 kg/capita) accounting for the largest share, totalling 63% of the total FW in the entire FSC [16]. In 2022 in the EU, FW from households accounted for 54% (32 million tonnes of fresh mass), while from restaurants and food service providers—11% (below 7 million tonnes of fresh mass) [16], which indicates the need to focus waste reduction efforts on the consumption stage.

To foster sustainable food systems, in 2015 the United Nations (UN) set the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030, of which Goal 12 focuses on responsible production and consumption, with Target 12.3 aimed at halving per capita FW at the retailer and consumer stages by 2030, while reducing food losses at the production and supply stages. This initiative is expected to increase food security and contribute to a more resource-efficient economy [20,21]. FW is perceived very seriously in the EU, and the EU Member States are committed to achieving UN Goal 12 [22]; however, the progress has been hampered by the lingering effects and devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, environmental pressures from the climate crisis and geopolitical tensions, so that the world is seriously off track in its efforts to halve FW and food losses per capita by 2030 [23].

Encouraging responsible consumption practices is key to sustainable development (SD) [23], which indicates the need to develop such practices in individuals from an early age, and, in this respect, educational initiatives play a key role in reducing FW in the EU [24,25]. In this sense, schools are catalysts for shaping the habits and behaviours of future generations [26]. The schools are a place not only to provide nutrition education and promote healthy eating habits but also to lead by example through school meals [27,28].

Schools have the potential to deal with societal challenges by educating students who can act as agents of change at home and in society [29,30]. Raising awareness about FW and promoting sustainable consumption practices can help to change consumer behaviour [31]. In recent years, FW at school has received much attention, with current research focusing mainly on quantifying the amount of FW, e.g., measuring PW [32,33,34], assessing environmental impacts, and identifying nutrient losses in school meals [35], analyzing factors influencing food and PW in schools [33,36,37], testing interventions and prevention strategies of FW and PW [34,38,39], developing and testing various tools to prevent FW and PW [40,41,42] and, while less common, there is more research on students’ knowledge and perceptions of FW issues and how they influence their behaviour [43,44,45]. However, while problems with FW and its reduction and the role of consumers in tackling them have been widely researched and documented globally, the authors believe that there is a lack of relevant national research. Tackling a global problem, e.g., FW, requires a deep understanding of its aspects in different contexts, including geographical locations and consumption patterns. Such research is important to gain a deeper understanding of the particular context so that patterns and actions can be identified which can ultimately contribute to tackling the problem on a broader, global scale.

As an EU Member State, Latvia is involved in EU-scale initiatives to reduce FW in all industries and, just like the EU, under Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12, Target 12.3, is committed to halving per capita FW by 2030 [46]. In this respect, a number of activities have been implemented at the national level so far, including the adoption by the Government of the Action Plan for the Transition to a Circular Economy by 2027 [47], the mandatory sorting of organic waste as of 1 January 2024 [48] as well as global education or education for SD have been set as an important aspect of development and cooperation policy of Latvia, thereby supporting activities that promote public awareness of sustainability, including responsible consumption [46].

In addition, Latvia is also implementing a number of initiatives to reduce FW, including raising public awareness about reducing FW, e.g., the international Eco-school Programme implemented by the Environmental Education Foundation, which has successfully implemented FW reduction initiatives in many Latvian educational institutions, as well as the association Green Liberty, which launches and participates in various waste reduction projects (both food and industrial) and develops initiatives to improve the environment and the quality of life [49], research is performed on FW and PW in schools [38,40,50], as well as ICT solutions are being developed to tackle the FW problem in schools [40,41], etc.; however, no specific research has been conducted in Latvia to assess students’ understanding and knowledge of FW issues. Existing research in Latvia primarily focuses on broader institutional or household levels [51,52,53], leaving a gap in understanding students’ role in FW reduction. Studies from other countries have explored student perspectives on FW, including survey-based assessments of awareness and behaviour among university students in China [43] and Indonesia [54], attitudes and self-reported food waste habits among Polish students [55], and factors influencing FW behaviours in educational settings [45,56]. However, the extent to which Latvian students are aware of and knowledgeable about FW remains unexplored. Such research is important to establish the foundational baseline for addressing the issue, as children play a key role in shaping future attitudes and habits towards food consumption and sustainability. Assessing their awareness and knowledge can help to develop more effective initiatives and strategies that can promote responsible food consumption behaviour from childhood, contributing to long-term FW reduction in schools and beyond.

The present study aims to identify and assess students’ knowledge and awareness of FW issues, their attitudes towards school catering and lunch management, as well as identify the reasons for PW in city schools in Rezekne, Latvia. The study put forward the following hypotheses: H1. Students from Rezekne city schools have insufficient knowledge and understanding of FW and its impact on sustainability; H2. The current catering model in Rezekne city schools is unsustainable and does not promote responsible food consumption by students.

The structure of the manuscript is as follows. Section 2 presents a literature review, outlining key theoretical and empirical insights into school catering management, FW in schools, students’ awareness of FW, and the role of behavioural economics in food consumption. Section 3 details the materials and methods, focusing on catering management in Rezekne city schools and the student survey. Section 4 presents the results, structured across four dimensions of the questionnaire. Section 5 discusses the findings of the existing literature and policy implications. Finally, Section 6 concludes the study by summarising key insights and offering recommendations for improving FW management in school catering.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Management of Catering in Schools

According to a UN report, more than 1 billion people worldwide suffer from obesity: 650 million adults, 340 million adolescents and 39 million children [57], while 828 million people suffer from hunger [58], and more than 42 million people in the EU cannot afford a quality meal every day [15,16,59].

School catering plays a crucial role in contributing to the health, education and overall development of children, especially in vulnerable and marginalised communities [60]. According to a WFP report [61], which compiled data from 176 countries, 418 million children received school meals in 2022, an increase of 30 million compared with 2020, whereas 153 million children, unfortunately, struggled with hunger in 79 countries; in low-income countries, the number of children receiving school meals decreased by 4% [61]. In some countries, school meals not only reduce unequal access to food but also help to fight hunger [62], and in the context of current global crises, governments around the world have made school catering programmes a top priority, as they are considered a highly effective and affordable solution to prevent hunger among children and ensure access to education, health and nutrition for them, especially for those from vulnerable families [60].

The management of school catering varies considerably between countries, as each country has its own set of regulatory frameworks and policy documents to ensure that school catering meets health standards and cultural expectations while also addressing food safety problems [63,64]. Therefore, the process of management of school catering tends to vary, as some components of catering might vary, e.g., the way food is served, the menu, food placement on the plate, portion size, nutritional value of the meal and even the time of the lunch break. The dominant approaches to managing the catering process in schools are self-service and pre-portioned meals. The self-service approach, which is common in countries such as Sweden and Finland, allows students to choose the ingredients and portion size of the meal according to their preferences [34,65,66]. It has been found that if giving students choice, this approach reduces the amount of PW and satisfies their diverse nutritional needs, preferences, and appetites [33,67,68,69]. However, this approach also requires close supervision by teachers or kitchen personnel to ensure that students consume a balanced diet and appropriate portion sizes. The pre-proportioned meal approach, which, like in Latvia, is common in countries such as Brazil, Italy and France, ensures that each student is served a certain portion before the lunch break [70,71,72,73]. This approach ensures that meals meet the strict nutritional requirements and are the same for all students [67]; however, it limits the students’ autonomy in choosing the type and quantity of food, which affects their overall satisfaction with the meal and thus increases PW [12,74].

Funding models for school catering also vary across European countries—some countries provide free meals for all students, while others combine public support and parental contributions [75]. Some countries implement income-adjusted support programmes, e.g., the Education and Participation Package in Germany [76,77]. Similarly to Latvia, some countries, such as Sweden and Finland, have introduced a national free lunch programme [78]. In Norway, in contrast, school catering is not regulated, and it is common for students to eat food brought from home, with bread being the key component; however, like Latvia, Norway has a state-funded support scheme for fruit, vegetables, and school milk in primary and secondary schools [66,78]. Dutch schools are still transitioning from eating lunch at home to eating lunch at school to provide an opportunity to increase the quality of nutrition for children [79,80].

Several research studies confirmed that the role of school catering goes beyond simply providing nutrition and is crucial in promoting healthy behaviours and shaping long-term habits, as the children spend a lot of their time at school [69,81]. Some research studies have found that if students eat meals together with their peers and teachers, it develops and strengthens their socialisation skills, builds their experience in table culture, and reinforces their positive behaviours throughout the day [82].

2.2. Food Waste in Schools

Although school catering provides significant support for the educational process, thereby contributing to healthy nutrition and fighting hunger, its effectiveness is undermined by FW. While free and quality meals are provided in schools in many parts of the world, not all students consume them responsibly, thus producing significant amount of FW [78]. School canteens are part of the last stage of the FSC, i.e., food consumption [7,12,13,14,83,84,85], which involves households, restaurants, and food services (including school canteens) and which produces the most FW.

The problem of FW in schools is receiving more attention worldwide [25,33,34,35,38,43,86]. In the last decade, school canteens have also gained significant public and research interest as a unique setting where education and catering come together, as food is served, consumed, and wasted, thereby revealing consumer behaviour and resource management [13,87]. Schools are recognized as a significant source of FW [74,88,89]. Several research studies have found that schools produce a large amount of FW, with the largest source of waste being PW [12,33,34,90,91]. The research conducted has confirmed that solutions are needed to reduce FW in schools, which would result in economic, social, and environmental benefits, as responsible food consumption and waste reduction are the social responsibility of every educational institution [92,93].

School catering programmes play an important role in the global food system [94]; therefore, combating FW in schools can provide multiple benefits in overall efforts towards SD and the achievement of the SDGs [95].

From the SD environmental perspective, decreasing FW in schools can reduce the consumption of resources such as water, electricity, and land that are needed to produce, transport, and dispose of food and reduce the total ecological footprint [27,96,97]. Therefore, reducing FW in schools contributes to achieving SDG 12 (Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns) and SDG 13 (Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts) [21], while decreasing the environmental burden caused by food systems as well as preserving biodiversity and natural resources [98].

From the economic perspective, FW in schools causes significant economic losses for all FSC actors [7], resulting in inefficient use of state and local government funding that covers free school lunches. Several research studies have found that relatively large economic losses arise from wasting school lunches, e.g., in the Swedish catering industry, approximately 20% of the food served ends up in waste [34], in Italian schools, 20–29% or ⅓ of the food served is wasted, and FW accounts for 6–11% of the total cost [13]. In Latvia, a study conducted in 2020 revealed that 29% of the total amount of food served in schools in Rezekne city ended up in waste, which in monetary terms was approximately EUR 84,000 per year [33], thereby negatively affecting the economic aspect of sustainability. By reducing the amount of waste, the saved resources could be used to increase the quality of meals or support other initiatives.

FW also significantly impacts the social aspects of SD, as a large amount of food is wasted worldwide, including in schools. Accordingly, reducing FW can improve food security, promote social equity, and develop sustainable and healthy consumption practices [95].

The problem of FW in educational institutions is multifaceted, yet schools play a vital role in addressing the complex relationship between FW and nutrition by offering essential nutrition through school meals, educating young consumers and influencing future habits regarding healthy eating and sustainability [99].

2.3. Students’ Awareness of Food Waste

Some research studies have found that students lack understanding and knowledge of FW issues, which is the cause of a lack of responsible food consumption, thereby not contributing to the reduction in FW [15,100,101,102]. Based on an extensive literature review, Lonska et al. [33] have established that students skip meals because they are unaware of the environmental damage caused by FW, as well as the associated ethical and socioeconomic consequences, and this behaviour might be facilitated by a lack of knowledge about the origin of food and food production [33]. In this respect, schools as educational institutions are the primary place where students can develop sustainable habits and behaviours from an early age, thus increasing their awareness of FW and the need to reduce it. By educating students about healthy and sustainable food practices, schools can serve as an important tool in creating and reinforcing values that promote responsible consumption and inspire the students to apply the practices beyond schools, thus also influencing their families and the wider community [12,103].

It has been found that various initiatives aimed at reducing FW and PW can increase students’ awareness and knowledge of the FW problem. For example, education and awareness campaigns like the “Food Education and Sustainability Training (FEAST) Programme”, which was designed to promote sustainable food practices and nutrition education in schools, focusing on increasing fruit and vegetable consumption by children, while improving their food-related knowledge, behaviour and skills, including their awareness of FW [104], the “Clean dish, clean conscience!”, which was a cheap and simple campaign to increase consumer awareness about PW, highlighting the link between FW and personal behaviour [105], the “Clean Your Plate”, which is widespread in Chinese universities, with the aim of motivating students to eat as much as possible and suggesting that wasting food is bad [43], etc. Interventions aimed at reducing FW have been found to be particularly effective in primary and secondary schools, and if integrated, for example, into lessons on the SDGs [106]. However, some research studies have found that interventions aimed at reducing FW in primary and secondary schools can be effective in the short term, thereby increasing the students’ awareness and changing their behaviour immediately after the intervention, yet the interventions need to be regularly reviewed and integrated into the learning environment to maintain the long-term effect [25,38]. Limited resources, e.g., funding and expertise, which need to be considered when designing educational initiatives, can also be an obstacle to the successful implementation thereof [106]. Awareness and understanding of FW issues is an emerging area of research with significant potential for shaping future consumption patterns and promoting sustainability because educating students and the public has a much broader impact, as consumers have an opportunity to evaluate and review their consumption habits and make more sustainable choices after becoming aware of the problem of FW [107].

2.4. Behavioural Economics: Understanding Food Consumption

Consumer behaviour has been researched and analyzed for over 50 years. Research on responsible food consumption at schools is based on a variety of theoretical frameworks that give unique insights into the factors and causes that influence FW behaviour. The earliest foundational theories include the Norm Activation Model (NAM), developed by Schwartz [108] with the aim of examining how personal moral norms activate awareness of consequences and a sense of responsibility [108], and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), developed by Ajzen [109,110], which initially aimed to understand and predict behaviour in various areas, while later to explain how beliefs, attitudes, and behavioural intentions influence an individual’s actions [109,110]. Over time, theoretical frameworks have evolved, thereby revealing an increasingly complex and nuanced understanding of the various interrelated factors that influence individual behaviour, e.g., the Nudge Theory, introduced by Thaler and Sunstein [111], that focuses on how to influence individuals’ behaviour in a predictable way without restricting their freedom of choice [111]. Similarly, the Motivation–Opportunity–Ability (MOA) framework, introduced by Ölander and Thøgersen [112], reveals that individuals’ food consumption behaviour is influenced not only by their motivations but also by their abilities as well as opportunities available in their environments, and used appropriately [112]. This framework suggests a comprehensive approach to understanding behaviour by examining the interaction of three main components (motivation, opportunity, ability) [113,114]; as concerns consumer FW, motivation refers to an individual’s willingness to take actions that reduce FW, which is influenced by internal factors such as awareness and attitude and external factors like social norms, while opportunity involves the availability and accessibility of resources and materials necessary for FW prevention, including infrastructure, technologies, time, schedule, etc. And ability represents the skills and knowledge required to perform actions related to FW prevention [113]. Both models are widely used nowadays, thereby giving valuable insights into behavioural changes.

Behavioural economics is a valuable tool for understanding food consumption behaviour, because unlike traditional economic models that recognise rational consumer behaviour, behavioural economics emphasises the role of psychological, cognitive, social, and emotional influences in decision-making [115,116,117]. Ogaki and Tanaka [117] believe that behavioural economics goes beyond the traditional structure by incorporating insights from related subfields, including neuroeconomics, cultural and identity economics, and the economics of happiness, thus allowing for a deeper understanding of how environmental, cultural, and psychological factors shape economic decisions [117]. In the context of food consumption, one of the main priorities is to promote responsible and sustainable consumption behaviour and change habits to reduce FW [12,118,119]. However, to influence and change the behaviour of consumers, including students, it is first necessary to understand the factors and reasons that influence their decisions, including those leading to FW. In this regard, a student survey is one of the tools providing critical insights into students’ perceptions, attitudes, and habits related to school meals.

Some research studies on responsible food consumption highlight the complexity of FW behaviour [54,120,121,122,123], and, according to Mganga et al. [54] and Quested et al. [121], there is no framework or system that can fully explain this concept as a unified system [54,121], as it is affected by several factors, including the environment in which a particular behaviour occurs, individuals’ knowledge about FW, personal attitudes, habits, societal norms, ability to control one’s actions, etc. [54,121,124]. Either way, the amount of FW in schools relates to consumer (student) behaviour and habits [125,126] and is primarily considered a behavioural problem, determined by several interrelated and often contradictory factors significantly affecting behavioural outcomes [120,122,123].

Based on theories on individual behaviour, consumers can change many of their habits that contribute to FW, e.g., making smaller meals [103], yet changing consumer behaviour is challenging, especially in the field of food consumption where established routines, habits and cultural norms play a key role [25]; in addition, the ability to reduce FW is also affected by various external factors, including policy frameworks and lifestyles [103]. FW is, therefore, the final result of a complex decision-making process centred on individual resource consumption [127]. For the above reasons, interventions during school years when values and habits are still being shaped are likely to be more effective than in later adulthood, thus highlighting the important role of education [25,128]. Therefore, reducing FW requires cooperation between all actors in the food system, with educational institutions playing a central role in promoting responsible consumption behaviour from a young age [94,103].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Case Study Background

3.1.1. Food Waste Research Projects in Rezekne, Latvia

Since 2021, the RTA research team has been addressing the issue of FW in school catering. The research project “E-mentor as a Transformation Tool for Ensuring Zero-Waste Food Consumption in Educational Institutions” (No. lzp-2020/2-0115) (E-mentor), funded by the Latvian Council of Science, analyzed PW in seven schools in Rezekne. The findings led to recommendations for stakeholders on how to reduce this waste. Notably, prior research in Latvia had not specifically focused on zero-waste food consumption in educational institutions, particularly in relation to PW. This was the first attempt to understand how much PW is generated by Rezekne city schools. The research study revealed that a significant amount of PW was generated in the surveyed schools: an average of 178 g per student per day, or 28.75% of the food served (including beverages) [33]. After the E-mentor project, it became clear that research in this area needs to be continued, and future research studies should focus on practical activities aimed at reducing FW.

At the beginning of 2023, a second research project “Testing Interventions and Developing a Knowledge-based Recommendation System to Reduce Plate Waste in School Catering in Latvia” (No. lzp-2022/1-0492), funded by the Latvian Council of Science, was launched. The primary aim of this project was to implement and evaluate interventions designed to reduce PW in Rezekne city schools. Three interventions were implemented: S1—a PW tracker, S2—an awareness and educational campaign, and S3—organizational changes (larger plates, extended lunch breaks, and teacher supervision during the lunch breaks). S4 served as a control school. PW was measured at three intervals: pre-intervention, short-term post-intervention, and long-term post-intervention [38]. In parallel, a survey was conducted among 2nd–7th grade students (excluding 1st graders due to their insufficient reading skills) to explore the subjective causes of PW, investigate students’ eating habits, and collect feedback on the school catering process. The survey was designed to offer valuable insights into students’ perspectives, helping to understand better the factors contributing to PW in schools. The general research steps can be seen in Figure 1.

3.1.2. Management of the Catering Process in Rezekne City Schools

Following legal norms, such as the Cabinet regulation No. 614 Procedure for Calculating, Allocating, and Utilizing State Budget Funding for Student Meals [129], along with the annual directive from the Rezekne City Council’s Education Board on student catering, students in grades 1–7 in Rezekne city schools (Latvia) receive free lunches funded by the state (grades 1–4) and the local municipality (grades 5–7).

In the school canteens in Rezekne, the distribution of free lunches is partially self-service. Shortly before lunch, school canteen personnel prepare tables for each class with portioned meals according to the expected number of students. This includes placing main courses (a combination of staple foods and meat) on individual plates and drinks in separate glasses for each student. In some schools, vegetables are served on individual plates, while in others, they are provided in shared dishes for each class. Soups are served in common pots at the tables, with portions determined based on the number of students using standardized serving sizes. Bread and glazed cottage cheese are also provided in shared containers, portioned according to the number of students [33,38,41].

3.2. Survey Questionnaire

A structured survey was conducted among students in grades 2–7 in the four schools involved in the project to identify and assess their knowledge about the negative impact of FW, attitudes towards healthy eating habits, opinions on the sensory qualities of food served in the school canteens, and evaluations of the management of catering in the school canteens, as well as to receive feedback for improving the catering process.

The survey method is considered the backbone of social science research, as it is one of the most commonly used methods in all fields of social science research [130]. This method allows a large number of respondents to be questioned simultaneously, as well as to obtain information in a format that makes it easy to make statistical aggregations and calculations [131].

A questionnaire was designed by the project researchers, which included questions covering four dimensions:

• The demographic profile of respondents.
• The environmental dimension—basic knowledge about school food, FW and its negative impacts;
• The personal dimension—students’ individual attitudes toward FW and their personal food consumption habits;
• The organizational dimension—students’ opinions on the sensory quality of food (taste, smell, appearance, temperature) and their assessment of the organization and management of the school canteen.

The questionnaire included both open-ended questions, allowing respondents to give free-form answers, and structured closed-ended questions with multiple-choice answers.

To assess the appropriateness of the questions and answer options, the questionnaire was validated by face-to-face interviews with 28 students (7 per school from each grade) in May 2023. Each question was discussed with the students to identify whether the target respondents understood the questions and answer options and determine the time required to complete a questionnaire. As a result of these interviews, some questions were slightly paraphrased for clarity, but no significant structural changes were made. Additionally, it was decided to exclude 1st grade students from the study, as their reading and writing skills were not yet sufficiently developed. This required extensive explanations for each question, which significantly increased response time and resource usage.

A pre-intervention survey of students was conducted at the end of September 2023. Students in grades 2–4 completed paper questionnaires, while those in grades 5–7 completed digital ones. Access to the e-survey was provided via the project website by entering a password. This approach was selected considering the digital skills of younger students as well as the availability of computer labs in the schools. A post-intervention survey was conducted in April 2024. To avoid potential data errors, e.g., inconsistencies between digital and paper formats, identical and detailed instructions for questionnaire completion were given to all the participants, regardless of the format of the questionnaire, and the structures of the digital and paper questionnaires were designed exactly the same, including the order, format, and answer options of the questions. This approach ensured that the data from both groups were comparable and reliable, no notable differences in response rates or answer completeness were observed between the two questionnaire formats.

The pre-intervention survey data, collected at the beginning of the school year, were not included in the main analysis because the students, particularly those in lower grades, lacked sufficient experience with school meals after the summer holidays and were unable to provide informed evaluations. While conducting the surveys, researchers observed that many students expressed uncertainty and hesitated in their responses, often stating that they were unsure how to answer certain questions. The post-intervention survey data, collected during the second half of the study year, provided more reliable insights, as the students had gained sufficient experience with school catering during the study year. However, pre-intervention survey data were included in the correlation analysis to meet the sample size requirement for Spearman’s correlation.

3.2.1. Sample Selection

The survey sample consisted of students aged 7–16 in grades 2–7 from four selected schools in Rezekne city. The selection of schools was based on data on the school catering ecosystem and the amount of PW identified by the E-mentor project [67]—the selected schools were of equivalent quality to ensure the quality of the experiment, i.e., all the schools operated under a similar catering model with partly pre-served meals, providing a uniform context for evaluation, as well as the willingness of school administrations to cooperate was taken into account. The selection of classes was based on the fact that in Rezekne city, free lunches for grades 1–7 were funded by the state and the municipality. As mentioned above, the survey did not include 1st graders because it was found that during the validation of the questionnaire, their reading and writing skills were not yet good enough, and they needed a long time to understand each question.

All the students completed the questionnaires in the presence of their teachers and project representatives so that they could explain the nature of the questions, if necessary, especially for primary school students.

3.2.2. Ethical Considerations

The heads of the schools involved in the project informed parents of the students about the project and their anonymous and voluntary participation in the experiment and survey via the online school management system “E-class”. Due to the fact that no personal data from the students were collected and processed during the project and their participation was completely anonymous, the students were not exposed to any physical or emotional risk during the experiment, and due to the fact that the school administrations agreed to participate in the project and gave permission for the implementation of the project activities, no written consent was required from the parents for their children’s participation in the project activities. All ethical aspects of the research study were reviewed and approved by the Scientific Council of the Research Institute for Business and Social Processes at the Rezekne Academy of Technologies (excerpt from the minutes of meeting No. 9, dated 25/04/2023).

3.2.3. Data Analysis

Microsoft Excel and IBM SPSS v.29, a predictive analytics and statistical analysis software package, were used to process the survey data and results. Descriptive statistics and statistical analysis were employed to analyze the survey results.

To assess whether there were significant differences in opinions on the different issues between the different student groups, the answers were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, and both a descriptive statistics test (Mean ± SD) and a Kruskal–Wallis H test were conducted. The descriptive statistics test provided an overview of the central tendency and variability in student answers, while the Kruskal–Wallis H test evaluated the significance of differences between the groups. This nonparametric test is appropriate in cases where data do not meet normality assumptions and comparing more than two groups is necessary. A Kruskal–Wallis H test operates on ranked data rather than raw scores, which means that all responses are first ordered from lowest to highest across groups, with ranks assigned accordingly. By summing the ranks within each group, the Kruskal–Wallis test determines if observed differences are statistically significant [132], making it well-suited for Likert scale responses. For the groups that showed significant differences in the Kruskal–Wallis test (p < 0.05), a Mann–Whitney U post hoc test was additionally performed to make pairwise comparisons and identify specific pairs of groups with significant differences [132]. By examining the pairwise differences, it was possible to better understand which groups of students had different opinions on the issues. To maintain the statistical accuracy and control of the overall Type I error rate, significance values were adjusted by the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.

Spearman’s correlation analysis was used to determine a relationship between FW and students’ satisfaction with meal sensory properties. This test was performed because the data analyzed represented PW in grams per student, and student Likert scale (1–5) answers were expressed in mean value (Appendix A,

Table A1. Correlation between plate waste per student and mean scores (based on the Likert scale) of sensory characteristics by schools and grades before and after interventions (compiled by the authors).

School	Grade	PW (g)	Appearance (Mean, L)	Taste (Mean, L)	Smell (Mean, L)	Temperature (Mean, L)
S1—Pre	2	64.12	4.16	4.39	4.05	3.91
	3	62.93	3.16	3.56	3.48	3.28
	4	54.07	3.73	3.40	3.64	2.71
	5	53.29	3.75	3.73	3.73	3.10
	6	51.49	3.05	3.11	2.97	2.32
	7	43.42	3.37	3.48	3.21	2.60
S1—Post	2	62.61	3.71	3.52	3.50	3.27
	3	53.27	3.22	3.44	3.16	2.72
	4	53.07	3.27	3.16	3.22	2.29
	5	42.92	3.52	3.29	3.17	2.28
	6	40.97	2.78	2.86	2.47	1.86
	7	46.00	3.00	3.23	3.13	2.08
S2—Pre	2	61.60	3.15	3.44	3.28	3.64
	3	48.20	3.75	3.82	3.33	3.44
	4	59.27	4.13	3.63	3.41	3.63
	5	65.00	3.41	3.41	3.28	3.49
	6	59.85	3.26	3.42	3.24	2.79
	7	37.67	3.46	3.63	3.42	3.42
S2—Post	2	67.20	3.66	3.47	3.30	3.36
	3	56.79	3.80	3.78	4.02	3.63
	4	55.80	3.70	3.73	3.73	3.47
	5	46.03	3.53	3.56	3.24	3.11
	6	55.50	3.11	3.05	2.87	2.50
	7	36.69	3.31	3.38	3.07	2.93
S3—Pre	2	45.02	3.77	3.75	3.82	3.32
	3	34.76	3.96	4.07	3.50	3.64
	4	42.84	3.92	3.92	3.83	3.81
	5	23.04	4.09	3.86	3.91	4.11
	6	38.74	3.44	3.42	3.12	3.30
	7	21.43	3.66	3.76	3.51	3.34
S3—Post	2	50.17	3.60	3.63	3.37	3.37
	3	44.68	3.80	3.40	3.28	3.32
	4	53.41	3.67	3.59	3.46	3.03
	5	38.78	3.65	3.49	3.54	3.32
	6	51.47	3.60	3.53	3.43	3.77
	7	31.83	3.49	3.40	3.09	3.09
S4—Pre	2	51.73	3.55	3.82	3.88	3.73
	3	55.02	4.18	3.76	3.42	3.79
	4	40.83	3.60	3.60	3.63	3.40
	5	47.39	3.36	3.26	3.05	2.51
	6	32.89	3.49	3.44	3.20	2.61
	7	34.25	3.13	3.16	3.52	2.26
S4—Post	2	46.91	3.60	3.62	3.50	3.21
	3	58.09	3.56	3.65	3.44	2.79
	4	33.55	3.58	3.47	3.22	2.50
	5	42.76	3.33	3.22	3.11	2.39
	6	42.41	3.17	3.17	3.07	1.87
	7	37.85	3.11	3.00	2.73	2.19

). The PW data were filtered by excluding waste data on soup, salad, and bread served in common containers, as well as untouched meal portions due to differences in catering management (S1, S2, S3 differed from S4, see Figure 2).

The respondents’ answers to the questions were grouped by school and by grade. Each answer was given a rating: Always—5, Often—4, Sometimes—3, Rarely—2, and Never—1. Next, the mean rating was calculated. Since the Likert scale data represented ranked categories rather than continuous measurements and might not follow a normal distribution, Spearman’s correlation was more suitable for analyzing non-parametric relationships [132,133]. This method allowed authors to examine the association between the students’ perceptions of meal sensory characteristics and the amount of PW. Correlation analysis involves hypothesis testing to identify a relationship between two variables. The initial assumption or null hypothesis indicates that there is no significant relationship between the variables [132,133]. The strength of a correlation is indicated by the correlation coefficient (r), which is between −1 and 1, and although the value expressed might vary slightly, depending on the test coefficient, it is generally accepted that r ≥ 0.5 or r ≤ −0.5 indicates a strong relationship, between ±0.3 and ±0.5 a medium relationship, and between ±0.1 and ±0.3 it shows a weak relationship [132]. Statistical significance (p-value) was also determined. If the p-value is below the significance level (p < 0.05), the null hypothesis is rejected and the variables are correlated [133,134].

4. Results

4.1. I Dimension. The Demographic Profile of the Respondents

On 1 September 2024, the total number of students in grades 2 to 7 in the four Rezekne city schools was 1150. A total of 944 students took part in the survey, which represented approximately 82% of the general population, which meant that the results could be confidently generalized to the entire population of grades 2 to 7 students in the schools. The demographic profile of the respondents is presented in

Table 1. Distribution of the total respondent sample, n and %, (n = 944) (compiled by the authors).

Category	Group	Number of Respondents	% of Respondents
Gender	Female	453	48%
	Male	491	52%
Grade	2	172	18%
	3	158	17%
	4	150	16%
	5	176	19%
	6	134	14%
	7	154	16%
Age	7	5	0.5%
	8	117	12.4%
	9	173	18.3%
	10	154	16.3%
	11	151	16.0%
	12	162	17.2%
	13	137	14.5%
	14	38	4.0%
	15	6	0.6%
	16	1	0.1%
School	School 1	293	31%
	School 2	239	25%
	School 3	196	21%
	School 4	216	23%

.

Table 1 data show that the distribution of the respondents was fairly balanced across all the categories and groups, thereby ensuring that the sample was representative and that the survey results were not disproportionately affected by the disproportionate dominance of any group.

4.2. II Dimension. Knowledge and Awareness (Environmental Dimension)

To identify students’ awareness and knowledge about school food, FW, and its negative impacts, the following questions were included in the questionnaire (see

Table 2. Survey questions and answer options about food waste and school food (compiled by the authors).

Question No.	Question	Answer Options
Q1	What do you think food waste is? (it was possible to mark multiple answers)	(1) Food packaging (2) Food that has spoiled (3) Peels, bones (4) Food that remains uneaten on the plate
Q2	Do you agree that school food is healthy?	(1) Yes (2) Rather yes (3) I don’t know (4) Rather no (5) No
Q3	Do you agree that food waste has a negative impact on the environment?
Q4	Do you agree that school lunches cost money? If you don’t eat them, the money is “thrown away”?
Q5	Where do you think the plate waste goes? (it was possible to mark multiple answers)	(1) The canteen personnel take it home (2) It is thrown in the trash or down the drain (3) It is fed to pets (4) It is fed to ducks by the Rezekne River (5) It is used to produce bioenergy (6) I don’t know

).

An analysis of the respondents’ answers to Q1 “What do you think food waste is?” is available in Figure 3.

As shown in Figure 3, the students mainly associated FW with food that had spoiled (66.4%) and inedible food parts such as peels and bones (59.3%), almost half (45.4%) of the students associated uneaten food that remained on their plates with FW, and about ⅓ associated FW with food packaging.

An analysis of the respondents’ answers to Q2 “Do you agree that school food is healthy?” is available in

Table 3. Analysis of the respondents’ answers to Q2 “Do you agree that school food is healthy?”, (n = 944) (compiled by the authors).

Question		Multiple Choice Answers	Values	Distribution of Respondent Answers, % (n = 944)
Do you agree that school food is healthy?		Yes Rather yes I don’t know Rather no No	5 4 3 2 1
Variables		Mean ± SD	Kruskal–Wallis H test p-value	Statistical significance
School	School 1	3.67 ± 1.12	0.396	p > 0.05 Group results are not statistically significantly different
	School 2	3.79 ± 1.08
	School 3	3.59 ± 1.24
	School 4	3.64 ± 1.14
Grade	2	4.19 ± 1.02	<0.001	p < 0.05 Group results are statistically significantly different
	3	3.94 ± 0.98
	4	3.75 ± 1.13
	5	3.63 ± 1.13
	6	3.07 ± 1.05
	7	3.35 ± 1.15
Gender	Male	3.79 ± 1.17	<0.001	p < 0.05 Group results are statistically significantly different
	Female	3.56 ± 1.08

.

The data in Table 3 show that more than half of the respondents (61.3%, Yes + Rather yes) believed that school food was healthy, a quarter could not answer this question, and a small proportion (14.6%) believed that school food was unhealthy.

A descriptive statistics test (Mean ± SD) and a Kruskal–Wallis H test were performed to test whether there were significant differences in opinions on whether school food was healthy between different groups of students. The results revealed that there was a significant difference between boys and girls; the boys had a higher belief that school food was healthy and that there were statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) in answers between classes. Therefore, an additional Mann–Whitney U test was performed to identify pairs with significant differences (Figure 4).

The Mann–Whitney U test results (Figure 4) revealed several pairs of classes with statistically significant differences. It should be noted that the answers of students in grades 2 and 3 were significantly different from those of students in grades 6 and 7. The younger grades were more confident that school food was healthy, while the older grades were more sceptical.

An analysis of the respondents’ answers to question Q3 “Do you agree that food waste has a negative impact on the environment?” is available in

Table 4. Analysis of the respondents’ answers to question Q3 “Do you agree that food waste has a negative impact on the environment?”, (n = 944) (compiled by the authors).

Question		Multiple Choice Answers	Values	Distribution of Answers of the Respondents, % (n = 944)
Do you agree that food waste has a negative impact on the environment?		Yes Rather yes I don’t know Rather no No	5 4 3 2 1
Variables		Mean ± SD	Kruskal–Wallis H test p-value	Statistical significance
School	School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4	3.35 ± 1.21 3.53 ± 1.29 3.41 ± 1.24 3.43 ± 1.23	0.285	p > 0.05 Group results are not statistically significantly different
Grade	2	3.49 ± 1.34	<0.001	p < 0.05 Group results are statistically significantly different
	3	3.67 ± 1.14
	4	3.56 ± 1.29
	5	3.49 ± 1.21
	6	3.28 ± 1.11
	7	3.02 ± 1.21
Gender	Male Female	3.42 ± 1.27 3.43 ± 1.21	0.990	p > 0.05 Group results are not statistically significantly different

.

The data in Table 4 show that although almost half of the respondents (47.8%, Yes + Rather yes) agreed that FW had a negative impact on the environment, a significant proportion (21.7%) disagreed, and an even larger proportion (30.5%) could not answer this question. This indicated the different levels of awareness and knowledge of the respondents about the environmental impacts of FW.

A descriptive statistics test (Mean ± SD) and a Kruskal–Wallis H test were performed to test whether there were significant differences in opinions between different groups of students on whether FW had a negative impact on the environment. The results showed that there were no statistically significant differences in opinions on the negative environmental impact of FW between the schools and between the genders. However, the opinions differed significantly between classes (p < 0.001); therefore, an additional Mann–Whitney U test was performed to identify pairs of classes with statistically significant differences (Figure 5).

As shown in Figure 5, the answers of grade 7 students to Q3 were statistically significantly different from those of grades 2, 3, 4, and 5. The data in Table 4 show that the students in younger grades overwhelmingly answered in the affirmative to this question compared with those in grade 7.

An analysis of the respondents’ answers to question Q4 “Do you agree that school lunches cost money? If you don’t eat them, the money is “thrown away”?” is available in

Table 5. Analysis of the respondents’ answers to question Q4 “Do you agree that school lunches cost money? If you don’t eat them, the money is “thrown away”?”, (n = 944) (compiled by the authors).

Question		Multiple Choice Answers	Values	Distribution of Answers of the Respondents, % (n = 944)
Do you agree that school lunches cost money? If you don’t eat them, the money is “thrown away”?		Yes Rather yes I don’t know Rather no No	5 4 3 2 1
Variables		Mean ± SD	Kruskal–Wallis H test p-value	Statistical significance
School	School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4	3.79 ± 1.31 3.85 ± 1.28 3.47 ± 1.45 3.69 ± 1.21	0.02	p < 0.05 Group results are statistically significantly different
Grade	2 3 4 5 6 7	3.94 ± 1.43 3.79 ± 1.42 3.58 ± 1.37 3.89 ± 1.16 3.58 ± 1.14 3.45 ± 1.27	<0.001	p < 0.05 Group results are statistically significantly different
Gender	Male Female	3.72 ± 1.36 3.71 ± 1.27	0.449	p > 0.05 Group results are not statistically significantly different

.

The data in Table 5 show that most of the students (63.9%, Yes + Rather yes) believed that their uneaten school lunch was “wasting money”; however, a small proportion of the students (18.7%) (No + Rather no) disagreed, while 17.4% could not answer this question.

A descriptive statistics test and a Kruskal–Wallis H test were performed to test whether there were significant differences in opinions between different groups of students regarding Q4. The results revealed that there were statistically significant differences in answers broken down by school (p = 0.02) and by class (p < 0.001); therefore, an additional Mann–Whitney U test was performed (Figure 6).

Figure 6 data reveal a pair of schools with statistically significant differences in answers (S2 and S3). S2 students’ answers were more affirmative, indicating greater agreement with the statement in Q4, while S3 students gave fewer affirmative answers and were inclined to give neutral or negative answers. The results broken down by grade revealed several pairs of grades with statistically significant differences in answers: between grade 7 and grades 2, 3, and 5 and between grade 2 and grades 4, 6, and 7. The answers of students in grade 7 were predominantly negative, compared with those in grades 2, 3, and 5 who were mostly affirmative for the statement in Q4. Grade 2 students tended to agree with the statement included in Q4, compared with those in grades 4, 6, and 7, who mostly answered in the negative.

An analysis of the respondents’ answers to question Q5 “Where do you think the plate waste goes?” is available in Figure 7.

The data in Figure 7 show that most of the respondents believed that PW ended up in the trash, almost as many students believed that PW was fed to pets, 1/3 noted that they did not know what happened to PW. The remaining students indicated that PW was used to produce bioenergy, PW was fed to ducks by the Rezekne River or the canteen personnel took it home.

4.3. III Dimension. Attitude (Personal Dimension)

This section of the questionnaire identified the students’ attitudes towards FW and the food served at school. The questionnaire included the following questions (see

Table 6. Survey questions and answer options about food consumption patterns and reasons for plate waste during school lunches (compiled by the authors).

No.	Question	Answer Options
Q6	Are you worried about food being thrown away?	(1) Yes (2) No
Q7	How much of the SOUP served at lunch do you usually eat?	(1) I do not eat at all (2) I eat quite a bit (3) I eat half of the food (4) I eat almost all the food (5) I eat all the food
Q8	How much of the MAIN COURSE served at lunch do you usually eat?
Q9	How much of the DESSERT served at lunch do you usually eat?
Q10	How much of the BREAD served at lunch do you usually eat?
Q11	How much of the SALAD served at lunch do you usually eat?
Q12	The main reasons why you don’t complete the SOUP? (it was possible to mark multiple answers)	(1) The portion is too big (2) The food doesn’t taste good (3) I do not have enough time to eat it (4) Lunch is served too early, I do not want to eat yet (5) Because others do it
Q13	The main reasons why you don’t complete the MAIN COURSE? (it was possible to mark multiple answers)
Q14	The main reasons why you don’t complete the DESSERT? (it was possible to mark multiple answers)
Q15	The main reasons why you don’t complete the BREAD? (it was possible to mark multiple answers)
Q16	The main reasons why you don’t complete the SALAD? (it was possible to mark multiple answers)
Q17	What do you do with the food you don’t eat during school lunch?	(1) I left it on the plate (2) I give it to a classmate to eat (3) I take with me what I can (fruit, bread, etc.) and eat it later or at home

).

An analysis of the respondents’ answers to question Q6 “Are you worried about food being thrown away?” revealed that most of the students (65.4% out of 944) in Rezekne city schools were not concerned about the food being thrown away, while about 1/3 (34,.6%) confirmed that they were concerned about this problem.

An analysis of the respondents’ answers to questions about how much of the food served at lunch was usually eaten is available in Figure 8.

The data in Figure 8 show that the consumption of various dishes during lunch varied significantly. The consumption of dessert (Q9) (according to the school menu, it is most often a muffin or cottage cheese product—glazed curd cheese, pre-packaged yoghurt, pre-packaged curd snack) was the highest, 71.5% indicated that they ate up the dessert completely or almost completely. This was followed by the main course (Q8)—53.6% of the respondents noted that they ate up the main course completely or almost completely. Bread (Q10) was consumed by almost half of the respondents—46.8% (all + almost all). The consumption of salad (including vegetables) (Q11) was lower—33.6% (all + almost all), while 32.5% of the respondents noted that they did not eat it at all. The dish that the students most often refused was soup (Q7)—37.1% of the students noted that they did not eat it at all.

An analysis of the respondents’ answers to questions about the main reasons, why they don’t complete the served food is available in Figure 9.

The data in Figure 9 show that the primary reason why the respondents did not complete the food served at lunch was they did not like the taste of the food. The most frequently noted dishes were soup (46.7%) (Q12) and salad (46.2%) (Q16), indicating a strong dislike of the dishes among the students. The second most frequent reasons were not having enough time to eat: soup (24.8%) (Q12) and the main course (20.4%) (Q13). The third most frequent reason given was too large a portion size, especially for soup (20%) (Q12) and main course (17.7%) (Q13).

An analysis of the respondents’ answers to question Q17 “What do you do with the food you don’t eat during school lunch?” is available in Figure 10.

The data in Figure 10 show that most of the respondents (58.7%) left their uneaten food on their plates at lunch, 27.1% gave it to their classmates, 14.2% took the uneaten food (usually whole fruit or bread) with them and eat it later.

4.4. IV Dimension. Opinion/Evaluation (Organizational Dimension)

This section of the questionnaire includes questions to identify students’ opinions on the sensory qualities of the food, i.e., appearance, taste, temperature, and portion size, etc., and the organization and management of the canteen.

4.4.1. Students’ Satisfaction with School Meal Sensory Properties

To identify students’ opinions on the sensory qualities of school food, the survey included the following questions (see

Table 7. Survey questions and answer options about the students’ satisfaction with the sensory characteristics of school food (compiled by the authors).

No.	Question	Response Options
Q18	Are you satisfied with the appearance of the food served at school?	(1) Always (2) Often (3) Sometimes (4) Rarely (5) Never
Q19	Do you like the taste of the food served at school?
Q20	Are you satisfied with the smell of the food served at school?
Q21	Are you satisfied with the temperature of the food served at school?

).

An analysis of the respondents’ answers to questions about the sensory characteristics of the food served is available in Figure 11.

The data in Figure 11 show that only a small proportion of the students were always satisfied with the sensory qualities of school food. An analysis of the combined responses “Always” and “Often” revealed that the students were most satisfied with the appearance (51.6%) and taste (51.1%) of school food, but least satisfied with the temperature of school food, as shown by the responses “Rarely” (24.0%) and “Never” (22.2%). Overall, the results showed that the students were often dissatisfied with the sensory qualities of school food.

To test whether there were statistically significant differences in the opinions of different groups of students on the appearance, taste, smell, and temperature of school food, a descriptive statistics test and a Kruskal–Wallis H test were performed (see

Table 8. Analysis of the respondents’ answers to question Q18 “Are you satisfied with the appearance of the food served at school?”, (n = 943) (compiled by the authors).

Question			Multiple Choice Answers	Values
Are you satisfied with the appearance of the food served at school?			Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never	5 4 3 2 1
Variables		Mean ± SD	Kruskal–Wallis H test p-value	Statistical significance
School	School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4	3.28 ± 1.23 3.54 ± 1.17 3.63 ± 1.17 3.39 ± 1.14	0.007	p < 0.05 Group results are statistically significantly different
Grade	2 3 4 5 6 7	3.65 ± 1.25 3.56 ± 1.21 3.53 ± 1.18 3.51 ± 1.06 3.14 ± 1.14 3.18 ± 1.20	<0.001	p < 0.05 Group results are statistically significantly different
Gender	Male Female	3.61 ± 1.21 3.26 ± 1.14	<0.001	p < 0.05 Group results are statistically significantly different

,

Table 9. Analysis of the respondents’ answers to question Q19 “Do you taste the food served at school?”, (n = 943) (compiled by the authors).

Question			Multiple Choice Answers	Values
Do you taste the food served at school?			Always	5
			Often	4
			Sometimes	3
			Rarely	2
			Never	1
Variables		Mean ± SD	Kruskal–Wallis H test p-value	Statistical significance
School	School 1	3.27 ± 1.00	0.013	p < 0.05 Group results are statistically significantly different
	School 2	3.50 ± 1.07
	School 3	3.51 ± 1.12
	School 4	3.35 ± 1.08
Grade	2	3.55 ± 1.14	<0.001	p < 0.05 Group results are statistically significantly different
	3	3.58 ± 1.01
	4	3.46 ± 1.12
	5	3.39 ± 1.02
	6	3.13 ± 0.97
	7	3.23 ± 1.05
Gender	Male Female	3.55 ± 1.09 3.24 ± 1.02	<0.001	p < 0.05 Group results are statistically significantly different

,

Table 10. Analysis of the respondents’ answers to question Q20 “Are you satisfied with the smell of the food served at school?”, (n = 942) (compiled by the authors).

Question			Multiple Choice Answers	Values
Are you satisfied with the smell of the food served at school?			Always	5
			Often	4
			Sometimes	3
			Rarely	2
			Never	1
Variables		Mean ± SD	Kruskal–Wallis H test p-value	Statistical significance
School	School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4	3.14 ± 1.21 3.40 ± 1.28 3.37 ± 1.26 3.18 ± 1.22	0.034	Sig. < 0.05 Group results are statistically significantly different
Grade	2 3 4 5 6 7	3.42 ± 1.31 3.51 ± 1.23 3.39 ± 1.20 3.26 ± 1.20 2.93 ± 1.17 3.00 ± 1.24	<0.001	p < 0.05 Group results are statistically significantly different
Gender	Male Female	3.39 ± 1.29 3.12 ± 1.18	<0.001	p < 0.05 Group results are statistically significantly different

and

Table 11. Analysis of the respondents’ answers to question Q21 “Are you satisfied with the temperature of the food served at school?”, (n = 944) (compiled by the authors).

Question			Multiple Choice Answers	Values
Are you satisfied with the temperature of the food served at school?			Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never	5 4 3 2 1
Variables		Mean ± SD	Kruskal–Wallis H test p-value	Statistical significance
School	School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4	2.44 ± 1.27 3.19 ± 1.39 3.30 ± 1.39 2.52 ± 1.34	<0.001	p < 0.05 Group results are statistically significantly different
Grade	2 3 4 5 6 7	3.30 ± 1.46 3.11 ± 1.41 2.77 ± 1.39 2.73 ± 1.32 2.47 ± 1.36 2.49 ± 1.23	<0.001	p < 0.05 Group results are statistically significantly different
Gender	Male Female	3.03 ± 1.44 2.61 ± 1.31	<0.001	p < 0.05 Group results are statistically significantly different

).

The results in Table 8 show that there were statistically significant differences between the answers given by boys and girls: the boys were more satisfied than the girls with the appearance of school food. There were also statistically significant differences in the students’ answers broken down by school (p = 0.007) and by class (p < 0.001); therefore, an additional Mann–Whitney U test was performed (Figure 12).

Figure 12 data reveal one pair of schools with statistically significant differences in the students’ answers—S3 vs. S1: S3 school students’ answers were mostly affirmative, indicating that they were satisfied with the appearance of school food, while S1 school students’ answers were mostly neutral with a tendency towards negative. The results revealed several pairs of classes with statistically significant differences in answers: between grades 2 and 7, grades 2 and 6 and grades 3 and 6, meaning that younger students were more satisfied with the appearance of school food than older ones.

As shown in Table 9, there were statistically significant differences in answers to Q19 between boys and girls—the boys were more satisfied with the taste of school food. There were statistically significant differences in the students’ answers broken down by school (p = 0.013) and by class (p < 0.001); therefore, an additional Mann–Whitney U test was performed (Figure 13).

Figure 13 data reveal one pair of schools with statistically significant differences in the students’ answers—S2 vs. S1: S2 students’ answers were mostly affirmative, indicating a higher rating of the taste of food at school, while S1 students’ answers were mostly negative. The results revealed several pairs of classes with statistically significant differences in answers between grades 6 and 2 and between grades 6 and 3. Table 9 data indicate that younger students were more satisfied with the taste of school food than older ones.

As regards Q20, as shown in Table 10, there were statistically significant differences in answers between boys and girls, as the boys were more satisfied with the smell of school food than the girls. There were statistically significant differences in answers broken down by school (p = 0.034) and by class (p < 0.001). In addition, a Mann–Whitney U test was performed (Figure 14).

Figure 14 shows that pairwise comparisons using the Mann–Whitney U test did not show any statistically significant differences in answers across the schools. This indicates that although the answers varied between the schools, the differences between particular pairs of schools were not statistically significant. The results revealed several pairs of classes with statistically significant differences in the students’ answers: between younger classes (grades 2 and 3) and older classes (grades 6 and 7), as well as between grades 4 and 6. Table 10 shows that the students in younger grades (2, 3 and 4) were more satisfied with the smell of the food served at school compared with those in grades 6 and 7.

Regarding Q21 (Table 11), there were statistically significant differences in answers between boys and girls, as the boys were more satisfied with the temperature of school food than the girls, as well as if broken down by school (p < 0.001) and by class (p < 0.001). A Mann–Whitney U test was performed as well (Figure 15).

Figure 15 shows that a Mann–Whitney U test results revealed 4 pairs of schools with statistically significant differences in the students’ answers: S1 vs. S2 and S3, S2 vs. S1 and S4, S3 vs. S1 and S4, S4 vs. S2 and S3. S3 and S2 students were satisfied with the temperature of school food, while S1 and S4 students were not satisfied with the temperature of school food.

The results also revealed several pairs of classes with statistically significant differences in the students’ responses between grades 2 and 4, 5, 6, 7, as well as between grades 3 and 6, 7. As shown in Table 11, the students in grades 2 and 3 were more satisfied with the temperature of school food than older ones.

Since the students’ answers on the sensory qualities of school food were statistically different between the different student groups, the authors decided to identify whether there was a relationship between the students’ satisfaction with the sensory qualities of school food and PW by performing a correlation analysis. The data from the analysis are available in Appendix A (Table A1).

Based on Table A1 data, Spearman’s rho and a significance coefficient (p-value) were calculated. The results are presented in

Table 12. Spearman’s correlation between the sensory characteristics of food served at school and plate waste (compiled by the authors).

	Satisfaction with Appearance	Satisfaction with Taste	Satisfaction with Smell	Satisfaction with Temperature
Spearman’s rho *	0.113	0.130	0.193	0.236
p-value **	0.444	0.378	0.190	0.106

* Spearman’s rho < 0.3—the weak relationship between paired data; ** p > 0.05 group results are not statistically significantly different.

.

The data in Table 12 show that the correlation between PW per student and the mean satisfaction scores for all food sensory properties indicated a weak relationship between the paired data. However, the results were not statistically significant, suggesting that there was no link between the students’ satisfaction with school food sensory properties and PW.

4.4.2. Students’ Ratings of the Organization and Management of Canteen Work

To identify the students’ opinions on the organization and management of their canteens, the following questions were included in the survey (see

Table 13. Survey questions and answer options about the organization and management of canteen work (compiled by the authors).

No.	Question	Response Options
Q22	Are you satisfied with the time at which lunch is served?	(1) Yes (2) I would like lunch to be served sooner (3) I would like lunch to be served later
Q23	Do you have enough time for lunch to eat?	(1) Yes (2) I need more time so that I can eat without rushing (3) Yes, and there is still free time for other activities
Q24	Do you like that the food is already served on the table when you arrive for lunch?	(1) Yes (2) No (3) It would be better to choose yourself from the offer of the school canteen (buffet)
Q25	The canteen staff are kind and helpful.	(1) Always (2) Often (3) Sometimes (4) Rarely (5) Never
Q26	The teacher helps us during lunch (pours soup, offers to taste food, etc.).
Q27	The teacher eats lunch with us at our table.

).

An analysis of the respondents’ answers to questions Q22, Q23 and Q24 is available in Figure 16.

The data in Figure 16 show that most of the respondents (55.2%) were satisfied with the time at which lunch was served; however, 37.9% would like to have lunch earlier and a relatively small proportion (6.9%)—later.

Most of the respondents (56.8%) were satisfied with the length of the lunch break; however, 28.9% would need more time to eat, while 14.3% still had time for other activities during the lunch break.

Most of the respondents (60%) liked that the food was already served on the table, 8.2% noted that they did not like it, while 31.8% would like to have an opportunity to choose their dishes and portion sizes.

An analysis of the respondents’ answers to questions Q25, Q26 and Q27 is available in Figure 17.

The data in Figure 17 show that most of the respondents (74.7%) answered that canteen personnel were always or often kind and helpful, 12.9% noted that they were kind and helpful only sometimes, while 12.4% indicated that the canteen personnel were kind and helpful rarely or never.

Most of the respondents (77.6%) noted that their teachers always or often helped during lunch, 11.6% indicated that this happened sometimes, and 10.8% that the teachers helped rarely or never.

In addition, most of the respondents (58.4%) noted that their teachers had lunch with them at the same table, 14% admitted that this happened sometimes and 27.6%—rarely or never.

5. Discussion

5.1. Students’ Awareness and Knowledge About School Food, FW, and Its Negative Impact

The results of the survey on students’ understanding and knowledge of school food, FW and their impact on the economy and the environment revealed that although the students were aware of the problems to some extent, they lacked in-depth understanding and knowledge of some specific aspects.

Most of the students associated FW with spoiled food or inedible parts of food, slightly less than half of them believed PW was FW (Figure 3). The results are consistent with findings made by Coşkun and Filimonau [135] that consumers tend to justify their wasteful behaviour with various external factors; therefore, they do not fully associate PW with general FW. As a result, although they can acknowledge FW at a broader societal level, they are often unaware of their role in contributing to FW through PW [135]. Similar observations were made by Matzembacher et al. [136], who found through interviews that consumers did not perceive FW left on their plates, as they considered the waste produced during the observation day to be an exceptional occurrence rather than an ongoing behaviour [136], thus highlighting the gap between general perceptions of FW and personal responsibility for PW. The findings suggest that while students are generally aware of the problem of FW in general, they often do not associate PW with the problem of FW, thereby indicating the need for targeted interventions or strategies to address misconceptions and promote individual responsibility among the students.

Although more than half of the respondents answered that school food was healthy (Yes + Rather Yes), a small proportion of the students disagreed and around a quarter could not answer this question (Table 3), thereby indicating a lack of information, knowledge, awareness or education on this problem. It has been established that students sometimes associate the healthiness of a food with other characteristics of the food, e.g., taste or appearance [137]. Noble et al. [138] also found that students had different perceptions of the healthiness of food, as some of them associated it with the absence of fat, while others focused on the presence of vitamins. Moreover, the children’s perceptions of the healthiness of food often did not match their preferences [138]. In addition, students’ perceptions of the healthiness of school food might be influenced by their parents’ opinions and attitudes towards school lunches. Several research studies found that positive parental perceptions of school meals were associated with higher student participation in school meal programmes [139,140]. The results of a statistical analysis revealed that students in younger grades, i.e., grades 2 and 3, were more confident that school food was healthy, whereas those in older grades, i.e., grades 6 and 7, were more sceptical about it (Table 3 and Figure 4). This could be due to the fact that younger students tend to believe their parents, teachers, etc., whom they perceive as authorities [141] and do not question their opinions on the healthiness of school food, whereas older students start to develop critical thinking [142], and are more likely to listen to information from different sources (peers, social sites, etc.), which might lead them to have doubts about the healthiness of school food. Gender differences were also observed, with girls displaying greater scepticism about meal healthiness, which is consistent with other observations that females tend to be more health-conscious and are often more critical of food quality and nutrition [143,144,145]. The results point to the need for targeted educational initiatives to increase students’ nutritional awareness and knowledge and explain the nutritional value of school food through age-appropriate communication and potentially parental involvement.

While nearly half acknowledged the negative environmental impact of FW, some respondents disagreed, while a third could not answer the question at all (Table 4). While more than half agreed or rather agreed that their uneaten school lunch was “wasting money”, approximately a third disagreed or did not know the answer (Table 5), thereby indicating a gap in understanding and education. Previous research studies have shown that most typical consumers view FW primarily as a social problem rather than recognizing it as an environmental or economic concern [56,146]. Inayah et al. [44] also found that even with environmental education, students often fail to understand FW as an environmental issue, while financial aspects are better understood [44]. Similar findings were found by Mganga et al. [54], where students who were more aware of the financial consequences of FW were more motivated to avoid it; in contrast, their awareness of the environmental and social consequences did not significantly motivate them to reduce FW [54], suggesting that while environmental education is important, it might not be as effective in changing their consumption behaviour, while the financial aspect, which could seem more direct and tangible, could encourage more active action to reduce waste. It has been established that a lack of awareness or misconception of the economic, social and environmental impacts of FW is one of the main factors contributing to FW [15]. The results of the statistical tests revealed differences in the students’ answers to the questions, depending on grades and schools (Table 4 and Table 5, Figure 5 and Figure 6). The tendency in the students’ answers was the same as for the answers on the healthiness of school lunches: those in younger grades were more likely to answer in the affirmative compared with those in older grades, and those in grade 7 in particular were more sceptical, which the authors attribute to the same behavioural changes during adolescence. The results suggest the need for educational initiatives aimed at strengthening students’ awareness of FW as an environmental problem.

About a third of the students surveyed did not know what happened to PW after school lunch, almost half of the respondents noted that PW ended up in the trash and about the same number of them noted that PW were fed to pets (Figure 7). Students’ perceptions of FW are often based on subjective factors related to the environment, culture, etc. [147]. In a 2021 research study of schools in Rezekne, Lonska et al. [33] found that some solid FW (mostly meat) was disposed of by canteen personnel for feeding pets, some food was disposed of in common household waste containers, and liquid waste, e.g., drinks and soups, was usually disposed of in the sewer [33]. The authors attribute the high proportion of answers—PW was fed to pets—to the Latvian way of life: many have backyards or farms with pets or livestock that can be fed uneaten food. Although, based on the FW management hierarchy, feeding pets is not the optimal solution compared with prevention or redistribution to people [19,148], it is still an environmentally preferable option in managing FW, provided the food is safe for animals. This approach is a practical and sustainable solution to FW management, but it might limit students’ understanding of the wider FW problem. Tailored education programmes could contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of FW and FW management, recycling options and other more sustainable solutions to the problem of FW.

Overall, the survey results regarding dimension II revealed gaps in the students’ understanding and knowledge of FW, the economic and environmental impacts of FW, as well as the disposal of FW and the healthiness of school food. These findings are consistent with wider-scope research findings that a lack of awareness and knowledge of FW, its negative impact and prevention are the key drivers of FW [15,93]. Moreover, a lack of knowledge about the drivers and sources of FW further exacerbates the problem [90,149]. A clear understanding of the underlying problem is important for students to effectively reduce FW [90] and understanding consumer awareness levels, perspectives and practices concerning FW is essential for developing evidence-based initiatives and strategies that promote sustainable food systems [150]. However, several research studies have confirmed that awareness and knowledge of FW problems do not necessarily result in changes in behaviour or habits [45,55,151,152], as increased interest in sustainable food consumption practices alone is not sufficient to encourage students to adopt more sustainable food consumption habits [151]. Raising awareness and knowledge alone has been found to have limited impacts causing short-term changes in consumer behaviour [127], hence the need to reinforce the changes through interesting practical activities promoting long-term behavioural changes in students.

5.2. Students’ Attitudes Towards FW and School Food

The results of the survey provide important insights into students’ attitudes towards school food and highlight trends in food consumption and FW among the students in Rezekne city. The data show significant differences in the consumption of various foods, which points to actions that can promote responsible consumption of school food, as well as changes in school menus based on students’ preferences.

More than half of the students were not concerned about the food being thrown away. The survey results are consistent with previous findings suggesting that a lack of awareness and knowledge are probably the main reasons why most of the students are not concerned about food being thrown away. A research study by Qi and Roe [153] has found that sometimes, even if consumers are aware of the FW problem, they are too busy to consider it because they are essentially unmotivated to deal with the problem [153]. Accordingly, if students lack a comprehensive understanding of the wider impacts of FW, e.g., their role in environmental degradation, resource waste and economic loss, they might assume that FW is insignificant.

This was also reflected in the answers to the question “How much of the food served at lunch was usually eaten?” (Figure 8), with a relatively small proportion of the students indicating that they ate all the food (main course—23.8%, soup—17.6%, salad—21%). This pattern of consumption is worrying not only because a large proportion of food is left on the plate, which is defined by the authors as PW, but also because school lunches play an important role in ensuring a complete daily diet for children [61,81,154]. The foods that the students consumed the least were soups and salads, the main ingredient of which is vegetables that are an essential source of vitamins, minerals and fibre in ensuring a healthy diet for students [155,156]. It is undeniable that the consumption of vegetables provides significant health benefits, which relate not only to the nutritional composition but also to the synergistic effects of the biologically active compounds they contain [157,158,159]. Similarly, the consumption of plant-based foods is more sustainable compared with meat-based diets [160,161,162], and ethical, environmental and cost advantages should also be taken into account in this case [163,164]. However, despite all the benefits, several research studies have found that vegetables are one of the most wasted kinds of food [156,157,165], and, although, for example, in the United Kingdom vegetable consumption has increased in recent years, children continue to consume only a small portion of the vegetables provided to them [166]. This suggests that comprehensive transformations are needed in school menus that would simultaneously promote the consumption of vegetables and other foods, thereby ensuring that the meals meet both students’ preferences and nutritional requirements, which could result in reducing the amount of FW and PW and strengthening healthier eating habits.

The findings highlight the ongoing challenge of changing consumer behaviour towards a more responsible and sustainable pattern because, as mentioned above, while awareness and knowledge are essential foundations, there are many other factors that lead to wasteful behaviour. The survey responses to the question “The main reasons, why they did not complete the food served” (Figure 9) reveal that FW was primarily related to students’ preferences. The majority indicated that they did not like the dishes served, particularly soup (46.7%), salad (46.2%), and the main course (41.7%). These findings are consistent with many other ones, with taste preferences being mentioned as the primary reason for meal refusal [167,168,169]. Similarly, Lonska et al. [33] found that students were more likely to leave food unfinished if they did not like the food served or any of its ingredients. The second most important reason for FW indicated by students was a lack of time to eat—the lunch break in the Rezekne city schools included in the survey ranged from 20 to 30 min. Based on the authors’ previous research, using an artificial intelligence prediction tool, it was concluded that students should spend at least 20 min at the table (excluding getting to and from the canteen) [40]. Other research studies have also confirmed that sufficient time for meals could help to reduce PW [36,170,171,172], and, conversely, a lack of time and a sense of urgency contribute to FW [173,174]. However, it should be noted here that one intervention aimed at reducing PW in S3 was the extension of the lunch break from 20 to 30 min. On the contrary, as a result of the experiment, an increase in PW was observed in both the short and the long term, and the researchers associated with the complexity of FW behaviours and the need for carefully designed interventions [38]. Large portions were the third most popular reason for PW noted by the students from Rezekne city schools. In the scientific literature, this FW factor is also referred to as one of the most common [36,72,175,176], especially in the case of school catering in Rezekne city schools, with portions being served in advance, without adjusting them to students’ physiological parameters, e.g., age and appetite; as a result, the students are often simply unable to eat the entire portion [33,67]. In this regard, organizational changes in the school catering system could contribute to reducing PW, so that students can choose the kind and quantity of school food according to their physiology and preferences.

The shortcomings of this catering model were also revealed by the respondents’ answers to a question “What do you do with the food you don’t eat during school lunch?” (Figure 10). More than half of the respondents noted that they left uneaten food on their plates. This behaviour was affected by the current catering model in Rezekne city schools, which did not provide for the possibility for students to take their uneaten food with them, for example, in lunch boxes, or other alternatives to using PW; consequently, the uneaten food was simply thrown away. It has been established that similar restrictive catering models prohibiting students from sharing food or taking uneaten food with them significantly contribute to FW [36,177,178]. Almost a third of the respondents indicated that they tended to share their uneaten food with their classmates. During the PW measurements, the project researchers were able to observe that the students shared with their classmates, for example, a meat dish (cutlets or chops) in case they did not want to eat it themselves. This is essentially a good informal approach to prevent PW; however, this practice does not solve the main problem, as students are not initially given the opportunity to choose the kind and quantity of school food. Unlike the situation in Latvia, various practices are in place around the world to prevent uneaten food from going to waste, for example, ”take-away” options, “sharing tables”, and students can leave untouched food, thus reducing FW and providing food to those who are hungry [179,180]. In some EU Member States, food donation movements are widely spread, and some school food is donated to vulnerable social groups [71,179,181]. If, however, the leftover food is no longer usable, sorting and composting FW has been recognized as an effective way to use FW [182]. Implementing similar strategies in schools in Latvia could be a more sustainable alternative to leaving food on the plate, thereby reducing FW.

5.3. Students’ Opinions on School Food and the Organization and Management of a Canteen

An analysis of student satisfaction with food sensory properties, such as appearance, taste, smell, and temperature, revealed that satisfaction levels varied significantly across schools, grades, and genders, yet overall, the student satisfaction with the sensory properties of food served in Rezekne city school canteens was relatively low, especially the temperature and smell (Figure 11).

Several research studies have confirmed that the sensory properties of school food directly affect students’ desire to eat and, consequently, the amount of PW [37,147,175,183]. This problem is challenging because students’ attitudes towards the sensory properties of food are shaped by both individual characteristics and factors such as the cooking skills of kitchen personnel, technical cooking equipment, etc. [33,67]. The authors have observed that the students’ great dissatisfaction with the temperature of school food stemmed from the way the catering was managed, with the portions being served in advance, and during this period the food tended to cool down, as the schools did not have special heat-retaining containers (e.g., marmites). It has been established that the temperature of food also affects other food properties [184]; therefore, it is possible that students do not find cooled food particularly fragrant and tasty.

The survey results revealed differences in the sensory preferences of food between younger and older students (Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11 and Figure 12, Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15). The younger students were more satisfied with school food appearance, taste, smell, and temperature than older ones. Similar findings have been made by other research studies, e.g., Piochi et al. [183] have found that younger children (6–7 years old) in grades 1 and 2 have the most positive attitude towards the school canteen, and they often express positive emotions about meals and are distinguished by a low level of FW [183]. Tuorila et al. [185] pointed out that third graders had a positive attitude towards school meals compared with students in higher grades [185]. Steen et al. [186] found that as children get older, PW increases as well [186]. This could be due to the fact that as they grow older, children become increasingly aware of their desires and become more critical in their choices [142].

The survey results also showed differences in the students’ answers, depending on gender (Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11). Boys rated all sensory properties of food higher (more positively) than girls. Favuzzi et al. [71] found in their study that boys had a higher tolerance to changes in the quality and appearance of school food, while girls were more selective and showed increased sensitivity to the sensory properties of food, and it was also found that boys wasted less food if they positively rated aspects such as smell, taste and appearance, while girls wasted more if their rating of the factors was negative [71], confirming that there are gender differences in behaviour that are not affected by external factors, e.g., only social pressure. This aspect should be considered when tackling the problem of FW and increasing satisfaction with meals in schools.

Despite several research studies showing that food aversion contributes to FW, the findings indicated only a weak correlation between sensory satisfaction and PW (Table 12), suggesting that factors beyond meal appearance, taste, smell and temperature, such as meal options and portion control, played a more substantial role in determining FW levels in schools in Rezekne. And this confirms that the school catering model in Rezekne is not sustainable. Even if students do not like the food served, hunger takes over, and there is nothing left to do but eat the food served.

The results of the survey on the organization and management of school canteens showed that the students generally had a positive opinion of school catering. However, the findings also indicated areas where improvements were needed.

Regarding the time and duration of the lunch break (Figure 16), most of the students were satisfied with the time and duration of the lunch break; however, a significant proportion of them would like the lunch break to start earlier and be longer. In Rezekne schools, lunch schedules vary, with younger students eating earlier (9:30–11:30) and older students later (11:30–13:00), and break durations ranging from 20 to 30 min. This variation in schedules might be the main reason for the students’ satisfaction, as their wishes and needs were very individual and depended on several factors [33,36]. Several findings suggest that a thoughtful adjustment of lunch time and a longer lunch break could improve students’ eating experiences and help the reduce PW [33,36,40,170,171,172].

As regards the way lunch is served (Figure 16), more than half of the students appreciated the fact that lunch was already served on the tables, which indicates that this arrangement is convenient and acceptable for students. However, about a third indicated that they would prefer to choose their dishes and portion sizes. Some research studies have found that providing students with more flexibility, such as buffet-style meals, could potentially reduce FW by allowing students to choose their food and portion it according to their preferences and needs, thus promoting more responsible food consumption and promoting co-responsibility in reducing FW [33,67]. Other research studies also confirmed the effectiveness of buffet-style meals [68], indicating that schools that supply “prepared meals”, limit students’ options for choosing what food and how much they could consume [70]. However, implementing a buffet-style system in schools presents regulatory challenges in Latvia, as inspectors from the Food and Veterinary Service have raised concerns about allowing students to choose their own meals and portion sizes. They argue that this flexibility may conflict with strict legal requirements mandating specific nutrient quantities per meal to ensure balanced nutrition for each child. Despite these concerns, the official stance of the National Food and Veterinary Service of Latvia is acceptable for buffet type self-service as long as the overall nutritional standards are met on average for each student [33,187]. It is undoubtedly important to follow nutritional guidelines in student meal programmes, yet they should be combined with student preferences. Schools could apply a combined approach, supplying healthy meals within controlled parameters to meet both regulatory requirements and student preferences.

Overall, the students appreciated the attitude of canteen personnel, with about three-quarters reporting that the personnel were always or often kind and helpful (Figure 17). In addition, slightly more than three-quarters of the students reported that their teachers always or often helped during lunch (Figure 17), and half stated that their teachers ate lunch with them at the same table (Figure 17). Several research studies have confirmed that the role of supervising personnel during lunch is important for the efficient functioning of the dining process [74,188,189,190], as their presence, support and involvement can help to maintain order, make a positive atmosphere and solve any immediate needs or problems that arise among students during lunch. It has been established that the presence of a teacher during lunch can reduce PW and encourage healthy eating habits [37,189]. In addition, several research studies have highlighted the role of the teacher serving as an example when eating at the same table with students [90,189,191,192], as teacher behaviour plays a major role in influencing food consumption by students and shaping their future eating habits [193]. The researchers observed that in the Rezekne city schools, the involvement of both kitchen personnel and teachers in the dining process differed significantly across schools and classes. The teachers mostly ate at the same table with younger students (grades 1–4) and, accordingly, also helped during lunch (pouring soup, serving salads, etc.). In Latvia, teacher involvement during lunchtime is voluntary and not included in the established working hours, while in other countries, e.g., Sweden, school lunches are integrated into the general curriculum as “pedagogical meals”, thus encouraging the teachers to eat with their students, serving as a role model and including food-related discussions that are consistent with the school curriculum, thereby emphasizing the educational value of lunch [191,194,195]. Applying a similar approach in Latvia would increase the educational value of lunchtime, encourage positive and responsible consumption behaviour among students, and consequently reduce FW.

An analysis of the survey results through the MOA framework [112,113,114] revealed that the Rezekne city students had a certain ability level, including basic understanding and knowledge of school food, FW and its negative impacts. In addition, the answers to several questions showed that some students would be motivated to engage in more sustainable nutrition practices, for example, expressing preferences for customized portion sizes or more flexible meal options. However, actual behavioural changes were limited by the school catering model, which did not provide an opportunity for the students to choose the kind and quantity of food themselves, which is important in out-of-home food services, thus limiting their responsible food consumption behaviour, thereby leading to PW. It is obvious, that organizational changes to the catering process, for example, a buffet-style system or involving students in menu planning, are essential to address the missing “opportunity” element, so that they can turn their motivation and ability into sustainable consumption behaviour, thus providing them with the autonomy to make responsible choices regarding the kind and quantity of food consumed.

5.4. Limitations and Further Research

The present research study had some limitations that should be stressed. Although research studies of this focus have not been conducted in Latvia before, and this is a first step to identifying students’ understanding and knowledge of FW issues, the authors acknowledge that the generalizability of the findings restricts the limited survey sample, which included only four schools in Rezekne city. Future research studies would need to expand the sample to include schools from other regions of Latvia with different catering models to conduct a more comprehensive analysis and comparison in different contexts.

The authors assume that the students’ answers to the survey questions might have been influenced by their ability to concentrate and maintain attention during the survey, as the survey was quite long, which could have contributed to fatigue and loss of interest, especially for younger students. The researchers also observed a tendency for the students, especially younger ones, to copy answers from their classmates during the survey, which might have related to the above-mentioned ability to concentrate and maintain attention, and copying answers from classmates might have been an easier alternative for some students, allowing them to avoid the effort of independently thinking through the survey questions. Future research studies should consider developing more interactive surveys, especially for younger students, and completing the questionnaires in a more controlled environment to avoid such limitations.

The students’ perceptions of survey questions and answers might also have been influenced by the survey format (paper versus digital). For example, digital questionnaires are easy to use, so they can be completed quicker, while paper questionnaires might produce more thoughtful answers because they can be reviewed and corrected, unlike digital questionnaires, which cannot be corrected once submitted. Additionally, while the completion of questionnaires was supervised—through the controlled distribution of paper surveys and restricted access to the digital survey via a password-protected website—the possibility that a student may have completed the digital questionnaire more than once cannot be entirely ruled out. However, this risk is minimized by the significant time required to complete the questionnaire (30–45 min) and the voluntary nature of participation. Given these factors and the structured survey administration process, it is unlikely that this had a meaningful impact on the overall results.

Another limitation of the present research is that the survey questions focused on school catering, reflecting students’ attitudes, knowledge and behaviour in the context of school catering, and therefore the students’ answers did not reflect their overall food consumption habits and responsibility for FW at home or elsewhere outside school. Future research studies could expand the scope of the survey to include questions that would reveal students’ food consumption practices at home and elsewhere outside school, thus providing a broader understanding of their attitudes, knowledge and behaviour related to food consumption and waste. This could help to develop policy recommendations, interventions and strategies for successfully reducing FW and PW and encouraging responsible food consumption not only at school but also in the wider community.

Although the survey was anonymous, it cannot be excluded that the students might have marked socially desirable answers that they perceived as expected or correct, rather than those that reflected their true thoughts and behaviour. This aspect cannot be completely excluded, yet the survey could be combined with other methods, e.g., focus group discussions or interviews, which would complement the survey data and provide a deeper insight into students’ attitudes, knowledge and behaviour regarding FW and allow for a better understanding of the factors influencing their answers.

6. Conclusions

The present research study provides a broad insight into students’ knowledge and awareness, their attitudes towards school food, catering and lunch management, as well as their food consumption behaviour and broader challenges related to FW and catering in Rezekne city schools.

The students demonstrated a lack of awareness and knowledge regarding FW issues, which was reflected in their answers, and revealed that many students failed to fully understand the broader understanding of FW, including its financial and environmental impacts and disposal methods. These findings support the proposed hypothesis H1, confirming that students from Rezekne city schools have insufficient knowledge and understanding of FW and its impact on sustainability. The gaps highlight the need to improve student awareness and knowledge, which is a crucial step in addressing FW. However, the research study found that awareness and knowledge alone are not enough to create lasting changes in students’ food consumption behaviour; therefore, to effectively combat FW and promote responsible and sustainable consumption practices, it is important to combine educational measures with practical, complex and interesting activities that empower the students to make informed and responsible choices, thereby promoting long-term behavioural changes. In addition, indifference towards FW among the students was likely due to their limited awareness and knowledge regarding FW issues. The fact that more than half of the students showed little concern about food being wasted indicates that a lack of understanding of the consequences of FW reduces personal responsibility and motivation to tackle this problem.

Most of the students were not satisfied with the sensory qualities of the food served, indicating that school meals often did not meet their expectations. Younger students were generally more satisfied with the sensory qualities of school food than older ones, who were found to be more likely to openly express their dissatisfaction. Gender differences revealed that boys rated all food sensory qualities more positively, while girls were more selective. These findings emphasize the crucial role of sensory characteristics in influencing students’ willingness to eat and reduce PW and highlight the need for organizational improvements in Rezekne school catering.

However, weak positive correlations between the generated amount of PW and the students’ satisfaction with sensory characteristics indicate that these factors play a secondary role in the generation of PW, suggesting that other factors, including meal choice and portion size control, have a greater influence. This confirms the unsustainability of the current school catering model in Rezekne city, as it does not foster responsible food consumption behaviour or help to reduce PW. Students, even if dissatisfied with the food served, have no choice but to eat what is provided. Addressing these restrictions is essential to promote a more sustainable and student-cantered approach to school catering.

The survey results clearly reveal that the current organizational model of school catering in the city of Rezekne is fundamentally wrong and not focused on sustainability and FW reduction, as it deprives students of the important element of “opportunity” needed to promote responsible and sustainable food consumption behaviour concerning out-of-home catering. The current restrictive system, with pre-served portions, not only hinders changes in consumption behaviour but also fails to address FW issues. These findings confirm the proposed hypothesis H2, demonstrating that the current catering model in Rezekne city schools is unsustainable and does not promote responsible food consumption by students. In order to create a more sustainable and learner-centred catering model, it is imperative to provide opportunities that allow learners to combine their ability and motivation with practical action, to make autonomous decisions on the type and quantity of food consumed and thus engage in responsible and sustainable food consumption.