| Literature DB >> 32837271 |
Sarra Jribi1, Hanen Ben Ismail1,2, Darine Doggui3, Hajer Debbabi1.
Abstract
The 2019-2020 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a public health issue. Lockdown is among options suggested to reduce spread of the virus. This study aimed to determining the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on Tunisian consumer awareness, attitudes and behaviors related to food wastage. An online survey was conducted during the first 2 weeks of COVID-19 lockdown. The survey collected information on demographic data, awareness and attitudes toward food waste, food purchase behavior and household food expenditure estimation; extent of household food waste; willingness and information needs to reduce food waste. This study included 284 respondents. About 89% of respondents claimed to be aware of food waste, and the COVID-19 lockdown would impact for 93% of respondents, their waste levels, and for 80%, their grocery shopping habits. Interestingly, the COVID-19 lockdown improved food shopping performances and pushed toward a positive behavioral change regarding food wastage: 85% respondents declared nothing of what they bought would be discarded, and most of the respondents have set up a strategy of saving, storing and eating leftovers. The most cited reasons given for discarding food were overcooking, inappropriate storage and overbuying. Consumers' changes in food waste prevention might be probably driven more by the socioeconomical context of the COVID-19 lockdown (i.e. food availability, restricted movements, loss of income), than by a pro-environmental concern. Finally, our study pointed out the consumers' needs of information for taking further action. In conclusion, our study can constitute a basis to further promote household food waste prevention behavior, outlasting the COVID-19 crisis. © Springer Nature B.V. 2020.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 lockdown; Consumers’ behavior; Household food waste; Saving strategy
Year: 2020 PMID: 32837271 PMCID: PMC7166255 DOI: 10.1007/s10668-020-00740-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Dev Sustain ISSN: 1387-585X Impact factor: 3.219
Respondents profiles (n = 284)
| % of respondents | |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Women | 72 |
| Men | 28 |
| Age (years old) | |
| 18–25 | 13 |
| 26–40 | 50 |
| 41–59 | 31 |
| 60 and more | 6 |
| Number of persons in the household | |
| 1 | 6 |
| 2 | 18 |
| 3 | 22 |
| 4 and more | 54 |
| Education | |
| Primary and high school | 4 |
| University | 96 |
| Occupation | |
| Farmers | 1.0 |
| Craftsmen, traders, entrepreneurs | 12.5 |
| Managers and higher intellectual professions | 44.0 |
| Intermediate professions | 1.8 |
| Employees | 18.0 |
| Workers | 0.0 |
| Retired | 4.6 |
| Students | 11.3 |
| Other people without activity | 6.8 |
Survey resultsa (selected) on the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on consumers' awareness, behavior, and attitudes toward food wastage (n = 284)
| %Respondents | All | Sex | Age (years old) | Number of persons in the household | Education | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women | Men | 18–25 | 26–40 | 41–59 | 60 and more | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 and more | Primary/high school | University | ||
| Reported awareness | |||||||||||||
| Yes | 89 | 90 | 87 | 83* | 87* | 92* | 100* | 81 | 90 | 87 | 90 | 90* | 89* |
| No | 7 | 6 | 8 | 8* | 8* | 6* | 0* | 13 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 0* | 7* |
| No opinion | 4 | 4 | 5 | 8* | 5* | 2* | 0* | 6 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 10* | 4* |
| Efforts to control food wastage | |||||||||||||
| Yes | 93 | 94 | 91 | 78* | 94* | 95* | 100* | 88* | 98* | 94* | 92* | 70* | 94* |
| No | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3* | 1* | 2* | 0* | 0* | 2* | 2* | 2* | 0* | 2* |
| No opinion | 5 | 4 | 8 | 19* | 4* | 2* | 0* | 13* | 0* | 5* | 6* | 30* | 4* |
| Changes in shopping habits | |||||||||||||
| Yes | 80 | 79 | 80 | 72 | 80 | 83 | 76 | 81 | 76 | 81 | 80 | 80 | 79 |
| No | 20 | 21 | 20 | 28 | 20 | 17 | 29 | 13 | 24 | 19 | 21 | 20 | 21 |
| Reported intentions of avoiding discarding bought items | |||||||||||||
| Yes | 85 | 85 | 87 | 67* | 87* | 90* | 88* | 81 | 92 | 87 | 83 | 70* | 86* |
| No | 5 | 5 | 3 | 11* | 4* | 3* | 0* | 6 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 0* | 5* |
| Do not think about the issue | 10 | 10 | 10 | 22* | 8* | 7* | 18* | 13 | 4 | 10 | 12 | 30* | 9* |
| Current final use of uneaten food | |||||||||||||
| Eating the next day | 54 | 55* | 52* | 44* | 58* | 52* | 50* | 56* | 52* | 56* | 55* | 50* | 55* |
| Feed domestic animals | 18 | 16* | 24* | 28* | 15* | 22* | 6* | 0* | 18* | 11* | 23* | 10* | 19* |
| Freezing | 13 | 15* | 8* | 11* | 9* | 14* | 39* | 25* | 12* | 17* | 10* | 20* | 12* |
| Donating | 3 | 4* | 0* | 3* | 3* | 3* | 0* | 6* | 4* | 3* | 2* | 0* | 3* |
| Recycling | 1 | 2* | 0* | 0* | 1* | 2* | 6* | 6* | 0* | 3* | 1* | 0* | 1* |
| Discarding | 10 | 8* | 16* | 14* | 13* | 7* | 0* | 6* | 14* | 10* | 10* | 20* | 10* |
*p < 0.05: for each Chi-square test, the percentages shown represent column proportions
aThe results are expressed as the percentage of respondents
Fig. 1Self-reported shopping behaviors during COVID-19 outbreak lockdown, expressed as the percentage of respondents (n = 284)
Fig. 2Self-reported ratio of thrown food per food category during COVID-19 lockdown, expressed as the percentage of purchased food items
Fig. 3Self-reported reasons of leftovers wastage during COVID-19 lockdown, expressed as the percentage of respondents (n = 284)
Survey resultsa on the consumers’ future intentional behavior toward food waste prevention (n = 284)
| % Respondents | All | Sex | Age (years old) | Number of persons in the household | Education | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women | Men | 18–25 | 26–40 | 41–59 | 60 and more | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 and more | Primary/high school | University | ||
| Future intention to reduce household food waste | |||||||||||||
| Certain | 48 | 51 | 39 | 53 | 52 | 41 | 44 | 31* | 42* | 43* | 54* | 22* | 49* |
| Probable | 24 | 20 | 35 | 31 | 23 | 25 | 22 | 38* | 24* | 22* | 24* | 33* | 24* |
| Already do whatever I can | 27 | 28 | 24 | 17 | 26 | 32 | 33 | 31* | 32* | 33* | 22* | 33* | 27* |
| No | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0* | 2* | 2* | 0* | 11* | 0* |
| Conditions needed to reduce food waste in the future | |||||||||||||
| Do not think about it | 25 | 28 | 18 | 20* | 28* | 19* | 44* | 38* | 18* | 29* | 24* | 44* | 24* |
| Information on negative impacts of food waste on the economy | 24 | 24 | 24 | 37* | 20* | 27* | 11* | 6* | 24* | 22* | 26* | 11* | 24* |
| Information on negative impacts of food waste on the environment | 10 | 7 | 20 | 11* | 10* | 12* | 6* | 6* | 12* | 10* | 11* | 11* | 11* |
| Clear labeling | 7 | 6 | 9 | 3* | 4* | 9* | 17* | 0* | 2* | 7* | 9* | 0* | 7* |
| Appropriate package size | 18 | 21 | 13 | 14* | 19* | 21* | 17* | 25* | 22* | 17* | 18* | 11* | 19* |
| Taxes | 16 | 16 | 16 | 14* | 20* | 12* | 6* | 25* | 20* | 15* | 13* | 22* | 15* |
| Others | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
*p < 0.05: for each Chi-square test, the percentages shown represent column proportions
aThe results are expressed as the percentage of respondents