No abstract

(2014) Identifying motivations and barriers to minimising household food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/47861/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse:Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University.Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available.Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 84 (2014) b s t r a c tThe amount of food discarded by UK households is substantial and, to a large extent, avoidable. Furthermore, such food waste has serious environmental consequences. If household food waste reduction initiatives are to be successful they will need to be informed by people's motivations and barriers to minimising household food waste. This paper reports a qualitative study of the thoughts, feelings and experiences of 15 UK household food purchasers, based on semi-structured interviews. Two core categories of motives to minimise household food waste were identified: (1) waste concerns and (2) doing the 'right' thing. A third core category illustrated the importance of food management skills in empowering people to keep household food waste to a minimum. Four core categories of barriers to minimising food waste were also identified: (1) a 'good' provider identity; (2) minimising inconvenience; (3) lack of priority; and (4) exemption from responsibility. The wish to avoid experiencing negative emotions (such as guilt, frustration, annoyance, embarrassment or regret) underpinned both the motivations and the barriers to minimising food waste. Findings thus reveal potentially conflicting personal goals which may hinder existing food waste reduction attempts.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives. This study examined the application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) to two dietary behaviours with a particular focus on the roles of perceived control and self-ef cacy as two components of the perceived behaviouralcontrol construct in the TPB. Methods.A total of 287 members of the general public completed questionnaires, one concerning the in uence of TPB variables on intentions and behaviour for either eating ve portions of fruit and vegetables per day (N 5 144) or eating a low-fat diet (N 5 143), and the second concerning actual eating behaviour one month later. In addition, the individual components of perceived behavioural control (perceived control and self-ef cacy) and their determinant beliefs were examined. Results.For each behaviour, the TPB variables were found to be good predictors of intentions (fat intake, R 2 5 .637; fruit and vegetable intake, R 2 5 .572), although less good at predicting behaviour (fat intake, R 2 5 .185; fruit and vegetable intake, R 2 5 .321), with self-ef cacy being consistently more predictive than perceived control. In addition, examination of their determinant beliefs revealed self-ef cacy and perceived control to have difference bases. The conceptual and empirical distinctions between perceived control and self-ef cacy are discussed.

Although public perceptions of food-related hazards receive much media comment and debate, the research literature on such perceptions is sparse and piecemeal. In the reported study, 216 people completed a questionnaire relating to their perceptions of the "risk characteristics" of potential hazards associated with various aspects of food production and food consumption. Responses were examined via principal-components analysis to obtain a structural representation of risk perception of the kind provided by Fischhoff, Slovic, and their colleagues in their seminal psychometric work. A three-component solution accounting for 87% of the variance was obtained, with the dimensions labeled as "severity," "unknown," and "number of people exposed." The findings also yielded information pointing to evidence of the phenomenon of unrealistic optimism. We conclude that our findings offer a useful base upon which further in-depth research integrating different perspectives on risk perception with respect to food-related hazards may be developed.

No abstract

ALCOHOL AND THE TPB 1677 executed behaviors at one end (e.g., brushing one's teeth) and behavioral goals demanding resources, opportunities, and specialized skills at the other (e.g., losing weight). The concept is similar to Bandura's (1982) concept of self-efficacy.Intentions are determined by three sets of variables. The first is attitudes, which are the overall evaluations of the behavior by the person. The second is subjective norms, which are the person's beliefs about whether significant others think that he or she should engage in the behavior. The third is PBC. PBC is proposed to predict both intention and behavior because if intention remains constant, the effort expended to bring about a course of behavior to a successful conclusion is likely to increase with increases in PBC. In addition, to the extent that PBC reflects actual control, it is predicted to directly influence behavior.Each of the attitude, subjective norm, and PBC components also have determinants. The attitude component is a hnction of a person's salient behavioral beliefs (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), which represent perceived likely attributes of the behavior. Subjective norm is a function of normative beliefs, which represent perceptions of specific salient others' preferences about whether one should or should not engage in the behavior. PBC is a hnction of salient beliefs concerning perception of factors likely to facilitate or inhibit the performance of the behavior.So, according to the TPB, individuals are more likely to carry out a particular health behavior if they believe that the behavior will lead to particular outcomes which they value, if they believe that people whose views they value think they should carry out the behavior, and if they feel that they have the necessary resources and opportunities to perform the behavior.The TPB has been applied to the prediction of a number of different behaviors, including health-relevant behaviors, with varying degrees of success (Aizen,