Waste Management 117 (2020) 170–178

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

What influences consumer food waste behavior in restaurants? An

application of the extended theory of planned behavior
Aysßen Cosßkun, Raife Meltem Yetkin Özbük ⇑
Akdeniz University, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Department of Marketing, 07058 Konyaaltı, Antalya, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Consumer food waste during the consumption stage is usually generated in different settings (at home or
Received 7 March 2020 out-of-home). Consumer food waste behavior has been the focus of substantial investigation in the search
Revised 5 August 2020 for the mitigation of food waste in households. However, researchers have not treated consumer food
Accepted 7 August 2020
waste behavior in restaurants in much detail. This study aims to test an extended Theory of Planned
Available online 26 August 2020
Behavior by including price consciousness and food taste to understand the antecedents of food waste
behavior in restaurants. An online survey provided quantitative data from 329 participants. The results
Keywords:
showed that (1) the extended TPB model is useful in predicting consumer food waste behavior in restau-
Food waste
Consumer behavior
rants with an improved variance in food waste behavior from 13% to 15%; (2) intention to reduce food
Restaurant waste and perceived behavioral control had a significant negative effect on food waste behavior; (3) food
Theory of planned behavior taste exerted a significant positive effect on food waste behavior; (4) attitudes towards food waste, per-
Price consciousness ceived behavioral control and price consciousness positively affected intention to reduce food waste. The
Food taste current study represents a further step towards understanding consumer food waste behavior in
restaurants.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) defines food waste as the disposal of food products that
are edible for human consumption in the food supply chain (FAO,
2011). In recent years, food waste has become a critical global
problem that has substantial environmental, economic and social
impacts. Globally every year, 1.3 billion tons of edible food is
thrown away, which is estimated to generate economic losses of
US$900 billion (FAO, 2013). Food waste in landfills generates
methane, a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG), which is further asso-
ciated with GHG emissions and climate change (Porter et al., 2016).
Apart from the economic and environmental impact of throwing
away edible food, wasting food has a social aspect in light of the
fact that 1 in 9 people in the world are undernourished
with a prevalence of 11.3% globally (FAO, 2014; Sustainable
Development Knowledge Platform, 2020).
It has been well documented that multiple parties are account-
able for food waste generation beginning at the agricultural stage
(also known as the primary production of food), post-harvest stor-
age and material handling, processing, distribution (wholesale and
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: aysencoskun@akdeniz.edu.tr (A. Cosßkun), rmyetkin@akdeniz.
edu.tr (R.M. Yetkin Özbük).
retail), and consumption (Gadde and Amani, 2016; Göbel et al.,
2015; Porter et al., 2016). During the consumption stage, food
waste may occur at home or out-of-home (Wang et al., 2018).
Food waste in the market of out-of-home food consumption is
the food served but not eaten at food service providers
(Dias-Ferreira et al., 2015). Statistics show that the third-highest
amount of food waste occurs at food services (European
Environment Agency, 2015). The Courtauld Committee in England
estimates that food services will generate approximately 10% of all
food waste generated in the country by 2025 (WRAP UK, 2018).
Turkey has also encountered with food waste problem due to
the steady growth of out-of-home food consumption market
(ETUDER, 2016). The frequency of out-of-home food consumption
of Turkish consumers shows that 65% do so (Metro and Konda
Research and Consultancy, 2017). Restaurants (26%) are the most
preferred places for eating out, followed by fast-food restaurants
(22%) and hotels (17%) in Turkey (ETUDER, 2016). The Economic
and Commercial Cooperation Permanent Committee’s (COMCEC)
report shows that food services constitute 3,782 kg of food waste
per year in Turkey, which is the second-highest amount within
the organization’s member countries (Afghanistan, Benin, Camer-
oon, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Uzbekistan and Turkey) (COMCEC,
2017). The magnitude of restaurant food waste has never been
quantified in Turkey. However, a national strategy and action plan

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.08.011
0956-053X/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Cosßkun, R.M. Yetkin Özbük / Waste Management 117 (2020) 170–178
to reduce food waste in restaurants (Republic of Turkey Ministry of
Agriculture and FAO, 2020) imply that the food waste problem in
restaurants stands as a serious issue for society.
Restaurants have different service types (e.g., fine dining,
casual, quick service, take away, buffets, smorgasbords, all-you-
can-eat) and the amount food waste generated from each activity
could differ, food is mostly regarded as the least costly resource,
and it is often considered to be disposable (Garrone et al., 2014).
A typical restaurant operation starts from purchases of food in
addition to its preparation, cooking, storing and serving, continuing
with activities that include the wait staff and customer behavior.
Each activity significantly contributes to food waste generation.
For instance, Gunders (2012) states that 4–10% of food purchased
is lost in restaurants. Consumer behavior has been identified as a
critical determinant of restaurant food waste (Martin-Rios et al.,
2018; Papargyropoulou et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2017). For exam-
ple, customers ordering more food than they can eat
(Papargyropoulou et al., 2016) and leaving food on the plate
(Aamir et al., 2018; Bharucha, 2018) are influential sources of food
waste. Gaining a comprehensive understanding of consumer food
waste behavior in restaurants can help in mitigation of food waste.
Ajzen’s (1991) TPB is perhaps one of the most frequently
applied models to understand consumer behavior in various con-
texts. The main premise of the theory is that an individual’s inten-
tion is influenced by subjective norms, attitude and perceived
behavioral control, that turn into behavior. Moreover, Ajzen
(1991) argues that TPB is inclusive of other constructs beyond
the base model. The predictive capability of the extended TPB
has drawn the attention of food waste researchers in the literature
by investigating food waste behavior in the context of the house-
hold (e.g., Graham-Rowe et al., 2015; Visschers et al., 2016). How-
ever, consumer food waste behavior in the restaurant context
based on an extended TPB remains under-examined. Thus, the cur-
rent study aims to explain consumer food waste behavior in
restaurants using an extended TPB with the inclusion of price con-
sciousness and food taste as additional predictors. Accordingly,
first, the original TPB is tested to explain consumer food waste
behavior in restaurants. Then, price consciousness and food taste
are incorporated into the original TPB due to the critical role of
the price (Filimonau et al., 2017) and food taste (Heikkilä et al.,
2016) as food choice variables on consumer food waste behavior
in restaurants. Generally, the current study contributes to the
existing knowledge of food waste behavior in two ways. The first
contribution is to explain consumer food waste behavior by testing
whether TPB can be applied in the restaurant context. The second
contribution is to show how the inclusion of price consciousness
and food taste would increase the predictive capability of the orig-
inal TPB to explain consumer food waste behavior in restaurants.
The remainder of this paper is divided into three sections. The
first section highlights the theoretical background of this study.
The second part discusses how the research and analyses were
conducted. The final section draws together the key findings, dis-
cussing the theoretical and managerial implications of the results.
2. Theoretical background
TPB is the extension of the Theory of Reasoned Action by Ajzen
(1991) and it is regarded as one of the most established models to
predict human behavior. Today, TPB is one of the most parsimo-
nious theoretical model which accounts for a large variety of
behavior. The central point of TPB is the individual’s intention to
engage in a particular behavior. An individual’s intention towards
a behavior is governed by three constructs, including attitudes,
subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. An individ-
ual’s intention is the main prerequisite of behavior. Attitude entails
171
the extent to which an individual has the favored or unfavored
state of performing the behavior. Subjective norm refers to the per-
ceived social pressure that an individual may feel from others
while performing a particular behavior. Perceived behavioral control
is the individual’s perception of the ease or hardness of control
over accomplishing a particular behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Madden
et al., 1992). While attitude and subjective norms may predict
the behaviors where a person can willingly perform or not perform
a behavior, PBC was added to the model to explain the behaviors
which are not based exclusively on the individual’s volitional con-
trol (Ajzen and Fishbein, 2005). According to TPB, both behavioral
intention and perceived behavioral control can directly predict
behavior (Fig. 1).
TPB (Ajzen, 1991) has also been proposed as a useful theoretical
framework for the investigation of food waste behavior (van der
Werf et al., 2020). TPB offers a generic approach that can explain
food waste behavior (Mondéjar-Jiménez et al., 2016). In the con-
text of predicting consumers’ intention to reduce food waste, atti-
tude refers to the favorable or unfavorable evaluation of food waste
behavior. When an individual has unfavorable evaluations of food
waste behavior, the intention to reduce food waste increases
(Barone et al., 2019; Graham-Rowe et al., 2015; Stefan et al.,
2013; Visschers et al., 2016). Subjective norm refers to perceived
social pressure when wasting food. When an individual perceives
social pressure while wasting food, he/she has a greater intention
to reduce food waste (Aktas et al., 2018; Barone et al., 2019;
Graham-Rowe et al., 2015). Perceived behavioral control is how
an individual perceives the ease or difficulty of control over avoid-
ing food waste behavior. If an individual believes that the factors
causing food waste are under his/her control, his/her intention to
reduce food waste increases (Aktas et al., 2018; Graham–Rowe
et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2017) and he/she is less likely to engage
in food waste behavior (Mondéjar–Jiménez et al., 2016; Soorani
and Ahmadvand, 2019).
Recently, researchers have adopted TPB to conduct theory-
based research to explain the factors and relations of food waste
behavior. For instance, Soorani and Ahmadvand (2019) investi-
gated food consumption management behavior of Iranian respon-
dents who have the responsibility of cooking, shopping and
management of households and reported that all the variables of
the TPB model positively and significantly influenced their behav-
ior. Aktas et al. (2018) investigated consumers in Qatar and
showed that all the determinants of TPB have significant effects
on intention to reduce food waste, and behavioral intention nega-
tively affects food waste behavior in households. Barone et al.
(2019) found that attitudes and subjective norms have a positive
effect on the intention to reduce food waste from a sample of Ital-
ian consumers responsible for shopping and cooking in their
households. Graham-Rowe et al. (2015) examined household food
waste reduction and showed that attitude, subjective norms and
Subjective
norm
Attitudes Intention Behavior
Perceived
behavioral
control
Fig. 1. Theory of planned behavior (). Source: Ajzen, 1991
172 A. Cosßkun, R.M. Yetkin Özbük / Waste Management 117 (2020) 170–178
perceived behavioral control were the significant determinants of
intention to reduce fruit and vegetable waste.
The food waste literature shows that TPB has been extensively
used to understand household food waste behavior. However,
studies investigating consumer food waste behavior in food ser-
vices using TPB is limited (Lorenz et al., 2017). In the restaurant
context, previous studies have utilized TPB to explain behavioral
intention in the choice of environmentally-friendly restaurants
(Jang et al., 2015; Tommasetti et al., 2018) or to visit restaurants
with organic menu items (Shin et al., 2018). There is a scarcity of
theory-based research on consumer food waste behavior in restau-
rants. Thus, the current study investigates the antecedents of con-
sumer food waste behavior in restaurants by using the TPB model.
Therefore, this study contributes to the knowledge by analyzing
the antecedents of consumer food waste behavior in restaurants
by using an extended TPB model. The following hypotheses were
developed:
H1: Subjective norms positively affect intentions to reduce food
waste.
H2: Attitudes towards food waste positively affect intentions to
reduce food waste.
H3: Perceived behavioral control positively affects intentions to
reduce food waste.
H4: Perceived behavioral control negatively affects food waste
behavior.
H5: The intention to reduce food waste negatively affects food
waste behavior.
Although TPB is successful in predicting both behavioral inten-
tions and behaviors, Ajzen (1991) states that TPB is flexible and
may be inclusive of additional predictors based on research con-
texts. These additional predictors would contribute to increase
the predictive capability of the model (Yuriev et al., 2020). Emer-
gent research on food waste behavior have applied and extended
the TPB indicating the validity of the model in this area (e.g.,
Barone et al., 2019; Graham–Rowe et al., 2015; Russell et al.,
2017; Soorani and Ahmadvand, 2019; Stefan et al., 2013). How-
ever, it is acknowledged that food waste behavior is complex in
nature (Mondéjar-Jiménez et al., 2016; Russell et al., 2017) and is
a result of multiple behaviors and relations (Quested et al.,
2013). Thus, incorporating factors which influence food choices
should provide insights into consumer food waste behavior
(Steptoe et al., 1995; Stefan et al., 2013). Price is one of these, with
Abdelradi (2018) stating that concerning about food prices (being
price conscious) is a significant determinant of avoiding food
waste. Furthermore, it has been proposed that food taste may
influence the amount of food waste (Lorenz et al., 2017). Building
on these, two additional predictors, namely price consciousness
and food taste, are included to extend TPB to explain consumer
food waste behavior in restaurants in the current study.
2.1. Inclusion of price consciousness and food taste in TPB
Price is a major determinant in food choice of consumers
(Abdelradi, 2018; Filimonau et al., 2017) and they perceive food
waste as financial loss (Graham-Rowe et al., 2014). When con-
sumers are price conscious, they are reluctant to waste money
(Pellegrini et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2012). They have concerns
about food expenditures and price criteria to pay lower prices
(Scholderer et al., 2004). Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2017) stated
that a typical price conscious consumer prefers price-reduced food
items, and consumers who are more price conscious, generate less
food waste. Aktas et al. (2018) demonstrated that price conscious
consumers have planning routines and shopping lists which aid
in reducing food waste. Principato et al. (2018) discussed con-
sumers without price concerns (non-price conscious) in an upscale
restaurant context. They mentioned that non-price conscious con-
sumers in upscale restaurants, who are unconcerned about bills,
tend to overorder food and generate higher levels of food waste.
Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H6: Price consciousness positively affects intention to reduce
food waste.
H7: Price consciousness negatively affects food waste behavior.
Taste is considered to be one of the essential senses known to
affect the type of foods people consume (Clark, 1998; Palmer and
Leontos, 1995; Steptoe et al., 1995). Taste is formed as a combina-
tion of oral perception, taste sensation and olfaction sensation
(Moskowitz, 1978). However, researchers state that it is a complex
psychological construct that is not only shaped by the taste of the
food itself but is also affected by culture and expectations gener-
ated by marketing stimuli (Tiu Wright et al., 2000).
In food waste research, researchers investigate whether the
taste of food affects food waste behavior (e.g., Mallinson et al.,
2016). Evidence suggests that the taste of food is an important fac-
tor affecting whether food is consumed regardless of the setting,
such as in catering (Lorenz et al., 2017), hospitals (McCray et al.,
2018), schools (Blondin et al., 2015) or restaurants (Beretta et al.,
2013; Jagau and Vyrastekova, 2017). When food is perceived as
having a poor or bad taste, consumers tend to leave food on the
plate (Heikkilä et al., 2016). Considering the fact that taste of the
food generates attraction (Hall, 2004), if the taste does not meet
the expectations of customers, it can be easily wasted (Marais
et al., 2017). Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H8: Food taste negatively affects the intention to reduce food
waste.
H9: Food taste positively affects food waste behavior.
Fig. 2 shows the hypothesized theoretical relationships among
the variables based on the conceptual and empirical foundations
mentioned earlier.
3. Methodology
3.1. Measurement design
In order to understand the antecedents of food waste behavior
in restaurants, an online questionnaire was administered. The
questionnaire consisted of three main sections. In the first section,
questions were asked, responses to which were indicated on a five-
point scale ranging from ‘‘Never” (1) to ‘‘Always” (5), regarding
participants’ frequency of eating in restaurants, which was used
as a filtering question to exclude participants from the final data
set, and leaving food waste when eating in restaurants. Addition-
ally, participants were asked to indicate accompaniers when eating
in resturants among the following options: alone, with family, with
Additional Predictors
Price
consciousness Food taste
Subjective
norm H7 (−)
H1 (+) H6 (+) H8 (−) H9 (+)
Attitudes H2 (+) Intention to
H5 (−) Food waste
towards food reduce food
waste waste
behavior
H3 (+)
Perceived H4 (−)
behavioral
control
Fig. 2. Conceptual model.
 A. Cosßkun, R.M. Yetkin Özbük / Waste Management 117 (2020) 170–178
Additional Predictors
Price
consciousness
Food taste
Subjective
n.s. 0.31
norm
0.17
n.s.
Attitudes 0.29 Intention to −0.14
towards food reduce food
waste waste
0.32
Perceived −0.28
behavioral
control
Fig. 3. Results of the extended TPB model.
friends and other. The type of restaurant in which they chose to eat
was asked to from the following options: ordinary restaurants
(food ordered by the customer at the table), fast-food restaurants,
upscale restaurants (fine dining) and cafeteria/bars. The second
section consisted of six sub-sections for the main research con-
structs in the research model. The constructs were measured with
multi-items scales with minor modifications from previous
research to fit with the context of restaurants, using a five-point
Likert-type scale ranging from ‘‘(1) Strongly disagree” to ‘‘(5)
Strongly agree.” Perceived behavioral control was measured with
three items (e.g., ‘‘It is very difficult for me to predict the portion
size that I can eat before I order.”) from Stefan et al. (2013). Atti-
tudes towards food waste were assessed using four items (e.g., ‘‘I
think engaging in food waste is bad.”), and subjective norms were
evaluated with two items (e.g., ‘‘If I generate food waste, my fam-
ily/friends would disapprove.”) adapted from Russell et al. (2017).
Three items were used to measure intention to reduce food waste
(e.g., ‘‘I am willing to eat all the food I order.”) adapted from Han
et al. (2010) and Visschers et al. (2016). Price consciousness was
evaluated by three items (e.g., ‘‘I check prices when ordering
food.”) modified from Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2017) and
Scholderer et al. (2004). Food taste was adapted from Tanner and
Wölfing Kast (2003) and measured by four items (e.g., ‘‘When
ordering food, I would primarily order the food which tastes
good.”). The third section included questions regarding the socio-
demographic characteristics of respondents, including gender,
age, income and education level. (See Appendix for questionnaire)
The items were translated and back-translated from English to
Turkish to ensure functional equivalency with the help of a certi-
fied translator and an expert in the discipline of consumer
behavior.
3.2. Data collection and sample characteristics
Prior to the final data collection, the content validity of the
items was ensured with the help of two academics working on
the food waste topic. Face validity was ascertained with the help
of feedback from nine master students regarding the readability
and clarity of the items. A pilot test was employed with the final
version of the questionnaire to ensure the adequacy of the items
with 33 participants.
After minor alterations of the wording of the items, data were
collected online using a snowball sampling approach. It is recog-
nized that online sampling frames are generally unavailable
(Fricker et al., 2008). To reach participants, e–mails and links to
the online questionnaire were sent to the professional networks
of researchers and disseminated via various social media networks
between October and December 2019 in Turkey. Limitations of
snowball sampling include the lack of representativeness and sam-
173
pling bias in the method (Malhotra, 2008). Nevertheless, research-
ers frequently opted to disseminate questionnaires online (e.g.,
Aktas et al., 2018; Coderoni and Perito, 2020) for its convenience
as well as its low marginal cost (Schillewaert and Meulemeester,
2005). It took approximately 7 min for the participants to complete
the questionnaire. No incentive was given to encourage complete
0.13
responses.
To overcome socially desirable responses, an introduction was
Food waste
provided to inform the participants about the aim of the question-
behavior
naire and ensured their anonymity prior to completion of the ques-
tionnaire. The survey design was carefully performed by making
adjustments to the usage of positive and negative wording (e.g.,
McCarthy and Liu, 2017; von Kameke and Fischer, 2018).
A total of 333 participants completed the questionnaire. The
frequency of eating in restaurants was used as a filtering question
that allowed for the exclusion of participants who never eat in
restaurants (n = 4) from the final data set, after which 329 usable
responses became available for data analysis.
Of the 329 participants, approximately 59% were female and
41% were male. The mean age of the participants was 34.6 years.
Females were slightly over-represented considering that females
comprise of 49.8% of Turkey’s population. However, the female bias
in the sample is consistent with data provided by Turkish Bureau of
_ (2019) on the high percentage of Internet usage
Statistics (TÜIK)
(68.9%). As for the age of the participants, the median age of the
Turkish population is recorded as 32.6 by TÜIK _ (2020).
Among the participants, approximately 37.4% hold a graduate
degree, followed by high-school graduates (33.4%). Statistics show
that 17.71% of Turkey’s population reported having a Bachelor’s
degree as the highest level of educational attainment in 2018
_ 2018a). Regarding the frequency of eating in restaurants,
(TÜIK,
40.1% indicated that they would occasionally eat in restaurants,
followed by 35.9% indicating that they often ate in restaurants.
Only a small percentage of the respondents (5.5%) responded that
they always ate in restaurants. Based on data from the TÜIK _
(2018b), restaurant and hotel expenditures consisted of 6.5% of
total household consumption expenditures. Furthermore, the
majority of the participants (52.3%) indicated that they eat with
their friends. Finally, ordinary restaurants were followed by fast-
food restaurants as the most popular options among respondents
when they ate outside.
3.3. Data analysis
Prior to data analysis, one item each from perceived behavioral
control and food taste was reverse-coded. The participants’ food
waste behavior in restaurants was created by multiplying the fre-
quency of eating in restaurants and the frequency of leaving food
waste as a new variable (Djekic et al., 2019).
A two-step approach by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was fol-
lowed for data analysis. First, the measurement model using a con-
firmatory factor analysis (CFA) was assessed to ensure construct
reliability and validity. After that, structural equation modelling
was conducted to test the hypothesized relationships using AMOS
21.0.
4. Results
4.1. Common method variance
The study utilized a self-reported questionnaire where a com-
mon method variance may potentially influence participants’
responses. Harman’s single factor test was used to check whether
the data was prone to common method bias. The result of the prin-
cipal component factor analysis revealed that the first factor only
174 A. Cosßkun, R.M. Yetkin Özbük / Waste Management 117 (2020) 170–178

explained 21.962% of the total variance, indicating that common
method bias was unlikely to affect the results. Additionally, the
participant’s anonymity was ensured by following the recommen-
dations of Podsakoff et al. (2003).
4.2. Reliability and validity assessment
The fit of the measurement model was acceptable for the sam-
ple (n = 329) (v2df = 137 = 279.438; v2/df = 2.040; RMSEA = 0.056;
CFI = 0.948; TLI = 0.935; SRMR = 0.0545, p < 0.05). However, when
composite reliability (CR) and the average variance extracted
(AVE) were assessed, price consciousness failed to exceed the cut-
off value for both statistics, and the AVE of food taste was lower
than the threshold, which was 0.50. After removing one item from
price consciousness and one item from food taste with factor load-
ings lower than 0.40 (Hair et al., 2010), the measurement model
assessment was revised. The second measurement model still
showed an overall good fit (v2df = 104 = 227.955; v2/df = 2.192;
RMSEA = 0.060; CFI = 0.954; TLI = 0.940; SRMR = 0.0513, p < 0.05).
All items were loaded significantly to their latent variables
(p < 0.01). After the exclusion of items from price consciousness
and food taste, the CR of the constructs ranged from 0.739 to
0.913, which were above 0.70. The AVE of each construct was
above 0.50, as recommended by Hair et al. (2010). The results of
the final CFA are presented in Table 1. The discriminant validity
of the constructs was also assessed and achieved, as indicated by
Fornell and Larcker (1981), which showed that the observed vari-
ables measured different constructs as reported in Table 2.
4.3. Structural model
First, the paths in the original TPB model were evaluated and
the overall fit of the original TPB model was deemed acceptable
for the sample (v2/df = 3.379; RMSEA = 0.085; CFI = 0.929;
TLI = 0.909; SRMR = 0.121, p < 0.05). Consequently, two additional
variables (price consciousness and food taste) were added to
extend the original TPB model in order to improve the explanatory
power of the model. As shown in Table 3, the extended model had
a satisfactory fit (v2/df = 2.792; RMSEA = 0.074; CFI = 0.921;
TLI = 0.900; SRMR = 0.121, p < 0.05). The findings revealed that
extending the original TPB model with additional variables
improved the variance in food waste behavior; this resulted in an
increase from 0.130 to 0.150 in the final model.
Table 4 summarizes the results of the hypothesized relation-
ships in the extended model. As shown in Table 4 and Fig. 3, the
effect of subjective norms on the intention to reduce food waste
(H1) was not supported (b = 0.090, t–value = 1.537, p = 0.124).
Attitudes towards food waste were found positively to affect the
intention to reduce food waste supporting H2 (b = 0.292,
t–value = 4.893, p < 0.01). Perceived behavioral control has a signif-
icant positive effect on intention to reduce food waste (b = 0.324,
t–value = 4.650, p < 0.01) supporting H3, and a negative effect on
food waste behavior as hypothesized in H4 (b = 0.278,
t–value = 4.117, p < 0.01). H5 was supported, indicating that
the intention to reduce food waste has a significant negative effect
on food waste behavior (b = 0.142, t–value = 2.233, p < 0.01).
Although price consciousness (H6) has a positive effect on the
intention to reduce food waste as hypothesized (b = 0.308,
t–value = 4.214, p < 0.01), its effect on food waste behavior was
not significant, thus rejecting H7 (b = 0.065, t–value = 0.936,
p = 0.190).. In the case of food taste affecting intention to reduce
food waste (H8), there was a significant effect but in the opposite
direction (b = 0.169, t–value = 2.788, p < 0.01). Finally, food taste
positively affected food waste behavior as hypothesized in H9
(b = 0.129, t–value = 2.163, p < 0.01).
5. Discussion
This study aimed to test an extended TPB model by integrating
two theoretical constructs, namely price consciousness and food
taste, to explain food waste behavior in restaurants. It was hypoth-
esized that subjective norms, attitudes towards food waste and
perceived behavioral control would predict intention to reduce
food waste. Moreover, the intention to reduce food waste and per-
ceived behavioral control were expected to predict food waste
behavior. However, it was also hypothesized that price conscious-
ness and food taste would be significant determinants of intention
to reduce food waste and food waste behavior in restaurants. Add-
ing price consciousness and food taste to the original TPB model, it
was possible to increase the explanatory power of the extended
model. When testing each path in the extended model, the data
verified the role of the main TPB constructs in explaining food
waste behavior in restaurants. Except for the effect of subjective

Table 1
Final Measurement Model Results.

Construct Items k t– a CR AVE

value
Perceived behavioral control (PBC) It is very difficult for me to predict the portion size that I can eat before I order (R). 0.545 à 0.760 0.775 0.544
I am able to predict the exact portion size that I can eat. 0.900 8.723
I am able to order the portion size that I can eat. 0.724 9.063
Attitudes towards food waste (ATTD) I think engaging in food waste is bad. 0.795 à 0.900 0.913 0.725
I think engaging in food waste is unpleasant. 0.943 20.174
I think engaging in food waste is harmful. 0.898 19.088
I think engaging in food waste is unsatisfying. 0.757 15.149
Subjective norms (NORM) If I generate food waste, my family/friends would disapprove. 0.874 à 0.826 0.828 0.707
If I generate food waste, my family/friends would find it undesirable. 0.806 8.874
Intention to reduce food waste (INT) I am willing to eat all the food I order. 0.588 à 0.777 0.799 0.577
I plan to order as much food as I can eat. 0.892 10.548
I will expend effort on ordering as much food as I can eat. 0.766 10.214
Price consciousness (PRICE) I check prices when ordering food. 0.822 à 0.720 0.739 0.587
I notice when the food I order regularly changes in price. * *
I compare prices between foods to get the best value for money. 0.706 6.488
Food taste (FOODTASTE) When ordering food, I would primarily order food which tastes good. 0.776 à 0.843 0.850 0.655
When ordering food, I am guided by what I like. 0.882 14.640
People should order what they like, even if what they order is unhealthy (R). * *
When ordering food, I am guided by my taste. 0.765 13.727

k = Std. regression weights, àItems fixed to 1 in CFA, a = Cronbach’s alpha, CR = Composite reliability.
AVE = Average variance expected, *items removed from CFA.
 A. Cosßkun, R.M. Yetkin Özbük / Waste Management 117 (2020) 170–178 175

Table 2
Discriminant Validity Assessment.

Constructs PBC ATTD NORM INT PRICE FOOD TASTE

PBC 1.000
ATTD 0.179 1.000
(0.032)
NORM 0.013 0.437 1.000
(0.0001) (0.190)
INT 0.397 0.474 0.261 1.000
(0.157) (0.224) (0.068)
PRICE 0.145 0.295 0.078 0.443 1.000
(0.021) (0.087) (0.006) (0.196)
FOODTASTE 0.094 0.310 0.208 0.354 0.214 1.000
(0.008) (0.096) (0.043) (0.125) (0.045)

Note 1: Correlations between variables are below the diagonal.

Note 2: Squared correlations are within the parentheses.

Table 3 norms are generally the weakest predictor of intentions (Armitage

Comparing the Explanatory Power of the Original TPB and the Extended Model.
and Conner, 2010). Second, several researchers have mentioned
Fit Original model Extended Recommended cut-off that alternative operationalization of subjective norms could be a
indices (TPB) model values better predictor (Armitage and Conner, 2010; Rivis et al., 2009).
v2/df 3.379 2.792 1.00 < v2/df < 3.00 By using alternative operationalizations, previous studies
CFI 0.929 0.921 0.90 (Soorani and Ahmadvand, 2019; Stancu et al., 2016) also found sig-
TLI 0.909 0.900 0.90
RMSEA 0.085 0.074 0.07, CFI  0.90
nificant effects of subjective norms on intentions. Third, there may
SRMR 0.121 0.121 0.08, CFI  0.92 be a perceived paradox between personal norms and subjective
R2 0.130 0.150 norms. For instance, Sirieix et al. (2017) discussed that personal
norms stimulate the belief that leaving food waste is against indi-
vidual values. At the same time, subjective norms may prevent
Table 4
them from asking for doggy bags by causing shyness and finally
Structural Model Results. leaving food waste behind in restaurants.
In terms of predicting the intention to reduce food waste, atti-
Hypothesized Paths Coefficients t–values Hypothesis
tudes towards food waste contributed to a medium-sized positive
H1: Norm ? Int (+) 0.090 1.537 Not supported effect (H2). This finding is consistent with past research (Barone
H2: Attd ? Int (+) 0.292 4.893 Supported
H3: PBC ? Int (+) 0.324 4.650 Supported
et al., 2019; Graham-Rowe et al., 2015; Soorani and Ahmadvand,
H4: PBC ? Behavior ( ) 0.278 4.117 Supported 2019; Stancu et al., 2016) and suggests that the more positive an
H5: Int ? Behavior ( ) 0.142 2.233 Supported individual’s disposition towards food waste is, the more likely
H6: Price ? Int (+) 0.308 4.214 Supported the occurrence of food waste reduction.
H7: Price ? Behavior ( ) 0.065 0.936 Not supported
This study found that participants who reported higher levels of
H8: FoodTaste ? Int ( ) 0.169 2.788 Supported*
H9: FoodTaste ? Behavior (+) 0.129 2.163 Supported perceived behavioral control have greater intentions to reduce
food waste (H3). Perceived behavioral control is identified as the
Goodness-of-fit statistics for the structural model: v2 = 337.820, df = 121, v2/
most important predictor of the intention to reduce food waste
df = 2.792.
p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.074, CFI = 0.921, TLI = 0.900, SRMR = 0.121 p < 0.05. among the independent variables of TPB in this study. This finding
* Supported in opposite direction than hypothesized. is consistent with the previous research which showed that per-
ceived behavioral control affects the intention to reduce food
waste (Soorani and Ahmadvand, 2019; Visschers et al., 2016) and
norms on the intention to reduce food waste and price conscious- it is considered to be the most important driver of intention to
ness on food waste behavior, the hypothesized paths were found to reduce food waste (Mondéjar–Jiménez et al., 2016; Russell et al.,
be significant in explaining food waste behavior in restaurants. 2017). Therefore, if restaurant customers believe that they are in
The effect of subjective norms on the intention to reduce food control over the amount of food wasted in restaurants, their inten-
waste (H1) was surprisingly insignificant. This finding was unex- tion to reduce food waste would increase. The results also demon-
pected and suggested that subjective norms failed to evoke con- strated that the more perceived behavioral control an individual
sumers’ intention to reduce food waste in restaurants. However, has over his/her eating behavior in restaurants (H4), the less food
it was expected that subjective norms could affect consumer eating waste occurs. In accordance with the present results, previous
behavior since restaurants are public areas (Sirieix et al., 2017). research (Stancu et al., 2016; Visschers et al., 2016) has demon-
Although the insignificant effect of subjective norms on intention strated that perceived behavioral control had a significant direct
to reduce food waste differs from the results of several studies in effect towards food waste behavior.
the food waste literature (Barone et al., 2019; Russell et al., Additionally, the intention to reduce food waste was a signifi-
2017; Soorani and Ahmadvand, 2019; Stancu et al., 2016), they cant predictor of food waste behavior in restaurants as hypothe-
are consistent with those of reporting the insignificant effects of sized (H5). This result also accords with earlier research (Barone
subjective norms on intentions (Mondéjar-Jiménez et al., 2016; et al., 2019; Russell et al., 2017) which showed that individuals
Visschers et al., 2016; Werf et al., 2019). There are several possible with higher levels of intention to reduce food waste reported lower
explanations for this result. First, perceived social pressure does levels of waste.
not explicitly affect consumer behavior and it is difficult to see The present study was also designed to determine the effect of
its effects on intention. Thus, in the applications of TPB, subjective price conscious and food taste on the intention to reduce food
176 A. Cosßkun, R.M. Yetkin Özbük / Waste Management 117 (2020) 170–178
waste and food waste behavior in restaurants. The results con-
firmed that price conscious consumers had higher intentions to
reduce food waste (H6), which seems to be consistent with other
research which found that price conscious consumers also tend
to reduce food waste (Principato et al., 2018). Additionally, this
finding broadly supports the work of other studies on restaurants
showing that price consciousness is considered to be important
factor in consumer decision-making (Filimonau et al., 2017). How-
ever, price consciousness failed significantly to affect food waste
behavior (H7), which contradicts with the previous findings
(Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2017; Mallinson et al., 2016). This find-
ing indicates that intention would be a mediator between price
consciousness and food waste behavior.
Contrary to expectations, this study found a significant effect of
food taste on the intention to reduce food waste in the opposite
direction than hypothesized (H8). This result shows that individu-
als, who consider food taste in choosing what to eat, tend to have
higher intentions to reduce food waste. A possible explanation for
this might be that wasting food is perceived to be morally unac-
ceptable socio-culturally (Revilla and Salet, 2018). Considering that
the sample is selected from Turkish participants, it is important to
bear in mind sample characteristics. There was a significant posi-
tive effect of food taste on food waste behavior as hypothesized
(H9). This also accords with earlier studies (e.g., Beretta et al.,
2013; Heikkilä et al., 2016), which showed that the more an indi-
vidual considers the taste of a food in restaurants, the more he/
she generates food waste.
6. Conclusion
This study set out to investigate the effects of main TPB factors
on consumer food waste behavior in restaurants along with addi-
tional predictors on consumer food waste behavior in restaurants.
The contribution of this study has been to confirm that TPB can be
a useful model to explain consumer food waste behavior in restau-
rants. Additional predictors increased the explained significant
variance for the food waste behavior which strengths the idea that
TPB is inclusive of additional constructs. Specifically, this approach
will prove useful in expanding the understanding of how price con-
sciousness and food taste could improve predictions of original TPB
constructs.
The results of this investigation show that perceived behavioral
control has the highest impact on the intention to reduce food
waste and food waste behavior. Price consciousness and attitudes
toward food waste have also emerged as reliable predictors of
intention to reduce food waste. Interestingly, although food taste
revealed significant effects on both intention and behavior, its
effect on the intention to reduce food waste was significant in
opposite direction than hypothesized. These findings add to a
growing body of literature and will help other researchers to
design extended TPB frameworks with constructs specific to other
measurement domains (e.g., other food service operators such as
hotels, catering, fast-food restaurants).
The findings of this study have a number of practical implica-
tions on how to manage consumer food waste in restaurants.
Firstly, the highest impact of perceived behavioral control on the
intention to reduce food waste and food waste behavior point to
restaurateurs about informing consumers so consumers should
believe that they have control on the amount of food they order
or their leftovers. For instance, restaurateurs should offer smaller
portions as a nudge to mitigate food waste in restaurants instead
of offering uniform portion size. Another straightforward measure
would be to inform consumers that doggy bags are an option for
the leftovers. Secondly, the effect of price consciousness suggests
several courses of action for mitigating food waste in restaurants.
For instance, restaurant management might use price as a strategy
to prevent food waste by stating that food waste is a financial loss
in their menus. Thirdly, forming positive attitudes or strengthening
the established positive attitudes towards food waste through
informational campaigns could play a role to affect intention to
reduce food waste. Lastly, another notable finding of this study
was to reveal that an individual’s food taste could play a role in
influencing food waste behavior. Hence, restaurants can take
advantage of designing menus with favorable dishes which in turn
could decrease the likelihood of leaving food on plates.
6.1. Future research directions
The current study has confirmed the applicability of the TPB
model with additional predictors to explain consumer food waste
behavior in restaurants. Therefore, future research could use the
findings of this research as a baseline to enhance our understand-
ing of consumer food waste behavior in restaurants. A method-
ological recommendation from the current study is to observe
consumers in restaurants instead of self-reported food waste
behavior through surveys.
Although extending TPB with additional predictors (price con-
sciousness and food taste) appears promising, further research
with other related constructs for restaurants is needed to develop
a deeper understanding of consumer food waste behavior in
restaurants. For instance, it would be interesting to examine the
effects of new predictors such as diet preferences, emotions or
habits on consumer food waste behavior. More broadly, research
is also required regarding the relationship between the prerequi-
sites of the extended TPB and the factors related to the physical
environments of restaurants. Specifically, further experimental
investigations are recommended to estimate the effects of plate
size, ambience, lighting, or smell on consumer behavior.
Finally, many parties in restaurants are responsible for different
causes of food waste. In this respect, the opinions of restaurant
managers, chefs or wait staff regarding consumer food waste and
their actions affecting consumers should be investigated in future
studies. Thus, the feasibility of the actions regarding price con-
scious consumers and their food taste would be understood better.
6.2. Limitations
Several limitations to this study need to be acknowledged. First,
the findings of the current research cannot be generalized, consid-
ering that the data were collected through a non-probability sam-
pling technique. Future studies should consider drawing a
probablistic sample for better representativeness where a sam-
pling frame is available. Second, the current study did not measure
respondents’ social desirability. Thus, including a measure of social
desirability could help to eliminate respondents with high social
desirability biases. Third, the measurement of food waste behavior
has relied on self-reported food waste behavior in the question-
naire which may deviate from the actual amount of food waste
(Jörissen et al., 2015; Giordano et al., 2018). To reduce the devia-
tion and obtain a more accurate amount of waste, reseachers could
measure actual food waste amounts in restaurants. Fourth, the pre-
sent study was unable to use alternative conceptualizations for the
subjective norm.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
 A. Cosßkun, R.M. Yetkin Özbük / Waste Management 117 (2020) 170–178
Appendix A. Questionnaire
References
Aamir, M., Ahmad, H., Javaid, Q., Hasan, S.M., 2018. Waste Not, Want Not: A Case
Study on Food Waste in Restaurants of Lahore, Pakistan. J. Food Prod. Market. 24
(5), 591–610.
Abdelradi, F., 2018. Food waste behaviour at the household level: A conceptual
framework. Waste Manage. 71, 485–493.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
50 (2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 2005. The influence of attitudes on behaviour. Handb.
Attitudes. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294218.
Aktas, E., Sahin, H., Topaloglu, Z., Oledinma, A., Huda, A.K.S., Irani, Z., Sharif, A.M.,
van’t Wout, T., Kamrava, M., 2018. A consumer behavioural approach to food
waste. J. Ent Info Manage. 31 (5), 658–673.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull., 103, 411–423.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.
Armitage, C.J., Conner, M., 2010. Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A
Meta-Analytic Review E Y cacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta-
analytic review, 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., Jensen, J.H., Jensen, M.H., Kulikovskaja, V., 2017. Consumer
behaviour towards price-reduced suboptimal foods in the supermarket and the
relation to food waste in households. Appetite 116, 246–258.
Barone, A.M., Grappi, S., Romani, S., 2019. ‘‘The road to food waste is paved with
good intentions”: When consumers’ goals inhibit the minimization of
household food waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 149, 97–105.
177
Beretta, C., Stoessel, F., Baier, U., Hellweg, S., 2013. Quantifying food losses and the
potential for reduction in Switzerland. Waste Manage. 33 (3), 764–773.
Bharucha, J., 2018. Tackling the challenges of reducing and managing food waste in
Mumbai restaurants. Brit. Food J. 120 (3), 639–649.
Blondin, S.A., Djang, H.C., Metayer, N., Anzman-Frasca, S., Economos, C.D., 2015. ‘It’s
just so much waste.’ A qualitative investigation of food waste in a universal free
School Breakfast Program. Public Health Nutr. 18 (9), 1565–1577.
Clark, J.E., 1998. Taste and flavour: their importance in food choice and acceptance.
Proc. Nutr. Soc. 57 (4), 639–643.
Coderoni, S., Perito, M.A., 2020. Sustainable consumption in the circular economy.
An analysis of consumers’ purchase intentions for waste-to-value food. J.
Cleaner Prod. 252, 119870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119870.
COMCEC, 2017. Reducing Food Waste in the OIC Countries. Standing Committee for
Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation (COMCEC) [WWW Document]. URL <http://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-
content/uploads/2018/11/Reducing_Food_Waste_in_the_OIC_Countries%E2%
80%8B.pdf> (accessed 06.14.20).
Dias-Ferreira, C., Santos, T., Oliveira, V., 2015. Hospital food waste and
environmental and economic indicators – A Portuguese case study. Waste
Manage. 46, 146–154.
Djekic, I., Miloradovic, Z., Djekic, S., Tomasevic, I., 2019. Household food waste in
Serbia – Attitudes, quantities and global warming potential. J. Cleaner Prod. 229,
44–52.
ETUDER, 2016. Association of out-of-home consumption suppliers [WWW
Document]. URL <https://etuder.org.tr/2016/06/05/ev-disinda-bir-yilda-650-
tl-harcadik/index.html> (accessed 6.23.20).
European Environment Agency, 2015. What are the sources of food waste in
Europe? [WWW Document]. URL <https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/
infographics/wasting-food-1/view> (accessed 8.5.20).
FAO, 2014. The state of food insecurity in the world [WWW Document]. URL
<http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4030e.pdf> (accessed 8.5.20).
FAO, 2011. Global food losses and food waste.
FAO, 2013. Food wastage footprint-Impacts on natural resources.
Filimonau, V., Lemmer, C., Marshall, D., Bejjani, G., 2017. ‘Nudging’ as an architect of
more responsible consumer choice in food service provision: The role of
restaurant menu design. J. Cleaner Prod. 144, 161–170.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.
Fricker, Jr., R.D., 2008. The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods. In: The
SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Ltd, 1 Oliver’s
Yard, 55 City Road, London England EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom, pp. 195–217.
doi:10.4135/9780857020055.
Gadde, L.-E., Amani, P., 2016. Food supply in a network context. Br. Food J., 118,
1407–1421. https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-10-2015-0401.
Garrone, P., Melacini, M., Perego, A., 2014. Opening the black box of food waste
reduction. Food Policy 46, 129–139.
Giordano, C., Piras, S., Boschini, M., Falasconi, L., 2018. Are questionnaires a reliable
method to measure food waste? A pilot study on Italian households. Brit. Food J.
120 (12), 2885–2897.
Göbel, C., Langen, N., Blumenthal, A., Teitscheid, P., Ritter, G., 2015. Cutting food
waste through cooperation along the food supply chain. Sustain. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su7021429.
Graham-Rowe, E., Jessop, D.C., Sparks, P., 2014. Identifying motivations and barriers
to minimising household food waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 84, 15–23.
Graham-Rowe, E., Jessop, D.C., Sparks, P., 2015. Predicting household food waste
reduction using an extended theory of planned behaviour. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 101, 194–202.
Gunders, D., 2012. Wasted: How America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from
farm to fork to landfill. NRDC Issue Paper.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis: A
Global Perspective. Pearson Education.
Hall, C.M., 2004. Food Tourism Around The World. Routledge, Food Tourism Around
The World. 10.4324/9780080477862.
Han, H., Hsu, L.-T., Sheu, C., 2010. Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to
green hotel choice: Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tour.
Manage. 31 (3), 325–334.
Heikkilä, L., Reinikainen, A., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Silvennoinen, K., Hartikainen, H.,
2016. Elements affecting food waste in the food service sector. Waste Manage.
56, 446–453.
Jagau, H.L., Vyrastekova, J., 2017. Behavioral approach to food waste: an experiment.
Brit. Food J. 119 (4), 882–894.
Jang, S.Y., Chung, J.Y., Kim, Y.G., 2015. Effects of Environmentally Friendly
Perceptions on Customers’ Intentions to Visit Environmentally Friendly
Restaurants: An Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. Asia Pacific J. Tour.
Res. 20 (6), 599–618.
Jörissen, J., Priefer, C., Bräutigam, K.R., 2015. Food waste generation at household
level: Results of a survey among employees of two European research centers in
Italy and Germany. Sustain. 7, 2695–2715. doi:10.3390/su7032695.
Lorenz, B.A., Hartmann, M., Hirsch, S., Kanz, O., Langen, N., 2017. Determinants of
plate leftovers in one german catering company. Sustain. 9, 1–17. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su9050807.
Madden, T.J., Ellen, P.S., Ajzen, I., 1992. A Comparison of the Theory of Planned
Behavior and the Theory of Reasoned Action. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 18 (1), 3–9.
Malhotra, N., 2008. Fundamentals of Marketing Research. SAGE Publications, United
Kingdom. doi:10.4135/9781446261767.
178 A. Cosßkun, R.M. Yetkin Özbük / Waste Management 117 (2020) 170–178
Mallinson, L.J., Russell, J.M., Barker, M.E., 2016. Attitudes and behaviour towards
convenience food and food waste in the United Kingdom. Appetite 103, 17–28.
Marais, M.L., Smit, Y., Koen, N., Lötze, E., 2017. Are the attitudes and practices of
foodservice managers, catering personnel and students contributing to
excessive food wastage at Stellenbosch University? South African J. Clin. Nutr.
30 (3), 60–67.
Martin-Rios, C., Demen-Meier, C., Gössling, S., Cornuz, C., 2018. Food waste
management innovations in the foodservice industry. Waste Manage. 79,
196–206.
McCarthy, B., Liu, H.B., 2017. Food waste and the ‘green’ consumer. Australasian
Market. J. (AMJ) 25 (2), 126–132.
McCray, S., Maunder, K., Barsha, L., Mackenzie-Shalders, K., 2018. Room service in a
public hospital improves nutritional intake and increases patient satisfaction
while decreasing food waste and cost. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet 31 (6), 734–741.
Metro, K., 2017. Eating and Drinking Values and Habits Survey. Res. Consult.
Mondéjar-Jiménez, J.-A., Ferrari, G., Secondi, L., Principato, L., 2016. From the table
to waste: An exploratory study on behaviour towards food waste of Spanish and
Italian youths. J. Cleaner Prod. 138, 8–18.
Moskowitz, H., 1978. Taste and food technology: Acceptability, aesthetics, and
preference. In: Carterette, E.C., Friendman, M.P. (Eds.), Handbook of Perception
Volume VIA. pp. 157–194.
Palmer, Jeannette, Leontos, Carolyn, 1995. Nutrition Training for Chefs. J. Am. Diet.
Assoc. 95 (12), 1418–1421.
Papargyropoulou, E., Wright, N., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J., Padfield, R., Ujang, Z.,
2016. Conceptual framework for the study of food waste generation and
prevention in the hospitality sector. Waste Manage. 49, 326–336.
Pellegrini, G., Sillani, S., Gregori, M., Spada, A., 2019. Household food waste
reduction: Italian consumers’ analysis for improving food management. Brit.
Food J. 121 (6), 1382–1397.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Porter, S.D., Reay, D.S., Higgins, P., Bomberg, E., 2016. A half-century of production-
phase greenhouse gas emissions from food loss & waste in the global food
supply chain. Sci. Total Environ. 571, 721–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2016.07.041.
Principato, L., Pratesi, C.A., Secondi, L., 2018. Towards Zero Waste: an Exploratory
Study on Restaurant managers. Int. J. Hospital. Manage. 74, 130–137.
Quested, T.E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D., Parry, A.D., 2013. Spaghetti soup: The complex
world of food waste behaviours. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 79, 43–51.
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture, FAO, 2020. Gıdanı Koru, Sofrana Sahip Çı
k [WWW Document]. URL https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/ABDGM/Belgeler/I_
DARI_ IS
_ ß LER/Diğer Belgeler/Türkiye%27nin Gıda Kayıpları ve Israfının
_ Önlenmesi,
Azaltılması ve Yönetimine Ilis _ ßkin Ulusal Strateji Belgesi ve Eylem Planı.pdf
(accessed 6.25.20).
Revilla, B.P., Salet, W., 2018. The social meaning and function of household food
rituals in preventing food waste. J. Cleaner Prod. 198, 320–332.
Rivis, A., Sheeran, P., Armitage, C.J., 2009. Expanding the affective and normative
components of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis of anticipated
affect and moral norms. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 39, 2985–3019. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00558.x.
Russell, S.V., Young, C.W., Unsworth, K.L., Robinson, C., 2017. Bringing habits and
emotions into food waste behaviour. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 125, 107–114.
Schillewaert, N., Meulemeester, P., 2005. Comparing Response Distributions of
Offline and Online. Int. J. Market Res. 47 (2), 163–178.
Scholderer, J., Brunsø, K., Bredahl, L., Grunert, K.G., 2004. Cross-cultural validity of
the food-related lifestyles instrument (FRL) within Western Europe. Appetite 42
(2), 197–211.
Shin, Y.H., Im, J., Jung, S.E., Severt, K., 2018. The theory of planned behavior and the
norm activation model approach to consumer behavior regarding organic
menus. Int. J. Hospital. Manage. 69, 21–29.
Sirieix, L., Lála, J., Kocmanová, K., 2017. Understanding the antecedents of
consumers’ attitudes towards doggy bags in restaurants: Concern about food
waste, culture, norms and emotions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 34, 153–158.
Soorani, F., Ahmadvand, M., 2019. Determinants of consumers’ food management
behavior: Applying and extending the theory of planned behavior. Waste
Manage. 98, 151–159.
Stancu, V., Haugaard, P., Lähteenmäki, L., 2016. Determinants of consumer food
waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste. Appetite 96, 7–17.
Stefan, V., van Herpen, E., Tudoran, A.A., Lähteenmäki, L., 2013. Avoiding food waste
by Romanian consumers: The importance of planning and shopping routines.
Food Qual. Prefer. 28 (1), 375–381.
Steptoe, Andrew, Pollard, Tessa M., Wardle, Jane, 1995. Development of a Measure
of the Motives Underlying the Selection of Food: the Food Choice Questionnaire.
Appetite 25 (3), 267–284.
Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2020. Goal 2: Sustainable
Development Knowledge Platform [WWW Document]. URL
<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg2> (accessed 06.04.20).
Tanner, C., Wölfing Kast, S., 2003. Promoting sustainable consumption:
Determinants of green purchases by Swiss consumers: Promoting Sustainable
Consumption. Psychol. Market. 20 (10), 883–902.
Tiu Wright, L., Nancarrow, C., Brace, I., 2000. Researching taste: layers of analysis.
Brit. Food J. 102 (5/6), 429–440.
Tommasetti, A., Singer, P., Troisi, O., Maione, G. 2018. Extended theory of planned
behavior (ETPB): investigating customers’ perception of restaurants’
sustainability by testing a structural equation model. Sustain. 10, 2580.
_ 2018a. Yıllara göre Türkiye’de 15 yasß ve üstü yükseköğretim önlisans, lisans,
TÜIK,
yüksek lisans ve doktora mezunların oranı [WWW Document]. URL <https://
www.drdatastats.com/yillara-gore-turkiyede-15-yas-ve-ustu-yuksekogretim-
onlisans-lisans-yuksek-lisans-doktora-mezunlarinin-orani/> (accessed
6.20.20).
_
TÜIK, 2018b. Tüketim harcamaları istatistikleri [WWW Document]. URL
<http://tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1012> (accessed 6.20.20).
_ 2019. Bilgi Toplumu Istatistikleri
TÜIK, _ [WWW Document]. URL <http://tuik.gov.tr/
UstMenu.do?metod=temelist> (accessed 6.20.20).
_
TÜIK, 2020. Yıllara ve cinsiyete göre ortanca yasß [WWW Document]. URL
<http://tuik.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=temelist> (accessed 6.20.20).
van der Werf, P., Seabrook, J.A., Gilliland, J.A., 2020. Food for thought: Comparing
self-reported versus curbside measurements of household food wasting
behavior and the predictive capacity of behavioral determinants. Waste
Manage. 101, 18–27.
Visschers, V.H.M., Wickli, N., Siegrist, M., 2016. Sorting out food waste behaviour: A
survey on the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in
households. J. Environ. Psychol. 45, 66–78.
von Kameke, C., Fischer, D., 2018. Preventing household food waste via nudging: An
exploration of consumer perceptions. J. Cleaner Prod. 184, 32–40.
Wang, L.-e., Liu, G., Liu, X., Liu, Y., Gao, J., Zhou, B., Gao, S.i., Cheng, S., 2017. The
weight of unfinished plate: A survey based characterization of restaurant food
waste in Chinese cities. Waste Manage. 66, 3–12.
Wang, L., Xue, L.i., Li, Y., Liu, X., Cheng, S., Liu, G., 2018. Horeca food waste and its
ecological footprint in Lhasa, Tibet, China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 136, 1–8.
Werf, P., Seabrook, J.A., Gilliland, J.A., 2019. Food for naught: Using the theory of
planned behaviour to better understand household food wasting behaviour.
Canad. Geogr./Le Géographe canadien 63 (3), 478–493.
Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Löfgren, M., Gustafsson, A., 2012. Reasons
for household food waste with special attention to packaging. J. Cleaner Prod.
24, 141–148.
WRAP UK. The Courtauld 2025 baseline and restated household food waste figures.
2018. (Accessed 19 June 2020).
Yuriev, A., Dahmen, M., Paillé, P., Boiral, O., Guillaumie, L., 2020. Pro-environmental
behaviors through the lens of the theory of planned behavior: A scoping review.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 155, 104660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2019.104660.