Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122698

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

A comparison of online and in-store grocery shopping behaviour and its

effects on household food waste
Jayanath Ananda a, *, Gamithri Gayana Karunasena b, c, David Pearson b, c
a
School of Business and Law, CQ University, 120 Spencer Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
b
School of Business and Law, CQ University, 400 Kent Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia
c
Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre, Wine Innovation Central Building, Level 1, Waite Campus, Urrbrae, SA 5064, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The rapid growth of online grocery shopping can have significant economic, social and environmental impli­
Consumer behaviour cations. However, the influence of changing consumer food acquisition practices on household food waste has
Food waste received less attention in the literature. Moreover, there is a dearth of household studies that account for zero
Online grocery shopping
values of self-reported food waste. Using a large national-level dataset (n = 5272) and a robust zero-inflated
Households
Food acquisition
ordered probit modelling approach, this paper compares the influence of online grocery shopping and in-store
Buying behaviour grocery shopping behaviours on household food waste. Findings indicate that there is a strong positive and
statistically significant relationship between online grocery shopping and household food waste. More frequent
grocery shopping and higher grocery spending are associated with generating greater household food waste.
Formulating strategies to help consumers to minimise food waste at home could provide a strategic competitive
advantage for retailers.

1. Introduction
Globally, over 900 million tons of food produced for human con­
sumption was lost or wasted at the retail and household levels in 2019
(United Nations Environment Programme, 2021) causing immense
economic, social and environmental damage. Sixty-one per cent of that
total food waste is attributed to households (United Nations Environ­
ment Programme, 2021). Household food waste is a complex and multi-
faceted problem (Secondi and Principato, 2020; Secondi et al., 2015).
The significant amount of food waste generated by households makes
them the prime target for behaviour interventions focusing on reducing
food waste. One of the most important means of addressing household
food waste is to alter the food management behaviours of consumers
(Ellison et al., 2022).
Food waste in Australia is a significant economic, social and envi­
ronmental issue (Ananda et al., 2023). In 2019, the total food waste in
Australia was 7.6 million tonnes (312 kg per capita), costing the econ­
omy A$36.6 billion (households account for A$19.3 billion) and
generating 17.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions whilst
certain population cohorts experiencing food insecurity (FIAL, 2021).
Several behavioural, social and technological characteristics have been
identified as drivers of food waste at the consumer level. Aschemann-
Witzel et al. (2015) reviews consumer-related food waste literature and
concluded that consumer motivations, skills and trade-offs between
household priorities are most influential in food waste behaviours. Using
behavioural theory, Block et al. (2016) highlighted the sequential
decision-making process of consumer food waste. Hebrok and Boks
(2017) provide an extensive review of consumer and socio-cultural
factors driving household food waste. Principato et al. (2021) pre­
sented a household wasteful behaviour framework to explain a myriad
of factors influencing household food waste. There is a large body of
literature on the significant influence of grocery shopping behaviours on
household food waste. The main factors include the frequency of grocery
shopping (Ellison et al., 2022; Lee, 2018), impulse purchases (Kansal
et al., 2022), over-purchasing (Principato et al., 2015), bulk-purchases
and supermarket promotions (Farr-Wharton et al., 2014; Mondéjar-
Jiménez et al., 2016).
Increasing attention has been paid to how grocery shopping habits
influence household food waste behaviour (Gollnhofer et al., 2019). The
retail grocery sector faces challenges in balancing store operations to
ensure customer satisfaction whilst aligning their policies with sus­
tainability goals and corporate social responsibility (CSR) (de Souza
et al., 2021). The shift towards online retailing by grocery chains is an
important retail innovation (Campo and Breugelmans, 2015). Online

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: j.ananda@cqu.edu.au (J. Ananda).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122698
Received 18 September 2022; Received in revised form 23 April 2023; Accepted 8 June 2023
Available online 15 June 2023
0040-1625/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
J. Ananda et al.
grocery shopping is an increasing phenomenon around the world
(Alaimo et al., 2021). For example, online grocery sales in Australia
were worth A$9.9 billion in 2022 with an annual growth of 35 % be­
tween 2017 and 2022. Similar growth trends have been reported else­
where (Heidenstrøm and Hebrok, 2021; Steiman, 2014; Swedish Digital
Commerce Association, 2017).
The COVID-19 pandemic had impacted both the online grocery sales
(Luo et al., 2023) and the household food waste (Ananda et al., 2023).
Reducing food waste, whilst tackling the challenges of food provisioning
innovations, is one area that has come to the attention of scholars in
recent times (Teller et al., 2018). Berg and Henriksson (2020) found that
life phases and residential location influence online grocery shopping
behaviour. They contended that the practice of online grocery shopping
is embedded in complex interactions of mobility factors and social
norms of food and food provisioning and the search for a better quality
of life. Novel food acquisition trends such as meal box delivery services
and grocery store meals have been growing especially after the COVID-
19 pandemic (Yaprak et al., 2021). A recent multi-country study re­
ported that meal box services could reduce household food waste
(Schuster et al., 2022). There is also increasing attention on the envi­
ronmental impact of meal kits and ready-to-eat meals from grocery
stores as well (Heard et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021). Despite the
growing interest, the impact of online grocery shopping on household
food waste has not been examined widely. From a practical perspective,
supermarkets must be aware of the environmental consequences of
consumer food provisioning choices because of the massive influence
they exert on consumer grocery purchasing behaviours. It is also
imperative to gain a deeper understanding of online grocery shopping
behaviour through a theoretical lens.
This paper aims to explore the relationship between online grocery
shopping and household food waste. It uses a large national benchmark
survey data and a robust modelling framework to analyse a range of
grocery shopping behaviours whilst controlling for socio-demographic
factors. It also compares the distinctive characteristics of online gro­
cery shoppers with in-store grocery shoppers. This paper makes a two-
fold contribution to consumer research and food waste literature.
First, using a nationally representative large dataset, the study provides
empirical evidence on the implications of online grocery shopping on
household food waste. The paper finds that online grocery shoppers
incur more food waste at home compared to ‘brick-and-mortar’ grocery
shoppers. To the best knowledge of the authors, no national-scale study
examining the above relationship exists in the literature. Establishing
this evidence is particularly important to grocery retailers that are at the
forefront of devising strategies to reduce household food waste. Second,
it uses two robust econometric models, namely, the Zero-Inflated and
Ordered Probit regression models for analysis. The former model dis­
tinguishes between the disparate sources of zeros associated with the
latent variable (food waste) in the data, which is typically absent in the
existing literature.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. The next section reviews
the literature on consumer grocery shopping behaviour and its associ­
ation with household food waste. Section 3 describes the data set and
methods used in the analysis. Section 4 presents the main findings of the
analysis. Section 5 provides a discussion of the results and their policy
implications. The final section concludes the paper.
2. Literature review
2.1. Online grocery buying behaviour
Consumer grocery buying behaviour can be analysed using the
Practice theory, which seeks to explain human behaviour through the
lens of social practices (Hennchen, 2019). Consumers typically purchase
groceries as a routine and the purchasing behaviour is embedded in a
particular social context and is interconnected with other practices. It
enables us to move beyond individual behaviours based on
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122698
psychological constructs and capture the socio-temporal nature of
practices (Heidenstrøm and Hebrok, 2022; Schanes et al., 2018). The
theory also purports that practices can change over time and the con­
sumers have the power to influence and reshape them. Another impor­
tant aspect of practice theory is materiality, which recognises the
interdependencies between the social and material (environment in the
present case) worlds (Hennchen, 2019; Watson et al., 2012).
Differences in grocery buying behaviour by households with varied
socio-demographic characteristics have been reported. Mintel (2014)
identified sociodemographic factors predominantly common in online
grocery shoppers such as people in their 30s with high income, families
with children and suburban residences. It is evident in many research
reports that online grocery shoppers are less price sensitive and more
concerned about brand and quantity (Chu et al., 2008). Some studies
point out that personal privacy is a positive experience in the online
grocery shopping (de Kervenoael et al., 2007). Therefore, situational
and domestic circumstances could compel customers to prioritise con­
venience and time-saving by switching to online grocery shopping (Elms
et al., 2016). Online grocery shopping is thought to provide significant
benefits in terms of cost and efficiency – saving money, saving time,
saving fuel and ability to use coupons (Blitstein et al., 2020).
Although several studies have explored online grocery shopping to
understand the reasons that consumers choose this retail option (Campo
and Breugelmans, 2015; Elms et al., 2016; Geuens et al., 2003), studies
on online grocery shoppers’ food discard behaviour in their household
are extremely limited. In one study, online grocery shopping in the U.S.
was reported to have reduced the overall food wastage in the supply
chain by 40 % due to optimal use of deliveries and management of in­
ventories (Astashkina et al., 2019).
Ilyuk (2018) is one of the first studies that directly examined the link
between online grocery shopping and the household food waste issue. In
an online experimental study in Denmark, Ilyuk (2018) tested the
perceived effort and psychological ownership1 of food purchasing on
food waste intentions. The study found waste intentions were signifi­
cantly higher among the participants who imagined purchasing the
grocery items online than those who imagined purchasing them in-store.
However, the study did not find a significant difference in waste in­
tentions between in-store and online pre-packaged food purchasing
(Ilyuk, 2018). The study was conducted in an experimental setting using
a relatively small sample, which is one of the limitations of this study. Li
et al. (2020) examined the influence of food delivery services on
household food waste. They found that minimum buying requirements
imposed by food delivery services led to leftovers, which ends up as food
waste (Li et al., 2020). Accordingly, we hypothesised the following:
H1. : Online grocery shoppers generate a higher level of total house­
hold food waste than conventional grocery shoppers.
2.2. Frequency of grocery shopping
The frequency of shopping seems to influence household food waste;
however, the evidence is somewhat mixed. On the one hand, Jörissen
et al. (2015) and Smith and Landry (2021) reported that food waste
reduces slightly with the increase in shopping frequency in Germany. On
the other hand, the act of grocery shopping can yield benefits other than
acquiring food (utilitarian value). For instance, Jones et al. (2006)
contended that shoppers drive a hedonic value stemming from a greater
level of involvement, self-determination and escapism in addition to the
joy, excitement and emotional reward felt in the shopping situation
(Babin et al., 1994). These inherent attributes might encourage certain
consumers to engage in more frequent shopping visits which might lead
1
Psychological ownership is defined as a cognitive state in which people
develop an affinity and feelings of ownership which can manifest an increased
sense of responsibility around things they purchase (Ilyuk, 2018).
J. Ananda et al.
to over-purchasing of food. Evans (2011) contended that it is common to
purchase excess food during shopping trips. Katt and Meixner (2020)
also found a negative effect of hedonic shopping value on food waste
prevention behaviour. Ananda et al. (2021) found a positive relationship
between shopping frequency and household food waste in Australia.
Top-up grocery shopping is regarded as purchasing a small number of
additional groceries in between main grocery shopping, usually to
replenish supplies of perishable items, which may have an influence on
food waste at home. Based on the above review, we hypothesise the
following:
H2a. : A higher grocery shopping frequency is associated with a higher
level of total household food waste.
H2b. : A higher top-up grocery shopping frequency is associated with a
higher level of total household food waste.
2.3. Overprovisioning, bulk buying and discount buying
Overprovisioning is regarded as one of the main underlying causes of
household food waste (Evans, 2011). The good provider identity, dif­
ferences in taste, the compensation effect, time constraints and bulk
purchases have been cited as reasons for overprovisioning of food
(Schanes and Stagl, 2019). In particular, Barone et al. (2019) found that
being a good provider, concerns about potential health risks and a
healthy diet affect the intention to reduce food waste. Stockpiling
induced by the salience and convenience of products triggers over­
consumption (Chandon and Wansink, 2002). There is evidence that
online grocery shoppers prefer to purchase large pack sizes (Degeratu
et al., 2000). Overestimation of food needs during food purchase is an
important behaviour of consumers that causes household food wastage
(Krisjanti and Quita, 2020). It has been reported that impulsive buying
because of marketing strategies contributes to overbuying food (Bau­
meister, 2002; Streicher et al., 2021). Being attracted to discount buying
or special offers has been linked to both higher and lower food waste
(Jörissen et al., 2015). We hypothesise that:
H3a. : Discount buying is associated with a higher level of total
household food waste.
H3b. : Bulk buying of groceries is associated with a higher level of total
household food waste.
2.4. Grocery spending
Grocery spending is influenced by the volumes of food purchases and
their prices. Landry and Smith (2019) found that food waste was posi­
tively correlated with total food expenditure and negatively correlated
with food price. Ananda et al. (2021) also reported a positive association
between grocery expenditure and household food waste. Yu and Jae­
nicke (2020) found that households facing less constrained budgets are
less efficient food managers of food purchases. They also found that
income has a positive relationship with food waste. Although higher
grocery spending does not translate into higher volumes of food pur­
chases, it is reasonable to hypothesise that, in general, higher grocery
spending may contribute to food waste. Engle’s law specifies that as
income increases the share of income spent on food decreases (Yu and
Jaenicke, 2020), which may encourage households to be less concerned
about food wastage. Microeconomic studies report positive elasticities
for food waste and they classify food waste as a ‘normal good’ implying
that the higher the household income, the higher quantity of food dis­
carded (or ‘demanded’) (Secondi and Principato, 2020). Considering the
strong correlation between grocery spending and income, we propose
the below hypothesis:
H4. : Grocery spending is positively related to household food waste.
A conceptual model of food acquisition behaviours and household
food waste is illustrated in Fig. 1.
3
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122698
3. Methods
3.1. Modelling framework
We used two Probit Regression models to analyse data: The Ordered
Probit (OP) Model and the Zero Inflated Ordered Probit (ZIOP) model.
Ordered Probit Models are typically used when the dependent variable is
ordinal (Greene, 2012). The categorical dependent variable must be
ordered or ranked (ex. high, moderate and low). One strength of the
model is that it does not require the distance between levels of the
categorical variable to be equal. Often when the dependent variable has
only two levels, a standard probit model would suffice and if there are
>2 levels in the dependent categorical variable, an OP model is
preferred. The probit models belong to the family of Generalised Linear
Models (GLM), which connects a linear combination of independent or
predictor variables to a latent dependent variable using a link function.
The link function usually involves some sort of a nonlinear trans­
formation and the parameters of GLMs are typically estimated using
Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) procedures.
Following the notations of Downward et al. (2011) and Harris and
Zhao (2007), we specify an OP Model as follows:
y*i = β xi + εi , i = 1, …n (1)
′
where xi is a set of covariates or predictor variables that are assumed to
be strictly independent of εi , the error term, β is a vector of parameters to
be estimated and n denotes sample observations (households in this
study). The continuous latent dependent variable, y*i is observed in
discrete form through a censoring rule.2
⎧
⎪ 0, if yi ≤ 0
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ 1, if 0 < yi ≤ μ1
y = 2, if μ1 < yi ≤ μ2 (2)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ …
⎩
N, if μN− 1 < yj
where yj is the latent dependent variable of self-reported food waste
indexed by boundary parameters, μj : low food waste (<3 cups per week),
moderate food waste (3–10 cups per week) and high food waste (>10
cups per week). The covariate vector, xi included a set of socio-
demographic variables such as age, education and income in the stan­
dard OP specification and additionally, a set of shopping behaviour
variables in the conditional OP model specification. The error term, εi is
assumed to be normally distributed with the mean and variance nor­
malised to 0 and 1, respectively. Accordingly, the probabilities of a
specific value of food waste occurrence can be written as:
( ) ( ) ( )
Pr y*i = j|xi = Φ μj − β xi − Φ μj− 1 − β xi . (3)
′ ′
Harris and Zhao (2007) developed the zero-inflated ordered probit
(ZIOP) model, which uses a binary probit and an ordered probit
component. As previously mentioned, the potential two sources of zeros
come from two separate latent variables. Accordingly, the ZIOP model
involves two latent equations: a probit selection equation and an or­
dered probit equation (Downward et al., 2011):
d* = α w + u, d = (d* > 0) (4)
′
where the latent variable, d* represents the incidence of food waste and
is observed in binary form, w is a vector of covariates influencing
household food waste incidence, α is a vector of unknown coefficients to
be estimated and u is the normally distributed error term. The proba­
bility of food waste incidence can be expressed as:
2
The latent dependent variable can be thought as the household’s propensity
to discard food.
J. Ananda et al.
Fig. 1. Conceptual model showing food acquisition behaviour and household food waste.
Pr(d = 1|w) = Φ(α w).
′
In the ZIOP model, the decision to discard food and the level of food
discarded are considered jointly. This acknowledges that zero values
reported for food waste could represent households that do not waste
food at all or households that did not waste food during the week before
the survey. Consequently, to observe positive food waste y* = dy * , so
′
that d has to be equal to 1. Similarly, y* can be equal to 0 because d = 0.
Simply put, to have positive food waste for a household, the joint
requirement of d = 1 and y * > 0 needs to be satisfied. This condition can
′
be expressed as below:
y*i = β xi + ε, y = 0 if y*i ≤ 0 or d = 0,
′
1 if 0 < y*i ≤ μ1 and d = 1,
2 if μ1 < y*i ≤ μ2 , and so on.
The probabilities for the ZIOP model can be expressed as:
( )
Pr y*i = 0|xi , w = [1 − Φ(α w) ] + Φ(α w)Φ( − β xi )
′ ′ ′
and
( ) ′ [ ′ ( ′ )]
Pr y*i = j|xi , w = Φ(α w) Φ(μ2 − β xi ) − Φ μj− 1 − β xi .
The probability of no food waste incidence based on the binary
probit model and the joint probability of food waste incidence at an
intensity of zero is given in Eq. (7). In other words, the probability of a
zero observation has been ‘inflated’ as it is a combination of the prob­
ability of genuinely no food waste incidence plus the probability of no
food waste incidence from the split probit model. Eq. (8) indicates that
the probability that y*i takes a particular discrete value depends on the
interval difference of discrete outcomes and the probability that d = 1
(Downward et al., 2011). It should be noted that there are no re­
quirements that covariates x and w to be the same in each equation.
3.2. Data and sample demographics
The Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre (FFWCRC)
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122698
(5) commissioned a national benchmarking survey on household food waste
in 2019. The national benchmark survey3 aimed to establish a baseline
on the status of current household knowledge, attitudes and behaviours
around food management in Australia. The FFWCRC engaged a market
research company that used a nationally representative social research
panel (Dynata) to recruit participants and the survey was conducted
under the Market and Social Research Privacy Principles, which ensures
the confidentiality of participant information. The survey was con­
ducted online, and the respondents were randomly selected to reflect the
population profile of each state in Australia (See Table A1 in Appendix 1
for a state-wide breakdown of the sample). The survey contained
questions on food-related behaviour including grocery shopping
behaviour, socio-economic and demographic information and the study
(6) was implemented after the ethical clearance. The sample contained a
total of 5272 participants. Sample distribution by socio-economics
characteristics such as gender, age, education, level, household
composition and household income are presented in Table 1. After
(7) removing the missing values, a sample of 3191 households was used for
the analysis.
(8) 3.3. Household food waste measurement
The dependent variable used in the analysis was self-reported
household food waste. There are many definitions for household food
waste (Bellemare et al., 2017). However, the majority of them define
food waste as discarding edible food that is suitable for human con­
sumption (FAO, 2013), which we have adopted for the present study.
Many previous studies have used self-reported food waste in the litera­
ture (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2019; Jörissen et al., 2015; Principato
et al., 2020; Visschers et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2018). Self-reported food
waste method relies on participants’ memory and awareness of food
discarded within a certain period, typically a week before the survey.
Therefore, they tend to underestimate the food discarded (Giordano
3
The survey obtained a nationally-representative sample from a total
Australian population of 24.5 million (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020).
4
J. Ananda et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122698

Table 1 household has thrown away – without it being eaten?’. Participants used
Summary statistics of the variables by in-store and online modes. a standard cup measure (250 g) as the unit of measurement to report
Variable Levels In-store (n Online (n = p food waste. In the survey, there were eleven common food categories to
= 4567) 679) choose from: fruits, vegetables, bakery food, dairy, meats, etc. This
Food waste Median (IQR) 6.0 (2.0 to 10.0 (4.0 to <0.001*** strategy minimised the ‘recall bias’ as the respondent reflects on the
11.0) 19.0) previous week’s food discard events. For the probit model, the responses
Shopping Once or less 3174 (79.6 388 (61.9 <0.001*** were transformed to binary choice first to reflect household food waste
frequency %) %) incidence. In this formulation, all positive self-reported food waste in­
Twice 482 (12.1 93 (14.8 %)
%)
stances were coded as one whilst the absence of food waste was coded as
More than twice 332 (8.3 %) 146 (23.3 zero and this dependent variable was used in the binary probit regres­
%) sion model.
Top-up Once or less 1446 (35.8 212 (35.4 0.824 The responses were also transformed into an ordered variable in
frequency %) %)
which self-reported food waste was recorded as ‘low food waste (<3
Twice 1238 (30.7 179 (29.9
%) %) cups per week), ‘moderate food waste’ (3–10 cups per week) and ‘high
More than twice 1350 (33.5 208 (34.7 food waste (>10 cups per week). It should be noted that these self-
%) %) reported food waste cut-off amounts were based on quantiles. Typi­
Discount No 363 (8 %) 51 (7.6 %) 0.755 cally, ordered random variables are characterised by an excessive
buying
Yes 4161 (92 %) 621 (92.4
number of zeros (Harris and Zhao, 2007). For instance, in our survey, a
%) considerable proportion of zero food waste (13 % of the sample) was
Bulk buying No 1515 (33.5 148 (22 %) <0.001*** reported by participants. Conventional ordered probit models have a
%) limited capacity in dealing with excessive zero values (Harris and Zhao,
Yes 3001 (66.5 526 (78 %)
2007) (see Fig. A1 in Appendix 1 for density distributions of food waste
%)
Grocery A$0–99 per 1478 (33.3 117 (17.7 <0.001*** for in-store and online shoppers).
spending week %) %) There are several possible reasons for reporting zero food waste by a
A$100–199 per 1994 (44.9 270 (40.8 household. One source of zeros includes households that are conscious
week %) %) of the adverse impacts of food waste and deliberately try not to discard
A$200+ per 967 (21.8 274 (41.5
food, which is called ‘behavioural reactivity’. Households that are
week %) %)
Gender Male 1964 (43.1 304 (44.8 0.409 ignorant and not aware of their food waste may misreport food waste
%) %) compared to food waste-conscious households. Another source of re­
Female 2596 (56.9 374 (55.2 ported zero food waste could be due to the absence of certain conditions
%) %)
such as high income or family settings with no young children living at
Age 18–34 years 896 (19.6 225 (33.1 <0.001***
%) %) home. Had these conditions prevailed, then these households could re­
35–54 years 1543 (33.8 230 (33.9 cord positive food waste. Essentially, these two types of zeros are driven
%) %) by quite different systems of consumer behaviour (Harris and Zhao,
55–74 1882 (41.2 185 (27.2 2007). Put differently, households in the latter category who reported
%) %)
zero food waste are potential food wasters and are likely to be responsive
75+ 246 (5.4 %) 39 (5.7 %)
Household type Single 955 (21.2 159 (23.6 <0.001*** to standard market signals of price, demand and supply but the house­
%) %) holds in the former category – those who genuinely tackle food waste
Couple 1668 (37 %) 165 (24.5 and incur no food waste - are driven by environmental, social or ethical
%)
considerations. Another possible reason for reporting zero food waste in
Family 1549 (34.3 310 (46 %)
%)
a household would be the tendency to provide socially desirable answers
Shared 342 (7.6 %) 40 (5.9 %) (‘social desirability bias’). In the present study, we assume that this
Education level Secondary or 2510 (57.4 339 (52 %) 0.011** factor may under-report household food waste rather than zero
lower %) reporting.
Tertiary 1866 (42.6 313 (48 %)
In the literature, a variety of estimators have been used to model the
%)
Household A$0–999 1572 (40.5 228 (37.4 <0.001*** above phenomena. Empirical studies examining the incidence of an
income %) %) event (food waste, in our case) have used binary logit or probit models
A$1000–1999 1394 (35.9 186 (30.5 whereas Heckman and Hurdle models4 have been used (Downward
%) %)
et al., 2011) to analyse the extent of the event (the extent of food waste,
A$2000–2999 561 (14.5 87 (14.3 %)
%)
in our case). In our study, we treat zero food waste as a genuine choice
>A$3000 351 (9.1 %) 109 (17.9 and since the dependent variable is ordered, we used a Zero-Inflated
%) Ordered Probit (ZIOP) model in addition to the ordered probit model
* p < 0.1. specification.
**
p < 0.05.
***
p < 0.01 3.4. Predictors of self-reported household food waste

et al., 2019; van Herpen et al., 2019). The same applies to self-reported
food diaries (Quested et al., 2020). Waste compositional analysis (WCA)
is considered the most accurate method to measure food waste (Sil­
vennoinen et al., 2022). However, this accuracy comes at a cost – WCA is
the most expensive method to implement. Therefore, as in the case of
many large food waste studies, this study opted for self-reported food
waste measurement with several strategies to minimise the underesti­
mation. In the online survey, the respondents were asked, ‘In the past 7
days, about how much of the following food types would you say your
Several grocery purchase behaviour covariates were included in the
analysis. Online grocery purchase behaviour was explored by asking the
participant the question, ‘In the last 7 days, did you shop online for gro­
ceries?’. The responses were coded as a dichotomous variable (0 = No; 1
= Yes). It should be noted that those who answered the above question
4
The Hurdle model treats ‘zero’ values as a genuine choice whilst the
Heckman model treats them as ‘selection bias’ in the account of positive values
(Downward et al., 2011).

5
J. Ananda et al.
in the affirmative might have shopped in-store as well. This analysis did
not consider shoppers who exclusively shopped for groceries online5
(see Dawes and Nenycz-Thiel (2014) for example). The survey partici­
pants were asked about grocery shopping frequency - ‘How often does
your household usually do the main grocery shopping?’ and top-up grocery
shopping frequencies - ‘How often does your household usually do ‘main’
and/or ‘top-up’ grocery shopping? These responses were coded into three
categories (‘once a week or less’, ‘twice a week’ and ‘more than twice a
week’); discount buying – ‘About how often you or your household buy food
based on what is special (including ‘buy one get one free’)?; buying food
items in bulk – ‘About how often do you or your household buy items in
bulk?’. The responses were condensed to three categorical choices:
‘rarely or never’, ‘sometimes’ and ‘most of the time’; and grocery
spending – ‘In the last 7 days, how much did you spend on grocery shopping
for food?’ and the responses were coded into three categories (<A$100,
A$100–199, >A$200).
In addition, we used a set of socio-demographic variables to capture
any heterogeneity in food waste behaviour: age grouped into 4 cate­
gories (18–34 years, 35–54 years, 55–74 years and 75+ years); educa­
tion level grouped into two categories (‘secondary education or lower’
and ‘tertiary education’); gender (‘male’ and ‘female’); household type –
‘Which of the following best describes your household composition?’ (‘single
person household’, ‘couple’, ‘family with children’ and ‘shared house­
hold’); and household income – ‘Which of the following best describes your
weekly household income before tax?’ This refers to the total income from
all household occupants and includes income from wages and salaries,
government benefits, pensions, allowances and any other income you
usually receive before deductions for tax and superannuation contri­
butions, health insurance, amounts salary sacrificed or any other auto­
matic deductions. The responses were coded into four categories
(<$1000, $1000–1999, $2000–2999 and >$3000 per week).
All analyses described in the paper were performed in R, version
4.1.1 (R Development Core Team, 2004), using packages dplyr (Wick­
ham et al., 2021), reshape (Wickham, 2007), forcats (Wickham, 2021),
ggplot2 (Wickham, 2016), MASS (Venables and Ripley, 2002), pscl
(Zeileis et al., 2008), ogmlx (Carroll, 2018) and Rchoice (Sarrias, 2016).
4. Results
4.1. Description of key variables
Table 1 presents the summary statistics and statistical significance
(Chi-squared analysis) of shopping behaviour variables and socio-
demographic characteristics of the sample. Out of the total sample,
679 (13 %) households shopped online at least once and 4567 (87 %)
shopped in-store for groceries. Among households that shopped online,
33.1 % were 18–34 years old (vs. 19.6 % for in-store only shoppers),
33.9 % were 35–54 years old (vs. 33.8 % for in-store only) and 27.2 %
were 55–74 years old (vs. 41.2 % for in-store only), which indicates that
relatively younger households shop online for groceries compared to
older households. The majority of households that shopped online (46 %
vs. 34.3 % for in-store only) were family households. Household income
differed significantly between online and in-store grocery shoppers. In
particular, 17.9 % of online shoppers had an income greater than $3000
per week compared to 9.1 % of in-store-only shoppers suggesting the
former group had a relatively higher household income. This description
of a typical online shopper is consistent with the typical online shopper
described in Mintel (2014).
The majority of the households shopped for groceries once a week or
less (79.6 % in-store vs 61.9 % online). Households that shopped online
were more likely to shop twice or more per week (23.3 % online
compared to 8.3 % in-store) but the two groups did not differ
5
Only a small fraction (<1 %) of the sample exclusively shopped online for
groceries.
6
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122698
significantly concerning top-up grocery shopping frequency and dis­
count purchasing. Households significantly differed concerning bulk
buying of groceries (78 % online vs 66.5 % in-store) and grocery
spending greater than $200 per week (41.5 % online vs 21.8 % in-store).
There were significant differences in weekly grocery expenditure be­
tween in-store and online shopping households. Among the households
that shopped online, 17.7 % spent less than A$100 on weekly groceries
(vs. 13.3 % for in-store shoppers) and 41.5 % spent more than A$200 on
weekly groceries (vs. 21.8 % for in-store shoppers). Responses to
selected predictor variables by shopping mode are shown in Fig. A2 of
Appendix 1.
The mean self-reported food waste amounts for a household that
shopped in-store were 8.5 (SD = 10.4, Median = 6) cups per week whilst
it was 13.3 (SD = 13.4, Median = 13.4) cups per week for those who
shopped groceries online. Fig. 2 shows the boxplots of weekly food waste
by shopping mode. Wilcoxon rank sum test indicated statistically sig­
nificant differences (p < 0.001) in food waste quantities between the two
groups.
4.2. Modelling results
Table 2 presents the summary results of the ordered probit (OP) and
zero-inflated ordered probit (ZIOP) regression models whilst controlling
for socio-demographic factors (age, education, household type, gender
and household income). The OP model (1st three columns of Table 2),
conditional on covariates, treats all observed zeros indifferently whereas
the ZIOP model, conditional on covariates, allows zero observations to
come from two distinct sources and comprises two components: count
model and zero models (the last 6 columns of Table 2). The Likelihood
Ratio test between ZIOP-Poisson and ZIOP-Negative binomial indicated
that the latter is a superior specification (χ 2 = 12,520, p < 0.001), for
which results are presented in the last six columns of Table 1. The
estimated coefficients, standard errors and p-values are provided for
both models. Both models converged and were statistically significant.
Discount purchasing and bulk purchasing groceries were not significant
in both models. Overall, the results of OP and ZIOP models are com­
parable but there is minor variation between these two models, which
suggests that the relevance of correcting for excessive zeros and there­
fore ZIOP model results are favoured and discussed here in detail.6
Interestingly, both models indicated a strong positive relationship
between online grocery shopping and household food waste, which
confirms Hypothesis 1. The relationship was statistically significant at p
< 0.01 % confidence interval levels in both models. This finding sup­
ports the conclusion of Ilyuk (2018), which highlighted the potential
role of effort perceptions and psychological ownership of online food
purchasing and their link to waste likelihood. This is a key finding at a
time when the popularity of pre-packaged produce and contact-free
online food purchasing has significantly increased.
Table 2 shows that both shopping frequency (Hypothesis 2a) and top-
up grocery shopping frequency (Hypothesis 2b) have a strong positive
association with household food waste, which confirms the empirical
evidence on the influence of grocery shopping frequency on the food
waste (Jörissen et al., 2015). The reference level for both of these cat­
egorical variables was shopping frequency once a week or less.
Accordingly, households who did top-up grocery shopping twice a week
or more have a higher probability of food waste than those that did once
a week or less. The latter group had a strong positive relationship, which
was significant at <1 % confidence interval level in both the OP and
ZIOP models. The tendency to buy more food than needed and over-
provisioning of food may have contributed to extra grocery shopping
trips. Both the above factors have been linked to household food waste
6
Results presented here are for household self-reported food waste data. We
have repeated the analysis with per capita food waste data and found the results
are virtually identical.
J. Ananda et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122698

Fig. 2. Boxplots of weekly household food waste by grocery shopping mode.

Table 2
Summary of Ordered Probit (OP) and ZIOP regression results.
Predictors Ordered Probit (OP) ZIOP (Count Model) ZIOP (Zero Model)

Coeffs SE p-value Coeffs SE p-value Coeffs SE p-value

Shopping mode [Online] 0.313 0.062 0.000*** 0.184 0.050 0.000*** − 0.129 0.166 0.436
Shopping freq. [Twice a week] 0.112 0.062 0.068* 0.148 0.052 0.004*** 0.297 0.138 0.032**
Shopping freq. [More than twice a week] 0.208 0.074 0.005*** 0.228 0.059 0.000*** 0.428 0.175 0.014**
Top-up freq. [Twice a week] 0.118 0.048 0.014** 0.047 0.041 0.249 ¡0.255 0.121 0.035**
Top-up freq. [More than twice a week] 0.356 0.053 0.000*** 0.201 0.044 0.000** ¡0.530 0.155 0.001***
Discount buy [Yes] 0.038 0.080 0.630 0.001 0.068 0.983 ¡0.392 0.163 0.016**
Bulk buy [Yes] 0.042 0.047 0.376 − 0.022 0.040 0.576 − 0.029 0.112 0.795
Grocery spending [A$100–199 per week] 0.221 0.050 0.000*** 0.151 0.044 0.001*** ¡0.257 0.113 0.022**
Grocery spending [A$200+ per week] 0.624 0.062 0.000*** 0.416 0.052 0.000*** ¡0.569 0.179 0.001***
Age: [35–54 years] ¡0.208 0.056 0.000*** ¡0.247 0.046 0.000*** 0.229 0.139 0.098*
Age: [55–74 years] − 0.283 0.060 0.000*** − 0.359 0.049 0.000*** − 0.170 0.152 0.265
Age: [75+ years] − 0.273 0.107 0.011** − 0.545 0.087 0.000*** − 4.673 169.7 0.978
Education level: [Tertiary] 0.078 0.043 0.069* − 0.087 0.036 0.016** − 0.313 0.114 0.006***
Gender: [Female] 0.008 0.042 0.850 ¡0.127 0.036 0.000*** ¡0.324 0.104 0.002***
Household type: [Couple] 0.242 0.062 0.000*** 0.124 0.054 0.023** − 0.284 0.136 0.036**
Household type: [Family] 0.422 0.065 0.000*** 0.260 0.056 0.000*** − 0.468 0.149 0.002***
Household type: [Shared] 0.439 0.091 0.000*** 0.269 0.078 0.000*** − 0.256 0.186 0.170
Household income: [A$1000–1999] 0.050 0.050 0.314 − 0.036 0.042 0.395 − 0.161 0.120 0.180
Household income: [A$2000–2999] − 0.029 0.066 0.661 − 0.028 0.055 0.612 − 0.173 0.169 0.306
Household income: [>A$3000] − 0.022 0.078 0.780 − 0.009 0.064 0.893 − 0.274 0.241 0.256
Observations 3191 3191
Log-likelihood − 3235.6 − 10,340.0
AIC 3663.2 20,758.2
McFadden’s pseudo R2 0.07 0.01

01; Coeffs = Coefficients; SE = Standard Errors; ZIOP = Zero Inflated Ordered Probit; A$ 1.00 = $US 0.67 as of 24 April 2023.
Note.
*
p < 0.1.
**
p < 0.05.
***
p < 0.01

7
J. Ananda et al.
(Evans, 2011; Parizeau et al., 2015).
Our results did not indicate that purchasing discount grocery items
significantly affects household food waste (Hypotheses 3a). Often, price
promotions of supermarkets receive criticism for inducing the consumer
to over-purchase but it has been argued that this assumption is overly
simplistic (Tsalis et al., 2021). Although online grocery shoppers tend to
be less price sensitive compared to in-store shoppers (Cebollada et al.,
2019), the two groups did not differ concerning discount purchasing.
Zhang et al. (2023) found that consumers engage in more waste pre­
vention behaviours concerning near-expired food, typically discounted
at retail stores, compared to other foods. The findings also did not
suggest bulk purchasing of groceries is associated with household food
waste (Hypothesis 3b). It is contended that bulk purchases are a reason
for overprovisioning food (Evans, 2011). As discussed in Section 2.1,
bulk grocery purchasing offers consumers salience and convenience that
could lead to over-consumption (Chandon and Wansink, 2002) but there
may be other moderating factors such as distance and travel time to
grocery shops, which are differentially associated with avoidable food
waste (Lee, 2018). Therefore, it is not surprising that the existing evi­
dence on the link between bulk purchasing and household food waste is
mixed (Jörissen et al., 2015; Koivupuro et al., 2012; Qi and Roe, 2016).
Both models indicated that weekly grocery spending has a strong
positive association with food waste (Hypothesis 4) which confirms the
findings of Landry and Smith (2019) and Yu and Jaenicke (2020). High
grocery spending per person has also been linked to household food
waste (Parizeau et al., 2015; Setti et al., 2016). The majority of the
online grocery shoppers (41.5 %) were high spenders (>A$200 per
week), which may have contributed to the relatively high food wastage
in that group. It should be noted that high grocery expenditure could
also arise from buying expensive food items and not necessarily from
high volume purchases, but typically people tend to buy more of certain
food categories which are regarded as ‘normal goods’ as their income
increases (Vargas-Lopez et al., 2021).
The modelling results also confirm that youth tend to have more food
waste (Filipová et al., 2017; Secondi et al., 2015; Stancu et al., 2016).
Compared to the reference age group in the analysis, 18–34 years, the
older age categories showed a negative relationship with food waste.
This is imperative as younger households tend to engage in online gro­
cery shopping compared to older age groups. The modelling results
support the notion that higher education levels are associated with
higher food waste, which is in contrast to the findings that more
educated households are more likely to exert pro-environmental be­
haviours at home (Filimonau et al., 2020). The gender influence on
household food waste is mixed as the OP model yields a non-significant
result whilst the ZIOP model suggests a statistically significant negative
association with food waste.
The couple, family and shared household types all showed a positive
association with food waste compared to single households (the refer­
ence level) which supports the findings that households with more oc­
cupants generate more food waste (Everitt et al., 2021). Both models did
not indicate a statistically significant influence of household income on
food waste, which supports the inconclusive literature on the relation­
ship between income and food waste (Everitt et al., 2021) but several
past studies have found that higher income households tend to waste
more food than lower-income households (Koivupuro et al., 2012; Ste­
fan et al., 2013).
5. Discussion
This study’s findings that a higher probability of food wastage from
households that ordered groceries online at least once confirm the
findings of Ilyuk (2018). There are significant differences in food waste
between in-store grocery shoppers and online grocery shoppers even
when controlling for relevant demographic and behavioural variables.
Ilyuk (2018) argued the increase in food waste among online grocery
shoppers occurs due to less effort involved in purchasing which
8
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122698
decreases the psychological ownership of items purchased. In addition,
this increase in food waste among online shoppers may be due to them
purchasing disproportionately higher amounts of bulky and heavy food
categories (Chintagunta et al., 2012). Online grocery purchasing as part
of the wider e-tailing is well established and likely to continue experi­
encing rapid growth. Berg and Henriksson (2020) suggests online gro­
cery shopping as an ‘urban utopia that renders time-space constraints
redundant’. Whilst there are many appealing aspects to online grocery
shopping including the convenience factor, environmental benefits of
not using a car and not contributing to emissions and traffic congestion,7
the increased food waste could be a hidden cost.
Our findings do not support claims that impulse purchases in
response to promotional offers (discounted food products) are associ­
ated with high household food waste. This is consistent with Giordano
et al. (2019a) findings, which revealed no evidence of either a positive
or negative relationship between the purchase of discounted food
products and household food waste quantities. This is in contrast to the
notion that online grocery shoppers are impulse behaviours (Chan et al.,
2017) who overbuy food, which then leads to food waste (Baumeister,
2002). Similarly, our findings did not show support for the notion that
bulk purchasing of items would lead to food waste. It is widely con­
tended that promotional offers such as ‘Buy One Get One Free’ and ‘Buy
One Get Other for Half Price’ offers contribute to household food waste
(Farr-Wharton et al., 2014; Schanes et al., 2018). However, another
strand of research points out that households that are likely to engage in
promotional offers and bulk buying have less food waste at home
(Jörissen et al., 2015). This warrants further theory building around
promotional offers, impulsive behaviours and food waste implications.
The present study found evidence that the proportion of online
grocery purchasing increases with income. In the case of online grocery
shopping, the convenience of ‘click-and-shop’ may prompt households
to over-buy. We also found that household food waste increases with an
increase in grocery spending. Further research is required to determine
if this represents an increase in the proportion of food waste for each
dollar spent. If this is proven, then it is possible that higher grocery
spending is closely associated with over-purchasing. A relevant policy
implication for retailers is that improvements in their order fill rates and
grocery delivery efficiency may reduce the need to over-purchase items.
One practical implication arising from the findings is that there needs
careful consideration when developing interventions to reduce house­
hold food waste by online grocery shoppers. For instance, helping online
shoppers to reduce food waste could be achieved by introducing user-
friendly meal planning and automatic shopping list generation func­
tions into online shopping websites or apps. For example, in the UK,
Tesco and Sainsbury build meal serving portion calculators and shop­
ping list functionalities into their online shopping. The shopper could
click on an icon, “say Spaghetti Bolognese, and then you’d say times four
adults, and it would tell you, you need this much mincemeat, you need
this much mushrooms, tomatoes, etc” (Karunasena et al., 2020, p. 27).
Awareness creation around the food waste implications of online gro­
cery sales would enable the retailers to target interventions accordingly.
Another more sophisticated example from the Netherlands Nutrition
Centre is an app that allows consumers to create shopping lists, find
correct storage instructions and sends reminders to consumers about
using leftover produce they bought to make a particular recipe (Kar­
unasena et al., 2020). Consequently, we recommend incorporating meal
planning functions including portion calculators, and “Have you
checked your fridge/freezer” into online grocery shopping platforms.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, we analysed the influence of online grocery shopping
7
Although the delivery online grocery orders involve substantial emission
and traffic congestion implications.
J. Ananda et al.
on household food waste using a set of robust models. Particularly, the
ZIOP model accounted for zero observations in the self-reported food
waste variable, which could come from different data-generating pro­
cesses. The findings uncover the key socio-demographic differences
between households that ordered groceries online at least once
compared to in-store shoppers. Online grocery shoppers were relatively
young, with higher income and education and mostly with families.
The findings of the paper indicate a positive association between
online grocery shopping and household food waste after controlling for
main socio-demographic factors. The frequency of grocery shopping and
top-up grocery shopping was also found to be associated positively with
household food waste. We also found evidence that a large proportion of
online shoppers buy groceries more than twice a week, spending over A
$200 per week. However, we did not find evidence linking bulk grocery
purchases and discounted food purchases with greater household waste.
Therefore, this study supports Tsalis et al. (2021) assertion that the
relationship between discounted food purchases and household food
waste is not straightforward.
One of the limitations of the study, which is common to many similar
studies, is the self-reporting bias of household food waste. It is widely
acknowledged that self-reported food waste is an underestimation of
actual household food waste (Elimelech et al., 2019). Waste composition
studies typically offer more robust estimations of household food waste,
but they are expensive to conduct. More research is needed to improve
food waste measurement alternatives including trialling hybrid food
waste measurement approaches.
Based on the evidence of the strong influence of food provisioning
behaviours on household food waste, an important area for future
research is to explore the psycho-social factors (psychological ownership
of grocery purchases and effort perceptions) underpinning food waste by
online shoppers. Understanding and quantifying the impact of these
Appendix 1
Fig. A1. Densities of household food waste (in standard cup measures) by grocery shopping mode: In-store vs Online.
9
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122698
factors on food waste would help in designing better food waste
reduction interventions focusing on online shoppers. The influence of
retailer purchase patterns on household food waste is another area for
future research. The present study did not investigate the influence of
multi-format grocery purchasing (in-store and online) vs single channel
grocery purchasing on household food waste. Since exclusive online
grocery shoppers are rare, and people typically shop across multiple
formats, it is important to understand how this behaviour affects
household food waste. Further, the findings also call for informational
interventions to educate the online shopper on the potential adverse
environmental impacts of online grocery purchases as the associated
food waste may outweigh the negative environmental impacts of
congestion and car emissions caused by in-store grocery buying.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
JA: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Visualisation,
Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, soft­
ware. GGK: Project administration, Investigation, Writing - original
draft, review and editing, data curation. DP: Supervision, Validation,
Project administration.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Fight Food Waste Cooperative
Research Centre, whose activities are funded by the Australian Gov­
ernment’s Cooperative Research Centre Program.
J. Ananda et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122698

Fig. A2. Proportions of sample responses to selected predictor variables by grocery shopping mode.

Table A1
The breakdown of the sample by Australian state.

State Sample (n = 5272) % of the sample % of Australian Population (n = 24.5 million)

New South Wales 1476 28 % 31.9 %

Victoria 1215 23 % 26.1 %
Queensland 957 18 % 20.1 %
South Australia 407 8% 6.9 %
Western Australia 503 10 % 10.3 %
Tasmania 205 4% 2.1 %
Australian Capital Territory 409 8% 1.7 %
Northern Territory 100 2% 1%
Source: Benchmark Survey data and ABS (2020).

References Astashkina, E., Belavina, E., Marinesi, S., 2019. The environmental impact of the advent
of online grocery retailing. SSRN Electron. J. 1-49 https://doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.3358664.
Alaimo, L.S., Fiore, M., Galati, A., 2021. Measuring consumers’ level of satisfaction for
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020. 31010DO001_201912 - Australian Demographic
online food shopping during COVID-19 in Italy using POSETs. Socio Econ. Plan. Sci.
Statistics, Dec 2019 (Commonwealth of Australia).
101064.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
Ananda, J., Karunasena, G.G., Mitsis, A., Kansal, M., Pearson, D., 2021. Analysing
utilitarian shopping value. J. Consum. Res. 20, 644–656.
behavioural and socio-demographic factors and practices influencing Australian
Barone, A.M., Grappi, S., Romani, S., 2019. The road to food waste is paved with good
household food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 306, 127280.
intentions: when consumers’ goals inhibit the minimization of household food waste.
Ananda, J., Karunasena, G.G., Pearson, D., 2023. Has the COVID-19 pandemic changed
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 149, 97–105.
household food management and food waste behavior? A natural experiment using
Baumeister, R.F., 2002. Yielding to temptation: self-control failure, impulsive
propensity score matching. J. Environ. Manag. 328, 116887.
purchasing, and consumer behavior. J. Consum. Res. 28, 670–676.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., De Hooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T., Oostindjer, M., 2015.
Bellemare, M.F., Çakir, M., Peterson, H.H., Novak, L., Rudi, J., 2017. On the
Consumer-related food waste: causes and potential for action. Sustainability 7.
measurement of food waste. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 99, 1148–1158.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., Giménez, A., Ares, G., 2019. Household food waste in an emerging
Berg, J., Henriksson, M., 2020. In search of the ‘good life’: understanding online grocery
country and the reasons why: consumer’s own accounts and how it differs for target
shopping and everyday mobility as social practices. J. Transp. Geogr. 83, 102633.
groups. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 145, 332–338.
Blitstein, J.L., Frentz, F., Jilcott Pitts, S.B., 2020. A mixed-method examination of
reported benefits of online grocery shopping in the United States and Germany: is
health a factor? J. Food Prod. Mark. 26, 212–224.

10
J. Ananda et al.
Block, L.G., Keller, P.A., Vallen, B., Williamson, S., Birau, M.M., Grinstein, A., Haws, K.L.,
LaBarge, M.C., Lamberton, C., Moore, E.S., Moscato, E.M., Reczek, R.W., Tangari, A.
H., 2016. The squander sequence: understanding food waste at each stage of the
consumer decision-making process. J. Public Policy Mark. 35, 292–304.
Campo, K., Breugelmans, E., 2015. Buying groceries in brick and click stores: category
allocation decisions and the moderating effect of online buying experience.
J. Interact. Mark. 31, 63–78.
Carroll, N., 2018. Oglmx: estimation of ordered generalized linear models. R package
version 3.0.0.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=oglmx.
Cebollada, J., Chu, Y., Jiang, Z., 2019. Online category pricing at a multichannel grocery
retailer. J. Interact. Mark. 46, 52–69.
Chan, T.K.H., Cheung, C.M.K., Lee, Z.W.Y., 2017. The state of online impulse-buying
research: A literature analysis. Inf. Manag. 54 (2), 204–217. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.im.2016.06.001.
Chandon, P., Wansink, B., 2002. When are stockpiled products consumed faster? A
convenience–salience framework of postpurchase consumption incidence and
quantity. J. Mark. Res. 39, 321–335.
Chintagunta, P.K., Chu, J., Cebollada, J., 2012. Quantifying transaction costs in online/
off-line grocery channel choice. Mark. Sci. 31, 96–114.
Chu, J., Chintagunta, P., Cebollada, J., 2008. Research note—a comparison of within-
household price sensitivity across online and offline channels. Mark. Sci. 27,
283–299.
Dawes, J., Nenycz-Thiel, M., 2014. Comparing retailer purchase patterns and brand
metrics for in-store and online grocery purchasing. J. Mark. Manag. 30, 364–382.
de Kervenoael, R., Soopramanien, D., Hallsworth, A., Elms, J., 2007. Personal privacy as
a positive experience of shopping. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 35, 583–599.
de Souza, M., Pereira, G.M., de Sousa, Lopes, Jabbour, A.B., Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J.,
Trento, L.R., Borchardt, M., Zvirtes, L., 2021. A digitally enabled circular economy
for mitigating food waste: understanding innovative marketing strategies in the
context of an emerging economy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 173, 121062.
Degeratu, A.M., Rangaswamy, A., Wu, J., 2000. Consumer choice behavior in online and
traditional supermarkets: the effects of brand name, price, and other search
attributes. Int. J. Res. Mark. 17, 55–78.
Downward, P., Lera-Lopez, F., Rasciute, S., 2011. The zero-inflated ordered probit
approach to modelling sports participation. Econ. Model. 28, 2469–2477.
Elimelech, E., Ert, E., Ayalon, O., 2019. Bridging the gap between self-assessments and
measured household food waste: a hybrid valuation approach. Waste Manag. 95,
259–270.
Ellison, B., Fan, L., Wilson, N.L.W., 2022. Is it more convenient to waste? Trade-offs
between grocery shopping and waste behaviors. In: Agricultural Economics n/a.
Elms, J., de Kervenoael, R., Hallsworth, A., 2016. Internet or store? An ethnographic
study of consumers’ internet and store-based grocery shopping practices. J. Retail.
Consum. Serv. 32, 234–243.
Evans, D., 2011. Beyond the throwaway society: ordinary domestic practice and a
sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology 46, 41–56.
Everitt, H., van der Werf, P., Seabrook, J.A., Wray, A., Gilliland, J.A., 2021. The quantity
and composition of household food waste during the COVID-19 pandemic: a direct
measurement study in Canada. Socio Econ. Plan. Sci. 101110.
FAO, 2013. Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources. Summary Report.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.
Farr-Wharton, G., Foth, M., Choi, J., 2014. Identifying factors that promote consumer
behaviours causing expired domestic waste. J. Consum. Behav. 13, 393–402.
FIAL, 2021. The National Food Waste Strategy Feasibility Study – Final Report.
Filimonau, V., Matute, J., Kubal-Czerwińska, M., Krzesiwo, K., Mika, M., 2020. The
determinants of consumer engagement in restaurant food waste mitigation in
Poland: an exploratory study. J. Clean. Prod. 247, 119105.
Filipová, A., Mokrejšová, V., Šulc, Z., Zeman, J., 2017. Characteristics of food-wasting
consumers in the Czech Republic. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 41, 714–722.
Geuens, M., Brengman, M., S’Jegers, R., 2003. Food retailing, now and in the future. A
consumer perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 10, 241–251.
Giordano, C., Alboni, F., Falasconi, L., 2019. Quantities, Determinants, and Awareness of
Households’ Food Waste in Italy: A Comparison between Diary and Questionnaires
Quantities, Sustainability.
Gollnhofer, J.F., Weijo, H.A., Schouten, J.W., 2019. Consumer movements and value
regimes: fighting food waste in Germany by building alternative object pathways.
J. Consum. Res. 46, 460–482.
Greene, W.H., 2012. Econometric Analysis, 7th edition. Pearson, Boston.
Harris, M.N., Zhao, X., 2007. A zero-inflated ordered probit model, with an application to
modelling tobacco consumption. J. Econ. 141, 1073–1099.
Heard, B.R., Bandekar, M., Vassar, B., Miller, S.A., 2019. Comparison of life cycle
environmental impacts from meal kits and grocery store meals. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 147, 189–200.
Hebrok, M., Boks, C., 2017. Household food waste: drivers and potential intervention
points for design – an extensive review. J. Clean. Prod. 151, 380–392.
Heidenstrøm, N., Hebrok, M., 2021. Towards realizing the sustainability potential within
digital food provisioning platforms: the case of meal box schemes and online grocery
shopping in Norway. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 29, 831–850.
Heidenstrøm, N., Hebrok, M., 2022. Towards realizing the sustainability potential within
digital food provisioning platforms: the case of meal box schemes and online grocery
shopping in Norway. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 29, 831–850.
Hennchen, B., 2019. Knowing the kitchen: applying practice theory to issues of food
waste in the food service sector. J. Clean. Prod. 225, 675–683.
Ilyuk, V., 2018. Like throwing a piece of me away: how online and in-store grocery
purchase channels affect consumers’ food waste. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 41, 20–30.
Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E., Arnold, M.J., 2006. Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value:
investigating differential effects on retail outcomes. J. Bus. Res. 59, 974–981.
11
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122698
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. Sustainability 7, 2695–2715.
Kansal, M., Ananda, J., Mitsis, A., Karunasena, G.G., Pearson, D., 2022. Food waste in
households: children as quiet powerhouses. Food Qual. Prefer. 98, 104524.
Karunasena, G.G., Pearson, D., Nabi, N., Fight Food Waste CRC, 2020. Global Best
Practice for Designing Interventions to Reduce Household Food Waste. Fight Food
Waste Cooperative Research Centre, Adelaide, Australia. https://fightfoodwastecrc.
com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Best-Practice-Intervention-Report_Final.pdf.
Katt, F., Meixner, O., 2020. Food waste prevention behavior in the context of hedonic
and utilitarian shopping value. J. Clean. Prod. 273, 122878.
Koivupuro, H.K., Hartikainen, H., Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J.M., Heikintalo, N.,
Reinikainen, A., Jalkanen, L., 2012. Influence of socio-demographical, behavioural
and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish
households. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 36, 183–191.
Krisjanti, M.N., Quita, A.G., 2020. Food Shopping Behavior: A Long Way to Prevent Food
Waste, 2020, 35, p. 8.
Landry, C.E., Smith, T.A., 2019. Demand for household food waste. Appl. Econ. Perspect.
Policy 41, 20–36.
Lee, K.C.L., 2018. Grocery shopping, food waste, and the retail landscape of cities: the
case of Seoul. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 325–334.
Li, C., Mirosa, M., Bremer, P., 2020. Review of online food delivery platforms and their
impacts on sustainability. Sustainability 12.
Luo, Q., Forscher, T., Shaheen, S., Deakin, E., Walker, J.L., 2023. Impact of the COVID-19
pandemic and generational heterogeneity on ecommerce shopping styles – a case
study of Sacramento, California. Commun. Transp. Res. 3, 100091.
Mintel, 2014. Online Grocery Retailing - UK. March 2014. Mintel Group, London.
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. Clean. Prod. 138, 8–18.
Parizeau, K., von Massow, M., Martin, R., 2015. Household-level dynamics of food waste
production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph, Ontario. Waste
Manag. 35, 207–217.
Principato, L., Secondi, L., Pratesi Carlo, A., 2015. Reducing food waste: an investigation
on the behaviour of Italian youths. Br. Food J. 117, 731–748.
Principato, L., Secondi, L., Cicatiello, C., Mattia, G., 2020. Caring more about food: the
unexpected positive effect of the Covid-19 lockdown on household food
management and waste. Socio Econ. Plan. Sci. 100953.
Principato, L., Mattia, G., Di Leo, A., Pratesi, C.A., 2021. The household wasteful
behaviour framework: a systematic review of consumer food waste. Ind. Mark.
Manag. 93, 641–649.
Qi, D., Roe, B.E., 2016. Household Food Waste: multivariate regression and principal
components analyses of awareness and attitudes among U.S. consumers. PLOS ONE
11, e0159250.
Quested, T.E., Palmer, G., Moreno, L.C., McDermott, C., Schumacher, K., 2020.
Comparing diaries and waste compositional analysis for measuring food waste in the
home. J. Clean. Prod. 262, 121263.
R Development Core Team, 2004. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, a Language
and Environment for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/. Vienna,
Austria.
Sarrias, M., 2016. Discrete choice models with random parameters in R: the Rchoice
package. J. Stat. Softw. 74, 1–31.
Schanes, K., Stagl, S., 2019. Food waste fighters: what motivates people to engage in food
sharing? J. Clean. Prod. 211, 1491–1501.
Schanes, K., Dobernig, K., Gözet, B., 2018. Food waste matters - a systematic review of
household food waste practices and their policy implications. J. Clean. Prod. 182,
978–991.
Schuster, S., Speck, M., van Herpen, E., Buchborn, F., Langen, N., Nikravech, M.,
Mullick, S., Eichstädt, T., Chikhalova, Y., Budiansky, E., Engelmann, T., Bickel, M.,
2022. Do meal boxes reduce food waste from households? J. Clean. Prod. 134001.
Secondi, L., Principato, L., 2020. Consumer choice and food waste: a demand-side
perspective to address the challenge of sustainable consumption models. In:
Responsible Consumption and Production, 83.
Secondi, L., Principato, L., Laureti, T., 2015. Household food waste behaviour in EU-27
countries: a multilevel analysis. Food Policy 56, 25–40.
Setti, M., Falasconi, L., Segrè, A., Cusano, I., Vittuari, M., 2016. Italian consumers’
income and food waste behavior. Br. Food J. 118, 1731–1746.
Silvennoinen, K., Nisonen, S., Katajajuuri, J.-M., 2022. Food waste amount, type, and
climate impact in urban and suburban regions in Finnish households. J. Clean. Prod.
378, 134430.
Smith, T.A., Landry, C.E., 2021. Household food waste and inefficiencies in food
production. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 103, 4–21.
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, 375–381.
Steiman, H.C., 2014. Why 2014 will finally be the year of the online grocer. Available at
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-16/why-2014-will-finally-be-
the-year-of-the-online-grocer Accessed 7 December 2020, Bloomberg.
Streicher, M.C., Estes, Z., Büttner, O.B., 2021. Exploratory shopping: attention affects in-
store exploration and unplanned purchasing. J. Consum. Res. 48, 51–76.
Swedish Digital Commerce Association, 2017. Digital Mathandel. [Digital Commerce]
Report 2017. Available at https://dhandel.se/rapporter/digital-mathandel/
Accessed 7 December 2020.
J. Ananda et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122698

Teller, C., Holweg, C., Reiner, G., Kotzab, H., 2018. Retail store operations and food Zhang, Y., van Herpen, E., Van Loo, E.J., Pandelaere, M., Geuens, M., 2023. Save near-
waste. J. Clean. Prod. 185, 981–997. expired food: does a message to avoid food waste affect food purchase and household
Tsalis, G., Jensen, B.B., Wakeman, S.W., Aschemann-Witzel, J., 2021. Promoting food for waste prevention behaviors? J. Clean. Prod. 384, 135555.
the trash bin? A review of the literature on retail price promotions and household-
level food waste. Sustainability 13.
Jayanath Ananda: Dr. Ananda is a Senior Lecturer in Economics at School of Business and
United Nations Environment Programme, 2021. Food Waste Index Report 2021. UNEP,
Law, CQUniversity Australia, Melbourne Campus. His research interests focus on food
Nairobi.
waste, household behavioural modelling, sustainability, water management and policy.
van Herpen, E., van der Lans, I.A., Holthuysen, N., Nijenhuis-de Vries, M., Quested, T.E.,
Dr. Ananda has a well-established research track record with over 70 publications and a
2019. Comparing wasted apples and oranges: an assessment of methods to measure
Scopus h-index of 14. His publications include research articles in high-ranked interna­
household food waste. Waste Manag. 88, 71–84.
tional journals and book chapters in authoritative volumes. He has contributed to many
Vargas-Lopez, A., Cicatiello, C., Principato, L., Secondi, L., 2021. Consumer expenditure,
research projects dealing with food waste behaviour change, water management. He also
elasticity and value of food waste: a quadratic almost ideal demand system for
serves as the Associate Editor of Water Policy, the official journal of the World Water
evaluating changes in Mexico during COVID-19. Socio Econ. Plan. Sci. 101065.
Council.
Venables, W.N., Ripley, B.D., 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S, Fourth edition.
Springer, New York. ISBN 0-387-95457-0.
Visschers, V.H.M., Wickli, N., Siegrist, M., 2016. Sorting out food waste behaviour: a Gamithri Gayana Karunasena: Dr. Karunasena is a consumer behaviour specialist with
survey on the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in extensive experience in marketing food projects. Her international experience includes
households. J. Environ. Psychol. 45, 66–78. marketing and branding with multinationals such as Nestle. She has co-authored 14 in­
Wang, X., Zhang, S., Schneider, N., 2021. Evaluating the carbon emissions of alternative dustry reports and 10 academic journal articles on household food waste in Australia. Dr.
food provision systems: a comparative analysis of recipe box and supermarket Karunasena was Project Manager for the Household project and currently leads the
equivalents. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 173, 121099. Evaluation of Interventions project under the ENGAGE program within Fight Food Waste
Watson, M., Pantzar, M., Shove, E., 2012. The dynamics of social practice: everyday life Cooperative Research Centre. The Household project provided insights around food be­
and how it changes. In: The Dynamics of Social Practice, pp. 1–208. haviours in Australian households which help guide decision makers to develop more
Wickham, H., 2007. Reshaping data with the reshape package. J. Stat. Softw. 21, 1–20. effective interventions seeking to reduce household food waste. The Evaluation of In­
Wickham, H., 2016. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New terventions project evaluated several household food waste reduction interventions in
York. Australia and is anticipated to be finished in mid 2023.
Wickham, H., 2021. forcats: Tools for Working with Categorical Variables (Factors). R
Package Version 0.5.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=forcats.
David Pearson: Professor David Pearson is an executive in the Australian Fight Food
Wickham, H., François, R., Lionel Henry, L., Müller, K., 2021. dplyr: A Grammar of Data
Waste Cooperative Research Centre where he is the Engage Program Leader. In this role
Manipulation. R Package Version 1.0.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dp
Professor Pearson is leading research that seeks to encourage consumers to reduce the
lyr.
amount of food they waste and on improving the impact from food relief activities being
Yaprak, Ü., Kılıç, F., Okumuş, A., 2021. Is the Covid-19 pandemic strong enough to
undertaken by food rescue charities. As the Engage Program Leader he is also responsible
change the online order delivery methods? Changes in the relationship between
for leading the ENGAGE Program ($9.6 million 2018–28), educating over 40 future in­
attitude and behavior towards order delivery by drone. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
dustry professionals with PhD or Master level qualifications, and disseminating outputs
Chang. 169, 120829.
from all research undertaken in the Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre
Yu, Y., Jaenicke, E.C., 2020. Estimating food waste as household production inefficiency.
through an Industry Connection Hub.
Am. J. Agric. Econ. 102, 525–547.
He is also Professor of Social Marketing at School of Business and Law, CQUniversity
Zeileis, A., Kleiber, C., Jackman, S., 2008. Regression models for count data in R. J. Stat.
Australia. His expertise is in leading multidisciplinary applied research focussed on
Softw. 27, 1–25.
encouraging consumers to make considered choices, such as dietary options to improve
Zhang, H., Duan, H., Andric, J.M., Song, M., Yang, B., 2018. Characterization of
personal health and contribute to a more environmentally sustainable global food system.
household food waste and strategies for its reduction: a Shenzhen City case study.
In addition, he has considerable leadership achievements in tertiary education as well as
Waste Manag. 78, 426–433.
significant engagements with industry, government and charity sectors at local, National
and global levels.

12