![Sample our Environment & Sustainability journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5935/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Environment-Sustainability.jpg"})
Abstract
Food and food-related waste is a high priority in terms of waste minimisation in New Zealand. Over the summer of 2012–2013, a survey of 147 participants was conducted on a range of views and practices related to environmental challenges and understandings. The survey, undertaken in Palmerston North, New Zealand, captured a wide socio-demographic. This article focuses on respondents’ food practices from purchase, to plate, to disposal and the environmental implications of these practices. The survey data have allowed an enriched understanding of both individual and structural level challenges as well as incentives towards improving environmental practices in relation to household food waste minimisation. The results indicated that, in keeping with other research in this area, food waste increases according to the number of individuals in a household, and in particular the number of younger people. Also, while the majority of participants were at least “somewhat concerned” about their households’ environmental impact, over three quarters of participant households put food waste into their rubbish bin. Some solutions and directions to further progress research, policy, and practice in this area are offered, and include the need for more direct and personalised communication regarding waste minimisation, along with the provision of kerbside food waste collections. It is clear that individual- or household-level changes are important and must be supported systemically by both local body and state level legislation and initiatives, if there is to be any substantial decline in food waste going to landfill.
Keywords:
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. Other waste streams noted in this article as of particular interest and concern looking forward include e-waste and nanomaterials (Mavropoulos n.d.)
2. General recycling bins accept paper, cardboard, plastics, aluminium, and steel.
3. Placing items in their general recycling bins for kerbside collection that should not be in there.
4. A number of local body authorities around New Zealand have either trialled or implemented organic kerbside collections (green waste and/or food waste), including in Christchurch, the Mackenzie District, North Shore City, Timaru, and in Putaruru, Waikato (MfE Citation2005, Thompson Citation2012).
5. Organic waste; rubble; potentially hazardous waste; timber, paper, plastic, glass, nappies, and sanitary articles; ferrous and non-ferrous metals; textiles; and rubber.
6. The organic waste stream was 36% of total waste composition in 1995 (MfE Citation2009).
7. Ethnographic (based) work on food waste, while less frequent, also exists. See, for example, Evans (Citation2011, Citation2012), Fine (1996, as cited in Evans et al. Citation2013), and Watson and Meah (Citation2013).
8. The Master's Theses of Parr (Citation2013) and Stoddart (Citation2013) are exceptions here, as both have sought to better understand household food waste in New Zealand.
9. WasteMINZ (Citation2014, p. 1) describe themselves on their website as:
the largest representative body of the waste and resource recovery sector in New Zealand. Formed in 1989 it is a membership-based organisation with over 1,000 members – from small operators through to councils and large companies … [we] seek to achieve ongoing and positive development of our industry through strengthening relationships, facilitating collaboration, knowledge sharing and championing the implementation of best practice standards.
10. WRAP (Citation2014) is a UK-based organisation that was established in 2000 to assist in increasing recycling practices and helping to create markets for recycling. They assist governments in devising strategies that help address issues relating to recycling.
11. More than two streets were selected where the streets chosen were particularly short or where very few people chose to participate from the originally selected two streets.
12. While the full version was offered to each potential participant initially, individuals were then given the option of completing a shorter version if they indicated that time constraints were the reason for declining to complete the full version.
13. Eleven individuals did not respond to this question, eight were unsure or did not know what to say, and a further four individuals stated that there are no New Zealand environmental issues of concern to them.
14. This result has quite likely been impacted by regular publicity and debate in local media about the ominous state of the local Manawatu River.
15. Non-biodegradable rubbish and waste as a major concern may have been inflated in this research, given that this is an area that participants were asked to think specifically about in the surveys; hence, it may have been more at the forefront of peoples’ minds than it otherwise would have.
16. Participants were only asked to comment on why they chose their most preferred option. All 21 of the participants selecting food waste collection as their primary kerbside collection preference commented, while an additional three participants who did not make food waste their main priority nonetheless chose to comment on it anyway.
17. The “day-to-day pressures of living in modern society” was also highlighted by Fahy and Davies (Citation2007) as a mitigating factor against better waste management practices.