THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOUSEHOLD-GENERATED FOOD 
WASTE IN RURAL AND URBAN LESOTHO: AN INVESTIGATION 
 
 
Lisemelo Mateboho Lucia Chenene 
 
 
Dissertation submitted in accordance with the requirements for the 
degree 
 
 
Master of Science in Consumer Science 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences 
Department of Consumer Science 
 
University of the Free State 
Bloemfontein 
 
Supervisor: Dr N Cronjé 
Co-Supervisor: Dr I van der Merwe 
 
January 2020
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are 
performed, not by strength, but perseverance.  
Samuel Johnson 
 
DECLARATION 
 
I declare that this thesis, titled THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOUSEHOLD-GENERATED 
FOOD WASTE IN RURAL AND URBAN LESOTHO: AN INVESTIGATION, hereby submitted for 
the qualification of Master of Science in Consumer Science at the University of the Free 
State, is my own independent work and that I have not previously submitted the same work 
for a qualification at/in another university/faculty.      
I hereby cede copyright to the University of the Free State.      
 
Lisemelo Mateboho Ntlopo Chenene    31 January 2020  
  
Name        Date 
  
i 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
My sincere gratitude goes to my supervisor, Dr Natasha Cronjé, for her advice and making 
this study a success, who restlessly supervised and assisted me despite her other 
obligations. Without her constant support, I believe it would have been difficult to 
accomplish this work. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to my co-supervisor, Dr 
Ismari van der Merwe, who assisted in this study despite her other obligations. My sincere 
thanks goes to Statistical Consultation Unit UFS Dr Sean van der Merwe who helped me with 
data analysis despite his other obligations. 
I am also grateful to my husband, my mother, and my two beautiful girls for having 
supported and motivated me during my student days. 
 
 
 
  
ii 
ABSTRACT 
 
Food waste has received substantial attention from industry and research communities in 
the previous decade. To develop sustainable food systems, and possibly ensure food 
security for the world population, food waste should be minimised. Food waste is related to 
economic, environmental, and social challenges. There are many culprits in the food supply 
chain that add to the food waste dilemma, as food is wasted and lost during different 
stages. These stages include production, processing, transport, retail, and consumption; of 
which consumption is of importance in this research. Consumers are significant contributors 
to food waste, and it is therefore essential to have a clear understanding of the factors that 
influence household food waste related to consumer perceptions and behaviour. 
Food waste is particularly important from a developing country’s point of view, especially as 
a potential mitigating factor for food insecurity. Sub-Saharan Africa is considered vulnerable 
and continues to experience challenges related to inadequate infrastructure, lack of support 
from government, and very little intervention. One such country, Lesotho, is a small country 
surrounded by the Republic of South Africa. To the knowledge of the researcher, there is a 
considerable void in data regarding household food waste research in Lesotho. This is 
especially true when considering the types of food waste generated by households, the 
household practices that could be driving food waste, and how it differs between urban and 
rural settings. It was therefore the aim of this study to compare the household food waste in 
rural and urban areas of Lesotho. This study further sought to explore reasons for household 
food waste with specific attention to households’ behaviour, purchasing habits, attitudes, 
and lifestyle in both the rural and urban areas of Lesotho. 
A quantitative approach with an exploratory and descriptive design was adopted. Data were 
collected from February 2019 to May 2019 from both urban (Maseru and Botha Bothe) and 
rural (Mokhotlong) areas of Lesotho. Randomised probability sampling was employed, and 
the unit of analysis in this study was households. Consumers who participated in the survey 
were chosen on the premise that they were older than 18 years, they were also responsible 
for food purchase and food preparation in households, and they were regarded as being 
aware of all the food that is consumed and not consumed within the household, regardless 
iii 
of gender (male, female, or other). The number of households sampled in Botha Bothe was 
150, Maseru 250, and Mokhotlong 150. A total of 550 consumers therefore participated in 
the study, representing 550 households. 
The data were collected by utilising structured questionnaires. The questionnaire was 
designed in English and translated to the local language, Sesotho, to ensure that the 
consumers have a clear understanding of the questions asked, as it is the language 
understood by the majority of citizens in Lesotho. The questionnaire took approximately 30 
minutes to complete. No incentive was provided to the participating consumers. The data 
were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).  
The results indicate that education is a significant indicator (p=0.019) of food waste. 
Regarding the relationship between food waste generation and income, it seems that 
income is a significant indicator of food waste. Consumers who reside in both rural and 
urban areas are fully aware of the negative consequences of food waste. Consumers apply a 
great deal of effort to minimise the amount of discarded food in their households, which 
was also statistically significant (p=0.022). Approximately three-quarters (76%) of the 
consumers in urban areas undertake their main shopping from a supermarket, while it is the 
case with just more than half (52%) of consumers in rural areas. 
In rural areas, consumers do not discard the food if the “best before” date has expired, 
regardless of its appearance or smell, whereas most of the consumers in urban areas discard 
the food if the “best before” date has expired. Lesotho, being a low-income country with 
scarce resources, could benefit from food waste reduction and intervention programmes to 
assist in alleviating food insecurity. It is therefore recommended that the Lesotho 
government supports educational campaigns aimed at reducing food wastage and to 
enhance household planning skills and routines regarding food preparation. 
Keywords: household food waste, food security, Lesotho, consumers. 
  
iv 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
DECLARATION .......................................................................................................................................... i 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... ii 
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................... iii 
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... ix 
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... ix 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... x 
 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 
1.1  GENERAL INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 
1.2  RESEARCH PROBLEM ............................................................................................................. 3 
1.3  RESEARCH OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................... 3 
1.4  RATIONALISATION OF THE STUDY ......................................................................................... 4 
1.5  DEFINITION OF TERMS........................................................................................................... 4 
 
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 
2.1  INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 6 
2.2  DEFINING FOOD WASTE ........................................................................................................ 8 
2.2.1  Food loss............................................................................................................................ 8 
2.2.2  Food waste ........................................................................................................................ 8 
2.3  THE IMPACT OF FOOD WASTE ............................................................................................... 9 
2.3.1 Environmental impact ....................................................................................................... 9 
2.3.1.1  Carbon footprint ....................................................................................................... 9 
2.3.1.2  Water footprint....................................................................................................... 10 
2.3.1.3  Ecological footprint ................................................................................................. 10 
2.3.2  Economic impact ............................................................................................................. 10 
2.3.3 Social impact ................................................................................................................... 11 
v 
2.4  FOOD WASTE AND CULTURE ............................................................................................... 12 
2.5  REASONS FOR HOUSEHOLD FOOD WASTE .......................................................................... 14 
2.5.1 Storage ............................................................................................................................ 15 
2.5.2  Packaging ......................................................................................................................... 16 
2.5.3 Confusion over dates on labels ....................................................................................... 17 
2.5.4  Inadequate planning ....................................................................................................... 18 
2.5.5  Purchasing behaviour ...................................................................................................... 19 
2.5.6  Excess preparation .......................................................................................................... 20 
2.5.7  Health concerns .............................................................................................................. 21 
2.5.8  Children ........................................................................................................................... 21 
2.5.9  Food spoilage .................................................................................................................. 22 
2.6  FACTORS THAT AFFECT HOUSEHOLD FOOD WASTE ........................................................... 22 
2.6.1  Consumption behaviour and food patterns .................................................................... 22 
2.6.2  Values and the perceived value of food .......................................................................... 23 
2.6.3  Awareness ....................................................................................................................... 24 
2.6.4  Attitudes towards food waste ......................................................................................... 25 
2.6.5  Social and moral norms ................................................................................................... 26 
2.6.6  Knowledge and skills ....................................................................................................... 27 
2.6.7  Demographic factors ....................................................................................................... 27 
2.6.7.1  Household size and composition ............................................................................ 28 
2.6.7.2  Age .......................................................................................................................... 28 
2.6.7.3  Education and income ............................................................................................ 29 
2.6.7.4  Gender .................................................................................................................... 30 
2.7  PREVENTATIVE MEASURES TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE ....................................................... 30 
2.7.1  Planning ........................................................................................................................... 30 
2.7.2  Provisioning ..................................................................................................................... 31 
2.7.3  Storage ............................................................................................................................ 31 
vi 
2.7.4  Preparation...................................................................................................................... 32 
2.7.5  Consumption ................................................................................................................... 33 
 
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 
3.1  INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 34 
3.2  RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................................... 34 
3.3  TARGET POPULATION AND SAMPLING ............................................................................... 35 
3.3.1  Population ....................................................................................................................... 35 
3.3.2  Sampling procedure ........................................................................................................ 36 
3.3.3  The size of the sample ..................................................................................................... 37 
3.4  DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................................................... 37 
3.4.1  Instrument ....................................................................................................................... 37 
3.4.2  Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 38 
3.5  DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 39 
3.6  RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY .................................................................................................. 40 
3.7  LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................... 41 
3.8  ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................. 42 
 
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
4.1  INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 44 
4.2  THE DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF CONSUMERS ................................................................... 44 
4.3  KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS RELATING TO HOUSEHOLD FOOD WASTE ....................... 47 
4.3.1  Awareness and concern .................................................................................................. 47 
4.3.2  Estimation of the amount of food discarded and efforts to minimise it ........................ 49 
4.3.3  Knowledge and correct storage ...................................................................................... 50 
4.4  BEHAVIOUR RELATED TO FOOD WASTE .............................................................................. 52 
4.4.1  Purchasing behaviour ...................................................................................................... 52 
vii 
4.4.2  Storage ............................................................................................................................ 55 
4.4.3  Handling leftover food .................................................................................................... 55 
4.4.4  Food waste management ................................................................................................ 58 
4.5  FOOD CONSUMPTION ......................................................................................................... 61 
4.6  INDICATORS OF FOOD WASTE GENERATION ...................................................................... 63 
4.6.1  Education and income ..................................................................................................... 63 
4.6.2  Household size ................................................................................................................ 64 
 
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
5.1  CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 66 
5.2  RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 68 
5.2.1  Recommendation for awareness campaigns and educating consumers ........................ 63 
5.2.2  Recommendation for food producers and retailers ....................................................... 64 
5.2.3 Recommendation for further research ........................................................................... 63 
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 70 
 
APPENDICES 
APPENDIX A: ETHICAL CLEARANCE ....................................................................................................... 78 
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................................................................. 79 
APPENDIX C: TURNITIN REPORT ........................................................................................................... 89 
APPENDIX D: EDITING CERTIFICATE ...................................................................................................... 90 
 
 
 
  
viii 
LIST OF FIGURES 
 
Figure 3.1:  Map of Lesotho with ten administrative districts .......................................................... 36 
Figure 4.1:  Gender composition of the population (n=550) ............................................................ 44 
Figure 4.2:  Monthly income of households by area (n=550) ........................................................... 46 
Figure 4.3:  The negative consequences of food waste (n=550) ....................................................... 47 
Figure 4.4:  Level of concern when discarding food (n=550) ............................................................ 48 
Figure 4.5:  Consumers’ qualitative estimation of food discarded (n=550) ...................................... 49 
Figure 4.6:  Consumers’ efforts to minimise the amount of food wasted (n=550) .......................... 50 
Figure 4.7:  Storage of fruit and vegetables (n=550)......................................................................... 51 
Figure 4.8:  Summary of consumers’ frequency of shopping behaviour (n=550) ............................. 52 
Figure 4.9:  Summary of the respondents’ type of stores that are used (n=550) ............................. 53 
Figure 4.10:  Ways to handle an item that is coming close to its “best before” date (n=550) ........... 56 
Figure 4.11:  Summary of what is done when too much food is prepared (n=550) ........................... 57 
Figure 4.12:  Summary of the origin of household food waste (n=550) ............................................. 59 
Figure 4.13:  Category of food consumers tend to over-purchase and then discard (n=550) ............ 60 
Figure 4.14:  Fruits that are consumed the most (n=550) .................................................................. 62 
Figure 4.15:  Vegetables that are consumed the most (n=550) .......................................................... 63 
 
LIST OF TABLES 
 
Table 3.1:  Summary of risks and precautions during the survey .................................................... 43 
Table 4.1:  Socio-demographic characteristics of consumers by area (n=550) ............................... 45 
Table 4.2:  Consumers’ priority ranking of the necessity to store items in a refrigerator ............... 51 
Table 4.3:  Indication of consumers’ actions regarding food shopping (n=550) ............................. 54 
Table 4.4:  Indication of consumers’ actions regarding food waste (n=550) ................................... 55 
Table 4.5:  Indication of consumers’ actions regarding leftovers (n=550) ...................................... 58 
Table 4.6:  Reasons for discarding food (n=550).............................................................................. 59 
Table 4.7:  Summary of the category of fruits and vegetables that are bought and discarded ...... 61 
ix 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 
 
 
°C Degrees Celsius 
BoS Lesotho Bureau of Statistics 
CH4  Methane 
CO2  Carbon dioxide 
FAO  Food and Agriculture Organization 
FSC  Food supply chain 
GHG  Greenhouse gas 
Kg Kilogram 
LDHS Lesotho Demographic and Health Survey 
LNVR Lesotho Voluntary National Review on the implementation of the Agenda 2030 
LSL Lesotho loti 
MAFS Lesotho Ministry of Agriculture 
N2O  Nitrous oxide 
SDG  Sustainable Development Goal 
SPSS  Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 
UFS  University of the Free State 
UNDP United Nations Development Programme 
USD United States dollar 
WFP World Food Programme 
WRAP  Waste and Resource Action Programme 
 
x 
CHAPTER 1 
INTRODUCTION 
1.1  GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2011) estimates that the world loses or wastes 
nearly 33% of the food produced for human consumption, which amounts to approximately 
1.3 billion tonnes of wasted food per year. This occurs even though almost two billion 
people go hungry and approximately one in seven people is undernourished. Moreover, this 
implies that 24% of the caloric value of food intended for human consumption (Lipinski 
et al., 2013), and four times the amount of food needed to eradicate world hunger, is 
wasted (Chakona & Shackleton, 2017).  
Food waste has an unfavourable impact on the environment and creates negative economic 
consequences (Pärn, 2016). It results in approximately USD1 trillion lost per year, as well as 
environmental costs estimated at USD700 billion per annum. These environmental costs 
include wasted water, soil erosion, increase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and delays 
in rural development (FAO, 2015). In addition, food waste has a social impact and leads to 
an increase in food prices, which makes food less accessible for the poorest, and therefore 
increases the number of malnourished people (Chakona & Shackleton, 2017; Boom, 2012).  
Food waste and losses can occur during the process of food production, manufacturing, 
distribution, retail, and consumption. Consumption is an essential aspect that relates to the 
hospitality industry, food service industry, and consumer households. More specifically, 
food waste in households can occur before, during, and after meal preparation (Oelofse & 
Nahman, 2013). The importance thereof is further reiterated by Sustainable Development 
Goal (SDG) target 12.3, which calls for halving food waste by 2030 (United Nations 
Development Programme [UNDP], 2019). 
According to the Waste and Resource Action Programme (WRAP, 2013), approximately 60% 
of household food waste results from products that were not used in time. These products 
alone account for a loss of around USD8.8 billion. The majority of household food waste is 
made up of perishable or short-shelf-life products and includes more fresh produce, which is 
1 
most often considered avoidable food waste. Globally, consumers are the most significant 
contributors to wasted food that occurs in homes (Marangon et al., 2015). Approximately 95 
to 115 kilograms (kg) of food per person per year is wasted in households, of which much is 
still perfectly edible (Hudson & Messa, 2014).   
Consumers can save time and money and help the environment if food waste is minimised 
(Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2017). Food waste can also possibly play an essential role in 
efforts to fight hunger and improve food security in lower-income countries (Oelofse & 
Nahman, 2013). The challenge of global food security centres around the fact that roughly 
868 million people are undernourished and approximately two billion people suffer from 
the negative health consequences of micronutrient deficiencies due to nutritionally 
imbalanced meals (Chakona & Shackleton, 2017; Phil et al., 2015). 
One such an example is Lesotho, a small landlocked nation with slightly more than two 
million citizens, which is surrounded by the Republic of South Africa (Furin et al., 2007). 
Lesotho has suffered severe food insecurity, and it continues to be a chronic problem and a 
key obstacle to the country’s development agenda (Chakona & Shackleton, 2017; Leduka 
et al., 2015). More than 30%, or 709 394, of Lesotho citizens are food insecure. As a result of 
the severe food insecurity, 33.2% of children under five years are malnourished. 
Consequently, the matter of food waste is increasingly being recognised as a possible way of 
addressing the food security situation (Phil et al., 2015). Unified strategies are necessary to 
address issues of development that affect Lesotho, including the promotion of effective 
food management and primary food processing to reduce food waste (George, 2014). 
To the knowledge of the researcher, no study has been conducted on the composition or 
quantity of food waste generated by households in Lesotho. Furthermore, there is a void in 
knowledge regarding consumers’ behaviour, knowledge, and attitude towards food waste, 
and how these differ between urban and rural locations. This study therefore focused on 
determining and comparing the type of food wasted in urban and rural households of 
Lesotho, as well as attempting to identify necessary conditions for food waste prevention 
and reduction for the future generation. In addition, reasons for household food waste with 
particular attention to households’ behaviour, purchasing habits, attitudes, and lifestyle in 
both rural and urban areas of Lesotho were explored.  
2 
1.2  RESEARCH PROBLEM  
Lesotho’s national poverty figures indicate that 57.1% of the Basotho population lives below 
the poverty line and 34% of adults live below the food poverty line of LSL138 (USD10.30), 
which is one out of every three people (UNDP, 2015). The rate of poverty is unequally 
spread across Lesotho. It is the highest in the central mountains, followed by the more 
remote areas of the Foothills and Lowlands (Lesotho Voluntary National Review on the 
Implementation of the Agenda 2030 [LVNR], 2019), and roughly 75% of the rural population 
depends on subsistence agriculture for their livelihood. Poverty is lower in the urban areas, 
although it seems that this pattern is changing, in line with the urbanisation of the 
population (UNDP, 2015).  
Food waste relates to food security and nutrition security (Phil et al., 2015). When food is 
wasted, it increases food prices, therefore worsening food insecurity for many people (Segrè 
et al., 2014). Consequently, 709 394 people in Lesotho are food insecure. As a result of 
severe food insecurity, 33.2% of children under five years are stunted, with a low height for 
their age. Addressing the matter of food waste could be of great value in the food security 
situation of the nation (Phil et al., 2015). 
Lesotho, being a developing and low-income country with scarce resources, could benefit 
from food waste reduction and intervention programmes to assist in alleviating poverty and 
food insecurity (LVNR, 2019). Many consumers are not aware of the amount of food waste 
that is occurring in their homes and the role they could play in reducing it (FAO, 2019).  
To attain a greater understanding of food waste practices and knowledge among Basotho 
consumers, the researcher compared the difference between food waste behaviour in rural 
and urban Lesotho, and identified perceptions, attitudes, and practices that could hinder or 
promote the reduction of food waste.  
1.3  RESEARCH OBJECTIVES  
The general aim of the study is to compare the type of food waste in rural and urban areas 
of Lesotho. In addition, the reasons for household food waste with particular attention to 
households’ behaviour, purchasing habits, attitudes, and demographic and socio-economic 
characteristics of households in both rural and urban areas of Lesotho are explored. 
3 
The specific objectives of the study are as follows: 
 To determine whether education, demographic and socio-economic are important 
indicators regarding knowledge of food waste. 
 To explore rural and urban Lesotho consumers’ attitudes and knowledge towards 
food waste.  
 To identify consumers’ behaviour that contributes to household food waste in the 
rural and urban areas of Lesotho. 
 To make comparison of consumers’ food waste behaviour and identifying the most 
prominent food items wasted in rural and urban areas Lesotho.  
1.4  RATIONALISATION OF THE STUDY 
This study is motivated by the lack of empirical information and evidence concerning 
household food waste in Lesotho. This study will contribute to information concerning the 
types of food wasted in the rural and urban areas of Lesotho. Moreover, clarification of the 
attitude and knowledge of Lesotho citizens towards household food waste will be attained. 
The results of the study will support the identification of measures and instruments to 
reduce food waste and to increase consumers’ awareness of the negative impact of food 
waste. This research will also contribute to identifying necessary and sufficient conditions 
for food waste reduction in Lesotho. Furthermore, the data can be used to inform the 
development of possible policies or intervention strategies to reduce household food waste.  
1.5  DEFINITION OF TERMS 
The following terms are frequently used in this thesis: 
Avoidable food waste: Refers to food which could have been eaten if it had not been allowed 
to go off or had not passed its “best before” date (Anding, 2016). 
Consumer: Refers to a person who buys goods or services for their own use         
(Silvennoinen et al., 2014). 
Food loss: Food loss refers to the reduction in food quality/quantity in the primary 
stages of the food supply chain (FSC), which decreases the amount of 
food suitable for human consumption (FAO, 2011).   
Food security: Exists when all people, at all times, have adequate physical, social, or 
4 
economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food for their dietary 
needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (FAO, 2011). 
Food waste:  Refers to food appropriate for human consumption being discarded, 
whether or not kept beyond the expiry date, or left to spoil (Borma, 
2017). 
Greenhouse gases: Greenhouse gases are gases that absorb and emit radiant energy within 
the thermal infrared range. The three leading greenhouse gases of 
importance are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide 
(N2O) (Hudson & Messa, 2014). 
Household: Refers to a group of people who usually live together and take their 
meals from a communal kitchen unless the crisis of work or other 
incidences prevent any of them from doing so (Glanz, 2008). 
Possibly avoidable food Possibly avoidable food waste refers to food that could have been eaten 
waste: but which some individuals chose not to eat because it seemed inedible, 
although it is still usable (Ventour, 2008). 
Unavoidable food waste: Unavoidable or (inedible) food waste mainly involves preparation 
residues. This food cannot be eaten by people but should be used to 
feed animals, for compost, or in anaerobic digestion (Glanz, 2008).  
 
 
 
  
5 
CHAPTER 2 
LITERATURE REVIEW 
2.1  INTRODUCTION  
Approximately one-third of food produced in the world goes to waste, which placed a 
spotlight on food production and consumption and led to a call for action by world leaders 
and civil society groups (Segrè et al., 2014). What many people recklessly allow to rot in 
fields, landfills, and refrigerators could be instrumental in aiding to end world hunger 
quickly, simply, and possibly even permanently (Chrobog, 2014). In contrast, roughly 
842 million people around the world suffer from chronic hunger (Chrobog, 2014; Hudson & 
Messa, 2014). It is estimated that 2 100 kilocalories per person per day of food supply is 
wasted, which could be enough to feed roughly 1.9 billion people (Phil et al., 2015). 
Segrè et al. (2014) indicate that in developing countries, the most substantial amount of 
food waste occurs at the final stages of the Food supply chain (FSC), particularly household 
consumption, restaurants, and food service establishments. Koivupuro (2011) believes that 
substantial food losses and waste occur early in the FSC because of spoilage or damage to 
food products. Approximately 95 to 115 kg of food per person per year is wasted in 
households. Many of the wasted food items are still perfectly edible and can be consumed 
(Hudson & Messa, 2014). In an effort to fight hunger and improve food security in 
developing countries, the focus should shift to a potentially critical factor such as food 
waste. It is also an ethical problem because food loss and waste impact negatively on the 
availability of food to others, which creates hunger among millions of people (Boom, 2012). 
Food waste also relates to food security (Phil et al., 2015). When food is wasted, it increases 
food prices, therefore worsening food insecurity for many people (Segrè et al., 2014). 
According to the 2010 state of food insecurity in the world report (FAO, 2010), a total of 925 
million people around the world are estimated to be undernourished, of which developing 
countries account for 98% (FAO, 2010).  
Food that is produced yet not consumed, while fit for human consumption, results in 
wasted resources at the production stage, which further contributes to food insecurity. 
6 
Food security is centred on the notion that people have adequate physical, social, or 
economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food (Shafiee-Jood & Cai, 2016). The food 
security definition often encompasses food availability, food access, and food utilisation 
(Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security [MAFS], 2008).  
Food availability is concerned with sufficient quantities of food being available to all people 
within a country. Such food can be provided through household production, other domestic 
outputs, commercial imports, or food assistance. Food access is guaranteed if households 
and all individuals within the household have enough resources to acquire the right type of 
food for a nutritious diet. Access depends on the income of the household, the distribution 
of income within the household, and the price of food. Food utilisation is the appropriate 
biological usage of food, which provides a diet that has sufficient energy and all the essential 
nutrients, drinkable water, and adequate sanitation and healthcare. Effective food 
utilisation is based on household knowledge regarding the storage of food and processing 
techniques, basic principles of nutrition, and proper childcare (FAO, 2013a). 
From an environmental viewpoint, food production requires valuable resources and energy 
that are essentially wasted if the produced food is not consumed. It is therefore crucial to 
reduce food waste in order to attain global food security, clearing up scarce resources for 
other uses, decreasing environmental risks, and avoiding financial losses (Thompson & 
Prendergast, 2015). In addition, natural disasters, the weather, climate conditions, and 
negative economic trends might play a role (Shafiee-Jood & Cai, 2016). 
Lesotho has suffered severe food insecurity, and it continues to be a chronic problem and a 
key obstacle to the country’s development agenda (Leduka et al., 2015). There is 
relationship between poverty and food insecurity, according to the World Food Programme 
report of 2017 indicated that the overall population of Lesotho was approximately 2.1 
million, of which 57.1% lived below the poverty line. Consequently, 709 394 people in 
Lesotho are food insecure. As a result of severe food insecurity, 33.2% of children under five 
years are stunted, with a low height for their age. Addressing the matter of food waste 
could be of great value in the food security situation of the nation (Phil et al., 2015).  
7 
2.2  DEFINING FOOD WASTE 
Food wastage takes place during different stages of the FSC. The stages in the FSC involve 
agricultural production, post-harvest handling, storage, processing, packaging, distribution, 
and consumption (FAO, 2011). Food wastage can be divided into two main categories, 
namely food loss and food waste. Food loss and waste are happening at a time when food 
prices are increasing and food insecurity is getting worse in many countries. It also 
negatively impacts the environment since energy resources are wasted, and it contributes 
to GHG emissions (Segrè et al., 2014).    
2.2.1  Food loss 
Food loss refers to the reduction in food quality/quantity in the primary stages of the FSC, 
which decreases the amount of food suitable for human consumption (FAO, 2011). Food 
loss is primarily the result of wastefulness in the usage and resource allocations along the 
FSC. These include inadequate infrastructure and logistics; lack of technology; insufficient 
skills, knowledge, and management capacity among supply chain actors; and poor access to 
markets (Segré et al., 2014). Food loss therefore happens in the initial phases of the FSC, 
while food waste takes place during the consumer phase and is affected by a different set of 
variables (Phil et al., 2015).  
2.2.2  Food waste 
Food waste refers to the discarding of food products that are fit for consumption or fit to 
proceed in the FSC (FAO, 2011; Segrè et al., 2014; Phil et al., 2015). Food waste most often 
takes place at the final stages of the FSC, such as in retail and consumer households.  
Three types of food waste can be distinguished, namely avoidable waste, possibly avoidable 
waste, and unavoidable or inedible waste. Avoidable waste refers to food that could have 
been eaten if it had not been allowed to go off or had not passed its “best before” date. 
There are many reasons for this occurrence, of which the possible reasons are discussed 
later in this chapter. Understanding the cause of this type of waste is of primary importance 
in order to avoid food waste (Anding, 2016; Ventour, 2008).  
8 
Possibly avoidable waste refers to food that could have been eaten but which some 
individuals chose not to eat because it seemed inedible, although it was still usable. 
Examples of the latter include fruit skins and beet tops that could be cooked similarly to 
collard greens or spinach, as an alternative to being discarded (Anding, 2016; Ventour, 
2008).  
Unavoidable or (inedible) waste mainly involves preparation residues. This food cannot be 
eaten by people but could be used to feed animals, used as compost, or in anaerobic 
digestion. These items include teabags, bones, and fruit and vegetable peels and pips 
(Anding, 2016; Ventour, 2008). 
Glanz (2008) adds the following to the above categories of food waste from households. 
Unopened food in original packaging refers to food in its original packaging, discarded after 
or before the expiry date. Opened, partially used food refers to food that was partially used 
but discarded; for example, half a package of sausages. 
2.3  THE IMPACT OF FOOD WASTE 
2.3.1 Environmental impact 
Food waste impacts the environment on both the micro and macro level (Phil et al., 2015). 
Firstly, at the micro level, the amount of garbage and waste results in infections and 
uncleanliness of individuals in both rural and urban areas at the household level. Secondly, 
at a macro level, food that is produced and that will not be consumed pointlessly utilises 
natural resources, produces GHGs, and creates waste. Higher levels of GHGs in the 
atmosphere are well known to influence and hasten climate change, which is causing severe 
problems in our biosphere (Phil et al., 2015). The environmental impact of food waste is 
evaluated using three indicators, namely carbon footprint, ecological footprint, and water 
footprint (Buchner et al., 2012). 
2.3.1.1  Carbon footprint 
The carbon footprint of food waste is estimated to be 3.3 gigatonnes of CO2 (Hudson & 
Messa, 2014). The carbon footprint mainly indicates GHGs emitted during production, which 
primarily consist of CO2 created by the usage of fossil fuels, CH4 derivatives from livestock 
9 
enteric fermentation, and N2O emissions caused by the use of nitrogen-based fertilisers 
(Buchner et al., 2012). Animal products such as dairy, meat, and cheese have the highest 
carbon footprint; for example, the carbon footprint of discarded beef and pork is one of the 
largest for food, even though they contribute to only 4% of food waste (FAO, 2013b). 
2.3.1.2  Water footprint 
Agricultural production accounts for over 90% of the total water footprint and is the largest 
consumer of water resources (Phil et al., 2015). The water footprint refers to a specific 
indicator of the use of freshwater and is developed to deliver both the definite amounts of 
water resources used and how the water is used (Buchner et al., 2012). The FAO (2013a) 
assumes that the water footprint of food waste consists of water usage in the agricultural 
phase only. Gibson (2016) reasons that the water footprint also includes virtual water, 
which is water used in processing, production, and consumption. All forms of water, 
whether direct or indirect, are therefore accounted for.  
2.3.1.3  Ecological footprint 
The ecological footprint is an indicator used to measure the impact of a specific population’s 
consumption on the environment. It measures the total area of land and water ecosystems 
needed to sustainably make available all the resources used and to absorb all the emissions 
produced sustainably (Buchner et al., 2012). Produced but uneaten food uses up almost 
1.4 billion hectares of land, which signifies almost 30% of global agricultural land area 
(Hudson & Messa, 2014). 
2.3.2  Economic impact 
Food waste also represents a relative financial loss, not only on a country or food industry 
scale but a household scale as well. Wasting food is related to wasting time, labour, and 
money, at the global and local scale (Phil et al., 2015).  
Economic losses are different for each phase of the FSC. Producers who have unharvested 
produce or discard perfectly edible products that do not adhere to market size and aesthetic 
standards imply wasted food. Retailers, who discard products due to mechanical or 
10 
biological spoilage, also have monetary losses. The spoilage is often due to transport 
because of long distances between the place of production and the store, or because of long 
journeys to slaughterhouses. Retailers also dispose of products left unsold before their 
expiry date, discard edible products close to their “best before” dates, or throw away edible 
products that are below the required aesthetic standards; all of which contributes to 
financial loss (Phil et al., 2015). 
The global market is ruled by demand and supply, which involve price variations of a given 
product. As a result, increases in prices, in turn, lead to food conflicts in lower-income 
regions. In the case of a decrease in prices, wasting by producers can be expected, since 
selling food items at a lower price than the harvesting cost is not a lucrative option (Phil 
et al., 2015). The increasing demand for food in developed countries has contributed to an 
increase in food prices, which in turn causes the food to be expensive for poor people (Enos, 
2019). Sharing the same sentiment, Phil et al. (2015) indicate that the economy has an 
influence on households and affects the most impoverished households rather than the 
richest. 
Food waste also influences the purchasing capacity of households. It occurs directly in the 
sense that discarding a product is equal to money lost (Segré et al., 2014). It also occurs 
indirectly, as food waste suffered by stores is paid for indirectly by the consumer through 
the increase of prices, which enables the supermarket to stay profitable even if it throws 
away many products (Phil et al., 2015; Hudson & Messa, 2014). Raw commodity food prices 
also influence the price of the food we buy in stores and supermarkets (Britain et al., 2015). 
Furthermore, with a more conscious attitude towards food waste by consumers, the 
quantity of food bought per shopping trip decreases. Nevertheless, the amount of food 
eaten does not change, nor does the overall budget for food. Consumers spend the same 
amount of money on food, as they buy smaller amounts but repeatedly – hence 
contributing to minimising food waste (Britain et al., 2015).  
2.3.3 Social impact 
The social impact of food waste is considered from the angle of food security and food 
access (Segrè et al., 2014). According to the FAO (2013b), food security is a situation where 
11 
all individuals always have physical, social, and economic access to enough food that is safe 
and nutritious to fulfil their nutritional needs and food choices for a healthy and active life. 
The idea of food security also relates to whether or not food is available country-wide in 
such quantities that it will meet the energy requirements of the reference population. In 
conjunction with energy requirements, a diet should also ensure adequate nutrient content. 
The minimum daily energy requirement set by the World Health Organization is 
2 100 kilocalories per person (Segrè et al., 2014).  
While millions of tonnes of food end up in landfills, the number of people who have no 
access to suitable food and healthy diets is increasing not only in low-income countries but 
also in higher-income countries (Hudson & Messa, 2014). The World Food Programme 
further indicated in 2017 that 709 394 people in Lesotho are food insecure and that 57.1% 
of people live below the poverty line. According to Leduka et al. (2015), Lesotho has 
suffered severe food insecurity, and it continues to be a chronic problem and a key obstacle 
to the country’s development agenda.  
Moreover, Hudson and Messa (2014) explain that overproduction and food wastage 
persevere at the cost of the right to food, and the right to have consistent, permanent, and 
unlimited access to food, both directly and by way of buying. Adequate and sufficient food 
should be linked to the cultural traditions of the group of people with whom the consumer 
fits in, in order to ensure a physical and mental, individual and collective, and fulfilling and 
dignified life free of fear. 
Malnutrition is increasing in many parts of the world due to poor accessibility of food. The 
challenge of malnutrition is also influenced by increased levels of poverty or the presence of 
war in a particular country or region, with resulting reduced access to food. This implies that 
poverty may hinder people from being both able to produce or buy sufficient food. On the 
other hand, in societies where food is plentifully available, and access to food is guaranteed, 
food waste increases due to overeating (Segrè et al., 2014). 
2.4  FOOD WASTE AND CULTURE 
Food is inextricably linked and related to one’s culture, to one’s individual and collective 
histories, and to one’s identity (Segrè et al., 2014). The individual’s decisions concerning 
12 
what is suitable or not suitable to discard are thus influenced by culture and personal 
choices. The quality and type of food and food waste differ substantially from one country 
to another, which are usually dependent on how economically developed a country or 
specific area is (Enos, 2019).  
Furthermore, food waste generation, nutrition, eating, and food are primarily determined 
by the culture and self-awareness of people. The production and consumption of food have 
profound cultural roots (Enos, 2019). People produce and eat food in order to stay alive, but 
also to celebrate essential events, to define their identity, and for pleasure and enjoyment 
(Hudson & Messa, 2014).  
Cultural capacity aspects refer to tradition and traditional food-related skills and knowledge. 
For example, some consumers from different cultures experience problems with consuming 
and combining specific food items if they are not familiar with the item or lack knowledge of 
how to use it, which results in discarding the item (Segrè et al., 2014). At the same time, 
traditional cultural heritage and habits might result in differences in the management of 
food (Segrè et al., 2014).  
Cultures vary concerning the edibility of different foods and food parts. Some consume food 
wholly, while others discard different parts of food (Enos, 2019). Furthermore, people 
regard some food items as edible or inedible in certain cultures, but not in others. Culture 
therefore determines which food is consumed by members of that culture, which 
significantly influences households’ attitudes toward food and what to eat (Chrobog, 2014). 
The personal relationship an individual has with food directly influences the amount of food 
waste that person generates and profoundly affects consumers’ values regarding food. 
Moreover, dwindling religious practices have led to the degradation of the value of food 
(Phil et al., 2015). In addition, weddings and religious and traditional holidays might 
influence food loss and waste, since they present additional difficulties in predicting the 
demand for food products. These could also possibly lead to excess production that 
necessitates management at the processing, retail, or consumption levels, and therefore 
potentially becoming a source of food waste (Segrè et al., 2014). 
13 
Consumers’ lifestyle also influences food waste generation. As many consumers have 
moved to urban areas, dietary and consumption patterns have also changed. Urban 
consumers generally stay far away from the place of production and become dissociated 
with seasonal food items (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015). As a result, the value of labour 
that a farmer provides to a product tends to vanish in urban areas. Consumers’ lifestyles and 
conveniences are entangled in food waste for a variety of reasons, such as the consumption 
and the need for fast food, both in a restaurant and in a household, as well as the use of a 
microwave for prepared meals. This contributes to food that needs to be gobbled up, and 
basic knowledge about cooking fresh products efficiently and how to manage a good meal 
with what is available disintegrating. This leads to food items being discarded more easily 
(Phil et al., 2015). 
African society is a society of abundance that has a throwaway mentality, which means that 
consumers can buy what they want and where they want. This mentality is further 
exacerbated by the market enterprise and advertisements. This desire for variety, both in 
the refrigerator and in the stores, has a direct influence on food waste (Phil et al., 2015).  
2.5  REASONS FOR HOUSEHOLD FOOD WASTE  
Food waste generation in households is a result of consumers’ behaviour and their lifestyles. 
This relates to different features of food purchasing, preparation, consumption, and post-
meal behaviour, each of which is influenced by several factors (Qi & Roe, 2016). The types of 
food consumed and the way food is packaged influence the purchasing of food, and, 
consequently, the extent to which food is wasted (Marangon et al., 2015). It is therefore 
essential to educate people in order to help them change their habits (Pärn, 2016). 
According to Van Geffen et al. (2016), there are two types of situations in which consumer 
food waste occurs, namely in-home and out-of-home eating. In-home consumer food waste 
refers to food waste from food products such as drinks or meals that are prepared and 
partly consumed in the household. This is inclusive of situations in which food is wasted 
from meals prepared in the home but eaten elsewhere (i.e. picnics and packed lunches), as 
well as food prepared elsewhere but consumed in-home, such as ready-made convenience 
meals and take-aways.  
14 
Out-of-home consumer food waste refers to food waste that occurs when consumers eat 
food prepared by food services outside of the home. This includes restaurants, snack bars, 
kiosks at train stations, canteens, as well as institutions such as homes for the elderly and 
prisons (Van Geffen et al., 2016).  
Food waste produced in households mostly consist of perishable food items such as unused 
or spoiled cooked food, excess cooked food, vegetable and fruit peelings, beverages that 
have gone off, undesirable raw food, meat scraps, fresh fruits and vegetables, and salad 
(Žitnik & Vidic, 2016; Ramukhwatho et al., 2016). Food spoilage may occur because of 
improper storage, partially used ingredients, and overestimated food needs (Gustavsson et 
al., 2013). Moreover, incorrect food storing and paying too little attention to the 
instructions indicated on the labels are also considered factors that add to household food 
waste (Segrè et al., 2014; Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015).  
Avoidable household food waste accounts for approximately one-quarter of all avoidable 
food wastage and is equal to roughly 0.8 portions being thrown away per person per day 
(Hoover, 2017). It is therefore imperative to reduce the quantity of food wasted (Gustavsson 
et al., 2013). The following sections discuss the main reasons for household food waste. 
2.5.1 Storage   
Food products that are not appropriately stored reduce the shelf life of these products and 
add to the amount of food wasted in households (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015). Freezing 
or refrigeration is considered the best measure to combat food waste (Van Dooren & 
Mensink, 2014), and is also the preferred method for preserving food. Refrigeration is used 
to reduce bacterial action in order to keep food safe for a longer time (Aschemann-Witzel 
et al., 2015).  
Food products such as dairy, meat, and vegetables need to be refrigerated to avoid spoilage. 
Food is generally stored between temperatures of 3 and 7 degrees Celsius (°C), which is 
somewhat higher than the sub-zero temperatures of a freezer (Amini et al., 2012). 
Nevertheless, many consumers set their refrigerators to temperatures higher than 7 °C, as 
they do not know which is the best temperature for a refrigerator to prevent food spoilage 
15 
(Van Dooren & Mensink, 2014). However, some advice that a temperature of 8 °C is 
acceptable (Glanz, 2008). 
Freezing solidifies water in the food, unlike refrigeration. This causes frozen foods to be kept 
fresh for up to six months, compared to refrigeration, which keeps it useful for at most 
seven days. The main reason is that in frozen foods, the free water is unavailable for 
bacterial growth and chemical and biochemical reactions. Freezing inactivates and prevents 
bacterial growth without changing the taste or texture of most food products, except for 
fruits, which become mushy (Amini et al., 2012). 
Food storage is also an essential aspect of post-purchase behaviour (Borisova, 2013). 
Evidence indicates that there is a positive correlation between storage space capacity and 
food waste (Borisova, 2013). In general, consumers with larger cupboard/refrigerator 
capacity are likely to waste more in comparison with those who have less storage capacity. 
Improper storage contributes to food waste, as most consumers are incapable of accurately 
measuring whether food is safe to eat or not (Shafiee-Jood & Cai, 2016; Glanz, 2008).  
Fresh products such as fruits, vegetables, meat, and fish obtained directly from the farm or 
after the catch can spoil in hot climates, especially if there is a lack of infrastructure for 
transportation, storage, cooling, and markets (FAO, 2010).  
2.5.2  Packaging  
As much as 20% to 25% of food is wasted due to packaging factors, such as packages being 
too large and packages not being easy to empty. Consumers generally do not make 
optimum use of packaging functions such as that of packaging prolonging the product’s 
lifetime at home (Gustavsson et al., 2013). Food products packaged in considerably larger 
portions have a significant influence on household food waste such as not being able to 
portion bulk fresh foods for timely consumption. In most instances, the larger quantities are 
comparatively cheaper to purchase (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015). 
In addition, many consumers think products should be unpacked from their packaging 
before storage, although that is not always the case (Van Dooren & Mensink, 2014). 
Packaging helps to keep a product fresher for a more extended period, both at home and on 
the retailers’ shelves.  
16 
2.5.3 Confusion over dates on labels  
According to Van Dooren and Mensink (2014) “use by” dates indicate when food product 
may no longer be safe to eat. Consumer’s should not consume, cook or freeze it after the 
date displayed. “Use by” dates are linked to the safety of the product. It can be consumed 
until that day but not later than the indicated date. A product with an expired “use by” date 
should be discarded as consumers may contract foodborne diseases if they consume the 
product (Van Dooren & Mensink, 2014). Storage instructions should be carefully followed. 
“Use by” dates are frequently found on chilled products such as cooked meats, soft cheeses, 
and dairy-based desserts (WRAP, 2013).Whereas, “best before” dates food product is still 
safe to consume after the indicated best before date but its flavour and texture is not as 
good as before date. Food products that have an expired “best before” date can be 
consumed without causing illness to consumers (Van Dooren & Mensink, 2014). According 
to WRAP (2011), “best before” dates are generally put on longer-shelf-life foods such as 
frozen, tinned, or dried goods, and indicate quality rather than safety.  
Confusion over food expiry dates such as “use by” and “best before” dates has been 
specified as one of the main reasons of food waste in households (Segrè et al., 2014; Van 
Dooren & Mensink, 2014; Borisova, 2013). This might be due to too little attention paid to 
the information reported on the labels, confusion, or a lack of knowledge about the actual 
meaning of “best before” dates (Falasconi et al., 2016; Radzymińska et al., 2016; Van 
Dooren & Mensink, 2014).  
The proper use of these terms is not adequately understood by consumers, who interpret 
this information differently depending on the food category (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; 
Borisova, 2013). A study conducted by WRAP in 2013 indicated that 36% of consumers 
interpret a “best before” date as a “use by” date, and only 55% correctly interpret “use by” 
dates. 
Consumers are attentive to the expiry dates of products in which a decrease in quality or 
risk is involved, or for products with which consumers have experience of usage. If 
consumers’ focus on the “best before” date is increased, it could save up to 14 kg of food 
waste per person per year (Van Dooren & Mensink, 2014).  
17 
The ability to restore a perishable product declines throughout its shelf life (Aschemann-
Witzel et al., 2015). This occurs particularly rapidly when the process influences the quality 
of the product. In most cases, consumers see dates of foods as an indicator of freshness and 
not as healthiness or a safety indicator; as a result, consumers are prepared to pay more for 
the food item. Products that are close to their expiry dates are often rejected by consumers 
(Göbel et al., 2015). 
 2.5.4  Inadequate planning  
Planning meals in advance or spot-checking inventories can assist in reducing food waste 
(Enos, 2019). Improper planning, such as purchasing too many products, is another factor 
that results in food wastage (Van Geffen et al., 2016; Schneider, 2008). This increases the 
probability that not all products will be eaten before spoiling. Consequently, a lack of 
planning increases the chances of spoilage (Pärn, 2016; Van Geffen et al., 2016; Aschemann-
Witzel et al., 2015).  
Employing planning strategies, such as writing a shopping list, compiling meal plans 
beforehand, or checking inventories prior to shopping, minimises food waste (Enos, 2019; 
Jörissen et al., 2015; Van Dooren & Mensink, 2014). It is important to note that there is not 
yet clarity on the correlation between adequate planning and reduced food waste levels 
(Enos, 2019). Consumers who do not plan their meals and shop without shopping lists 
usually make incorrect estimates of how many ingredients they will use during the week. 
This influences consumers to overestimate and purchase unnecessary food items that are 
eventually not consumed (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015).  
Furthermore, having unplanned restaurant meals or food delivery can result in food at 
home going off before it can be used (Van Dooren & Mensink, 2014; Borisova, 2013). The 
household’s particular lifestyle influences the meal preparation frequency, as well as the 
time for planning or preparing dishes. Unexpected invitations for dinner or eating out may 
be reasons for some households not using the bought food as planned (Glanz, 2008). 
18 
2.5.5  Purchasing behaviour 
Over the past decade, there has been a marked change in the way consumers purchase 
food. The new tendency is not to plan meals but rather to be more impulsive (Pärn, 2016; 
Gjerris & Gaiani, 2013). In Nordic stores, up to 75% of purchases were found to be impulse 
purchases (Gjerris & Gaiani, 2013). Numerous grocery stores tempt consumers to purchase 
fewer products and visit the store more often, which encourages impulsive purchasing 
behaviour (Pärn, 2016). If shopping-trip plans are utilised and adhered to, food waste can be 
reduced (Evans, 2012). 
A higher frequency of visiting stores results in more food being discarded (Jörissen et al., 
2015). However, consumers who purchase only once a week have been found to be more 
wasteful than consumers who visit stores more often (Borisova, 2013). If all the food items 
for the week are bought during one purchasing trip, the proper estimation of the correct 
quantity of food is often not exact because of some uncertainties involved in planning. 
Furthermore, consumers tend to purchase large amounts of food or more than needed in 
order to reduce inconvenience and to avoid additional trips to the store (Aschemann-Witzel 
et al., 2015). More substantial amounts of food, if not consumed timely, can spoil and 
increase food waste (Pärn, 2016). 
In this sense, online shopping could prove to be very advantageous because it saves time 
and consumers are not dependent on stores’ operating hours. Moreover, purchasing items 
already present in the household is reduced. However, consumers cannot see if a product is 
of good quality or not and how fresh it is (Glanz, 2008). Interestingly, consumers who shop 
only at supermarkets have the highest food waste indices of households. Food waste 
declines when purchases take place at small stores and local markets and is at the minimum 
when people grow their own food (Jörissen et al., 2015).  
Purchasing habits, such as overbuying of food or purchasing unintended products, or being 
attracted by promotions, negatively affect household food waste (Evans, 2012). Reasons for 
this occurrence include no planning before shopping, lack of knowledge regarding what is in 
storage or the refrigerator, impulsive purchasing caused by promotions and marketing 
influences in the store, the presence of other persons or children during shopping (Glanz, 
2008), changed plans, cooking for more people than will be present at the meal, 
19 
experimenting with new products or recipes, and meal preparation for special occasions 
(FAO, 2010). 
Special offers, to some extent, affect food waste. The consumers’ way of planning their food 
shopping is influenced by special offers (Segrè et al., 2014). Special offers, promotions, and 
large portion sizes cause consumers to purchase more than they need (Aschemann-Witzel 
et al., 2015; Schneider, 2008). Also, higher occurrences of unplanned purchases relate to 
higher levels of waste. Sales and promotions motivate consumers to be impulsive and 
purchase large amounts of food. Retail stores frequently influence consumers to buy items 
that do not form part of their regular meal plans and these items often spoil before they can 
be consumed (Van Dooren & Mensink, 2014). In addition, items bought at discount prices or 
impulsively tend to be discarded (Glanz, 2008). 
2.5.6  Excess preparation  
Another major reason why food is thrown away is the preparation of too much food. 
Consumers find it difficult to estimate correct amounts, and in many instances follow their 
instincts when cooking. As a result, households that do not accurately calculate how much 
they need to cook, discard more food (Van Dooren & Mensink, 2014). Furthermore, 
consumers tend to buy more than they would during regular shopping when preparing 
meals for bigger groups, which also results in more food waste (Oelofse & Nahman, 2013).  
Leftover food is the result of excess preparation and the most significant contributor to food 
waste because of the way it is dealt with (Cronjé et al., 2018; Pärn, 2016). In most cases, 
small quantities of leftover food are thrown away because there was too little worth saving 
for another meal (Evans, 2012). The majority of consumers are unable or not willing to try to 
prepare meals using leftovers in the refrigerator, mainly due to a lack of cooking confidence 
and skills (Van Geffen et al., 2016; Van Dooren & Mensink, 2014). Consumers rather store 
leftovers to consume it later, and only discard it if it was not eaten within what they view as 
a suitable time (Van Dooren & Mensink, 2014; Evans, 2012). Furthermore, some consumers 
are not comfortable with or dislike eating the same leftovers multiple times in a row, as it 
can cause “leftover fatigue” and loss of interest in eating still-edible foods (Evans, 2012). If 
20 
there is plenty of leftovers, it could be frozen, which is an alternative to forcing the idea that 
leftovers need to be eaten right away or over multiple consecutive days (Evans, 2012).  
Providing recipes and ideas for using leftovers could minimise food that is wasted. Cooking 
education can provide consumers with a sense of responsibility and control over the 
ingredients, cooking style, and portion size of food to avoid food waste. Consumers should 
be provided with the correct information concerning quantities and measuring out 
quantities with a measuring cup or scale in order to minimise food waste (Condrasky et al., 
2015).  
Furthermore, cooking skills affect consumption since the degree of confidence in cooking 
also has an impact on the shopping behaviour of consumers (Van Geffen et al., 2016). 
Consumers who lack adequate cooking skills are less willing to try different cooking methods 
and styles than consumers with better cooking skills. Trying out new or unfamiliar food can 
also result in an increased amount of food waste (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015). 
2.5.7  Health concerns 
It is worth mentioning that households that adopt a health-conscious style of living are also 
culprits in the household food waste context. The assumption that health-conscious 
consumers are also conscious of the environment is not always correct. A variety of 
different foods in their meals is necessary, predominantly more fresh and perishable 
products such as fruits or vegetables. Due to the perishable nature of the food items, food 
waste can be relatively high in these households, although very little literature exists on this 
topic (Glanz, 2008). 
2.5.8  Children 
During shopping trips, parents are sometimes significantly influenced by what their children 
like and enjoy as they are picky eaters and do not always like the food prepared for them. It 
is also true that households that include children tend to have higher rates of food waste 
(Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015). Furthermore, reheated foods are not given to children by 
some caregivers due to health concerns, which results in food that is discarded (Glanz, 
2008). 
21 
2.5.9  Food spoilage 
Food safety and hygiene play a part in food waste. Thirty-four percent (34%) of consumers 
discard food in the bin straight away when the expiry date is reached, 21% do not consume 
products that are near the expiry date, and 30% of consumers do not eat food that does not 
appear pleasing in terms of colour, taste, or smell (Borisova, 2013).  
Food poisoning constitutes a serious societal threat, and consumers who express a deep 
concern for food safety will, in all likelihood, generate more waste (Borisova, 2013). 
However, food spoilage is closely linked to the summer season when temperatures are 
higher and food spoils faster (Radzymińska et al., 2016). 
2.6  FACTORS THAT AFFECT HOUSEHOLD FOOD WASTE 
Several factors affect household food waste, such as consumerism in terms of excessive 
consumption, increased accessibility of inexpensive food, and modern lifestyles. In 
combination with these factors, the devaluation of food by consumers also has a definite 
impact on food waste. Food is perceived as something that is palpable and not useful, and 
consumers are no longer acquainted with the cultural background of the food they eat. 
There has also been an alteration in social and emotional links with food. Households are no 
longer eating together as part of a family tradition, and consequently, traditional family 
recipes are vanishing (Gjerris & Gaiani, 2013). 
Wasting food has become habitual behaviour in some households. It is therefore vital to 
consider moral, normative, emotional, and social influences in the food waste context, and 
it is just as critical to understand the way consumers make choices and selections regarding 
food (Boto & Biasca, 2012). Motivation to stop food waste connects to the willingness of an 
individual consumer to perform actions that avoid increasing food waste. In this sense, 
awareness, attitude, and social norms are the most powerful motivational constructs (Van 
Geffen et al., 2016). 
2.6.1  Consumption behaviour and food patterns  
Consumer behaviour is determined by ethical factors that play a part in their decision-
making processes. When consumers decide to discard a food item, they are also influenced 
22 
and necessitated by a multitude of factors and decisions (Boto & Biasca, 2012). Food waste 
is often determined by social practices and food and eating habits (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 
2015).  
Most of the decisions consumers make daily happen without thinking about it in depth 
(Albisu, 2016). At times, decisions are made due to traditional habits, lack of knowledge, 
poor appreciation, or many other reasons. One of the primary reasons for household food 
waste is that some people can afford to waste food due to its abundant availability (Boto & 
Biasca, 2012). 
Food consumption patterns and food habits are significantly influenced by international 
trends such as fast food, ethnic cuisine, and the gourmet restaurant culture (Gjerris & 
Gaiani, 2013). In addition, socio-demographic and psychological factors influence 
consumption, food habits, and thus food waste, although they are often overlooked 
(Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015). 
2.6.2  Values and the perceived value of food  
Food waste in households occurs because of incompatible values some consumers attempt 
to live by, as well as how food is valued (Enos, 2019). The abundance of available food at 
lower costs affects how food is valued and how much food is wasted in high-income 
countries; however, a shortage of food and increasing food prices would not necessarily 
decrease food waste in households (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015).  
Values have an effect on detected behavioural control and play a significant role in the 
clarification of individual groups, and societal behaviour and values are a significant 
preliminary step in the process of connection that influences specific behaviour. Values play 
a central role in forming negative or positive attitudes. In addition, values play a part in 
constructing social and moral norms, and impact beliefs that are crucial to perception and 
describe the connections between different components (Borisova, 2013).  
As a consequence, beliefs around food and different values and norms among various 
cultures have a direct influence on food waste; more specifically, how certain foods must be 
dealt with in particular situations (Borisova, 2013). 
23 
2.6.3  Awareness  
Consumer awareness is one of the critical features of understanding food waste behaviour 
(Borisova, 2013). Glanz (2008) explains that households have different considerations when 
referring to food waste. In the majority of households, food waste is something they have 
control over. Leftovers or spoilt food, thus rendered inedible, is generally not considered 
“waste” in the judgement of some consumers. However, most agree that food waste is 
avoidable; every person throws away at least some quantities of food that could have been 
eaten (Marangon et al., 2015). Consumers are keen to pay less for foods with visual 
faultiness compared to higher-quality foods, and this understanding is also applicable to 
organic foods in comparison with conventional foods (Oelofse & Nahman, 2013). 
When purchasing products that are on promotion, consumers are aware that not every item 
will be consumed, which ultimately leads to discarded products extended beyond their 
expiry date (Radzymińska et al., 2016). Consumers are not always aware of how much food 
they throw away because, in most circumstances, only small quantities of food are 
discarded (Evans, 2012). As a consequence, consumers tend to underestimate the amount 
of food waste they generate (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; Glanz, 2008). This lack of 
awareness promotes wasteful behaviour, and, on the contrary, when consumers are aware 
of the consequences of food waste behaviour, they are more vigilant and better organised 
(Borisova, 2013). 
Most consumers agree that food waste is not acceptable, and a few are even willing to 
admit that their household is creating too much food waste (Van Geffen et al., 2016; Neff 
et al., 2015). In all likelihood, it is concluded that due to a lack of awareness, food waste 
occurs due to complex behaviours, rather than being intentional behaviour (Van Geffen 
et al., 2016). Food waste often occurs unintentionally (Pärn, 2016). At some stage, every 
consumer discards, even if minutely, some quantity of food that could have been consumed 
(Glanz, 2008). However, in some instances, a household that discards 5 kg of food waste per 
week would be producing 260 kg (equivalent to 13 filled garbage bags) of food waste per 
year (Evans, 2012).  
Understanding consumers’ behaviour and creating awareness are therefore critical 
components to understanding and minimising food waste (Glanz, 2008). The lack of 
24 
awareness contributes to wasteful behaviour, and, consequently, when consumers are 
conscious of the inferences of food waste behaviour, it is believed that it could be reduced 
(Borisova, 2013). 
2.6.4  Attitudes towards food waste  
Attitude refers to a person’s judgment when discarding food. It incorporates the emotional 
state and related thoughts, beliefs, and ideas that are carried to the surface when disposing 
of food (Russell et al., 2017; Van Geffen et al., 2016). Attitudes act as an essential role player 
in creating one’s intentions (Borisova, 2013). The attitudes and behaviour of the consumer 
also play a vital function in determining the amount of food that is discarded in households 
(Lipinski et al., 2013). Attitudes towards food waste and food quality therefore have a 
substantial effect on wasteful behaviour (Van Dooren & Mensink, 2014).   
The attitudes of consumers concerning food waste symbolise favourable or unfavourable 
judgement behaviour towards the minimisation of food waste (Boom, 2012). Radzymińska 
et al. (2016) further explain that attitudes toward food waste rely on the extent to which 
consumers are aware of the information included on the product and product packaging 
(i.e. “best before” date). Favourable attitudes towards decreasing food waste are 
anticipated to result in stronger intentions to decrease food waste, as indicated by the 
theory of planned behaviour (Boom, 2012).   
In general, most consumers have negative attitudes towards wasting food and feel culpable 
when discarding food (Borisova, 2013). Consumers feel guilty and concerned when they 
discard food and want to decrease food waste in their households (Borisova, 2013; Pärn, 
2016). Consumers who regard food waste as a considerable problem play an essential role 
in reducing waste. On the other hand, food waste problems are primarily because of the 
structural characteristics of households linked to modern lifestyles, such as planning and 
shopping routines (Marangon et al., 2015). The absence of planning and prioritising is the 
reason consumer’s waste food in contrast to their attitude and intention because they 
prioritise time saving or convenience, health goals or safety concerns, and flexibility or 
enjoyment over wasting food (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015). 
25 
In addition, many consumers deem food waste as an unnecessary loss of money that affects 
them negatively (Van Geffen et al., 2016). Consequently, consumers have the possibility of 
saving money by reducing food waste; however, ethical issues related to fairness, such as 
values or religious beliefs, seem to influence food waste behaviour to a greater extent than 
financial factors (Boom, 2012).  
Many consumers have indicated that the common reason for discarding food is their 
concern for foodborne illness and they merely want to consume the freshest food (Neff 
et al., 2015). In this regard, some consumers believe that reducing food waste implies that 
they must consume products that are past their “use by” date or which are already spoilt 
(Van Geffen et al., 2016). Nevertheless, other consumers have admitted to discarding food 
because of personal preferences such as a dislike for the taste or disliking eating leftovers 
(Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015).  
2.6.5  Social and moral norms  
There are mainly two different types of social norms, namely injunctive and descriptive 
norms. Injunctive social norms refer to the extent to which consumers observe and consider 
wasting food as approved or disapproved behaviour by others who are significant to them; 
hence a correct type of behaviour is recommended depending on the situation. Descriptive 
social norms happen when an individual accepts what is reasonable (“normal”) to do by 
others (Borisova, 2013). 
Consumers adopt food wasting as accepted behaviour because of the perception that it is 
unavoidable; however, other consumers discern food waste as unacceptable behaviour 
(Van Geffen et al., 2016). According to Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2015), the difference 
between food and eating is the complexity of habits and rituals. The food waste that occurs 
in households is mostly unnoticeable and, thus, much less influenced by social norms or 
social signalling (Marangon et al., 2015; Van Dooren and Mensink, 2014). Furthermore, 
Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2015) indicate that social norms are transferred between personal 
networks of friends, family, or neighbours, and create personal norms. 
Other social norms have been indicated to be relevant to food waste in households, and it is 
indicative of being a good provider for the household as there is surplus food (Van Geffen 
26 
et al., 2016). Being a good provider denotes ensuring that wide varieties of healthy and 
delicious foods are obtainable for household members and guests (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 
2015). Consequently, the desire to express that one is a good provider may lead to food that 
becomes spoiled. Consumers describe that living up to this norm is crucial to them, even if it 
may lead to food waste (Van Geffen et al., 2016).  
2.6.6  Knowledge and skills  
Consumers often do not have adequate knowledge or confidence to make meals from 
leftovers, which raises the possibility of wasting food (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015). For 
this reason, consumers should be provided with appropriate knowledge and skills for proper 
management of leftovers in order to create tasty meals out of leftovers and thus to help 
reduce household food waste (Van Geffen et al., 2016).  
Moreover, consumers tend to estimate the edibility of food items inaccurately. Household 
practices such as keeping the temperature of refrigerators too high and incorrect storage of 
food products further exacerbate the situation (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015). The lack of 
knowledge concerning the advantages of product packaging and the guidelines for using it 
are often misunderstood by consumers (Van Geffen et al., 2016). 
When knowledge is transferred to consumers, it is noteworthy to consider that they often 
lack the insight to incorporate the knowledge into their daily life and food management 
behaviour. Solutions must therefore be practical and time efficient. Skills allow consumers 
to waste less food because they will be able to deal with food correctly at home. Practical 
solutions empower consumers not to waste food when their day-to-day life practices are 
integrated, such as making shopping lists, planning meals in advance, using foods that are 
about to spoil to create tasty meals, making new dishes from leftovers, and lengthening the 
shelf life of food products that otherwise will not be eaten in time (Van Geffen et al., 2016). 
2.6.7  Demographic factors  
Demographic factors – primarily income levels, the presence of children in the household, 
household size, and age – have a notable effect on households’ behaviour regarding food 
waste (Borisova, 2013). It is impossible to separate any specific socio-demographic factor(s) 
27 
as an explanatory variable(s) for food waste; the collection of various socio-demographic 
factors that relate to the amount of food wasted in households is therefore necessary 
(Schanes et al., 2018).   
Demographic factors have an indirect influence on food waste behaviour, but most probably 
a more significant impact on the motivation, ability, or opportunity to not waste food. In 
other words, demographic factors have an effect on food waste through the concepts of the 
consumers’ food managing process (Van Geffen et al., 2016). Enos (2019), however, is of the 
opinion that socio-demographic factors are directly linked to food waste. 
2.6.7.1  Household size and composition 
Household composition, particularly the presence of children, tends to affect the amount of 
food waste. In this sense, more food waste is generated because small children often dislike 
prepared food (Borisova, 2013). Children can be choosy eaters who influence their parents 
to dispose of food (Borisova, 2013; Van Geffen et al., 2016). Adults still generate more food 
waste than children, even though the highest amount of food waste is found in households 
with children younger than 16 years (Glanz, 2008).  
According to Enos (2019), larger households have been found to waste more food in 
comparison with smaller households. Consumers in large households generate more food 
waste (Van Geffen et al., 2016; Borisova, 2013). Segrè et al. (2014) disagree with the 
previous authors, explaining that larger families are likely to be more disciplined, while 
smaller households are likely to have higher waste per person. Larger families have 
experience, evidence, and information to estimate what their weekly needs are. It is 
therefore easy to buy only what is needed. Moreover, packaging and the size of portions are 
generally geared towards larger quantities that cater for large households. As a 
consequence, food waste is the highest in single-person households (Borisova, 2013). 
2.6.7.2  Age 
Age is negatively correlated with the amount of food waste generated (Borisova, 2013). 
Children and teenagers are considered significant contributors to waste compared to older 
adults. Young working people (16 to 34 years) are also considered a focus group as they 
28 
generate vast amounts of food waste (Glanz, 2008). There is consensus that consumers over 
50 years of age dispose of minimal food due to varied attitudes toward food and prudence 
in avoiding waste. This is most likely because they are very conscious about saving and 
reusing, use more of their time being at home, and they are financially constrained (Pärn, 
2016; Borisova, 2013; Wassermann & Schneider, 2005). 
Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2015) furthermore elucidate and indicate that this might be 
associated with the social and cultural background of young and elderly consumers. Elderly 
consumers have lived during periods of food shortages, while young consumers have not. 
Acculturation has been connected to the perceptions and habits of the consumer 
concerning food management. Moreover, elderly people may waste a smaller amount of 
food because they regularly have more time and a better understanding of the impacts of 
food waste compared to younger people (Van Geffen et al., 2016). 
2.6.7.3  Education and income 
Households with varied income levels differ in their attitudes concerning which type and 
how much food is wasted (Schanes et al., 2018). Consumers with lower incomes produce a 
large amount of food waste, mainly because they do not plan their shopping and have a 
“live for today” attitude (Pärn, 2016, Van Geffen et al., 2016; Glanz, 2008). On the other 
hand, the evidence that Borisova (2013) gathered indicated that higher-income households 
tend to waste a more considerable amount of food in comparison with lower-income 
households, most likely because a smaller salary and increased food prices are associated 
with less food waste (Van Geffen et al., 2016). 
Although there does not appear to be a strong correlation between education level and 
food waste, Schanes et al. (2018) in their review of household food waste did find that 
people who are employed are likely to generate more food waste in comparison to people 
who are not employed (Schanes et al., 2018). In addition, individuals who are working full-
time usually feel that they have less time to concern themselves about food waste issues 
(Schanes et al., 2018; Wassermann & Schneider, 2005).  
29 
2.6.7.4  Gender  
There are somewhat mixed opinions about gender and food waste generation. Some studies 
have indicated that women generate less food waste, while others assume that women 
waste more because they are responsible for the grocery purchases of the household 
(Schanes et al., 2018). Women are, however, also more likely to take the initiative in 
reducing food waste than men (Pärn, 2016; Van Geffen et al., 2016; Aschemann-Witzel 
et al., 2015; Koivupuro et al., 2012). As a result of this debate, it is proposed that gender 
does not have a substantial influence on food waste (Schanes et al., 2018). Since food waste 
originates from households, which consist of joint individuals who often share food 
management responsibilities, it is difficult to recognise who is accountable for food waste 
(Van Geffen et al., 2016). 
2.7  PREVENTATIVE MEASURES TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE  
Prevention is the preferred strategy to decrease food waste (Florkowski et al., 2018). Food 
waste prevention is an ongoing process that necessitates households, producers, and other 
participants in the economy to adjust their behaviour (Glanz, 2008). Food waste is usually 
the consequence of many different individual behavioural aspects, at different times that 
increase the possibility of waste (Van Geffen et al., 2016). However, if consumers and other 
role players are willing to adapt or change their behaviour in these stages, it will culminate 
in a decrease of the amount of food waste (Hoover, 2017). The following is a discussion of 
household behaviours that can reduce food waste: 
2.7.1  Planning 
Planning refers both to the planning before food enters the household and when the food is 
in stock. Consumers should be realistic when making meal plans whereby they choose meals 
that will be eaten during specific periods such as a day or week, and the number of people 
who will eat these meals (Van Geffen et al., 2016). Consumers who are without meal plans 
and shopping lists habitually make incorrect estimations of what and how many ingredients 
they will use during the week, which may result in inventory underestimation and purchases 
of unnecessary food items that are eventually not consumed (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 
2015). 
30 
Moreover, strategies such as preparing for shopping trips by making lists of food products 
that are needed and their quantities, checking what is available at home, and only buying 
items on the shopping list can help consumers to decrease food waste (Enos, 2019; Hoover, 
2017; Anding 2016; Van Geffen et al., 2016). Planning practices like checking storage space 
are essential for consumers when making plans to be updated and informed so that they are 
knowledgeable of which food items they already have, as well as their shelf life. Consumers 
need a concrete action plan in order to decrease their food waste (Van Geffen et al., 2016).  
2.7.2  Provisioning  
Provisioning refers to all the ways in which food products enter the household. Most food 
products are purchased at supermarkets, greengrocers, butchers, or farmers’ markets. 
Online and home-delivered purchases are other methods to order food products used in 
households. Moreover, food can be grown at home, foraged, received as gifts, or purchased 
as sit-down meals or takeaways from restaurants. Another form of provisioning is the 
leftover food brought into the household from out-of-home consumption (Van Geffen et al., 
2016).  
It is suggested that more frequent trips to grocery stores should be undertaken, adhering to 
a prepared shopping list, and avoiding bulk purchases, discounted food items, and/or 
special offers if the items are not necessary. Furthermore, consumers should be vigilant of 
supermarkets with promotional offers (Van Geffen et al., 2016; Aschemann-Witzel et al., 
2015; Jörissen et al., 2015; Segrè et al., 2014; Borisova, 2013; Glanz, 2008). 
2.7.3  Storage  
Storage refers to the storing of food, either as single items or as a combination of foods. 
Food storage is also an essential aspect of post-purchasing behaviour (Borisova, 2013) as the 
correct storage extends the shelf life of the products. Food can be stored in a refrigerator, 
freezer, cupboards, or other forms of storage (Van Geffen et al., 2016).  
Organised storage helps to prevent food waste; however, messy or disorganised storage 
spaces result in the risk of forgetting about products (Van Dooren & Mensink, 2014). 
Furthermore, thorough and extensive cleaning of storage spaces, refrigerators, and freezers 
31 
has been shown to lead to less food waste (Van Geffen et al., 2016). The capacity of storage 
space also correlates positively with food waste (Borisova, 2013). In general, consumers 
with a bigger cupboard/refrigerator capacity are likely to be more significant wasters 
compared to those with less storage capacity. Improper storage contributes to food waste, 
as most consumers are not able to accurately measure whether food is safe to eat or not 
(Shafiee-Jood & Cai, 2016; Glanz, 2008). 
The edibility of food products is determined by using different methods. Older people 
habitually use their senses, whereas young people are likely to make use of date labels or 
the number of days it has been in storage. The usage of senses has been linked to a 
reduction of food waste, while the misunderstanding and lack of knowledge concerning 
“use by” and “best before” dates are primary reasons for food waste (Van Geffen et al., 
2016).  
Food storage can increase the chances of food waste due to specific behaviour. Such 
behaviours include buying frozen and chilled products with or without a cool bag, which 
affects the shelf life of the products after purchasing (Van Geffen et al., 2016). Moreover, 
the shelf life can be affected by how products are stored. For instance, it is common for 
consumers to store products incorrectly, which means that the shelf life is not extended to 
its full extent (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; Van Geffen et al., 2016). Aschemann-Witzel 
et al. (2015) state that such behaviour is intentional among some consumers, such as using 
a fruit bowl to motivate children to eat healthy instead of placing the fruits in the 
refrigerator due to a lack of knowledge on how to lengthen the shelf life of the products. 
2.7.4  Preparation  
Preparation refers to the handling, cooking, or preparing of food products to improve 
edibility. The majority of food products are handled before being eaten by household 
members; for example, the preparation of main meals such as breakfast, lunch, and dinner. 
The peeling of food products such as fruit or the baking of cookies for these meals falls into 
this category (Van Geffen et al., 2016). 
Products that are used only partially are found to increase the chances of food waste 
behaviour because consumers within households do not make proper use of partially left 
32 
products and must find a recipe and the time to use such products. Also, behaviour that 
increases the likelihood of food waste is the amount of food prepared (Van Geffen et al., 
2016). Consumers waste food after having prepared too much and tend to misestimate 
portion sizes, which result in leftover portions that might not be considered enough for 
storage, or they do not have the skills and knowledge to reuse leftovers or partially used 
products (Van Geffen et al., 2016; Van Dooren & Mensink, 2014).  
In some instances, this happens intentionally; for example, when consumers want to ensure 
that their household members eat meals that conform to their wishes, but it also occurs 
accidentally (Van Geffen et al., 2016). Food is also thrown away when it does not taste good, 
which in particular cases is the result of suboptimal cooking skills such as when the food is 
burned during preparation (Van Geffen et al., 2016). 
2.7.5  Consumption  
The consumption of food refers to the moments when the food products or meals are being 
eaten, and leftovers are being handled (Van Geffen et al., 2016). In most cases, food is 
discarded because consumers do not store leftovers for future use, or they do keep the 
leftovers to consume it later but then end up not eating it (Van Geffen et al., 2016; 
Van Dooren & Mensink, 2014).  
Consumers are generally reluctant to eat leftovers when they feel that food can no longer 
be consumed safely or enjoyably, but more frequently they do not know what to do with 
their leftovers and in other cases fail to recall that the leftovers are kept in storage (Van 
Dooren & Mensink, 2014). Such behaviour occurs because consumers find it problematic to 
estimate edibility and want to prevent foodborne diseases, and therefore decide to throw 
away leftovers (Van Geffen et al., 2016). 
 
  
33 
CHAPTER 3 
METHODOLOGY 
3.1  INTRODUCTION 
This chapter delineates the processes and methods used in collecting and analysing data 
concerning the main objective, which was to compare the type of food waste in the urban 
and rural areas of Lesotho. In addition, reasons for household food waste with particular 
attention to households’ behaviour, purchasing habits, attitudes, and lifestyle in both the 
urban and rural areas of Lesotho were explored. 
This chapter provides information regarding the method that was used in this research, as 
well as a justification for the use thereof. Quantitative information, such as the type and 
frequency of wasted food, as well as causes for wasting food, based on self-reported 
behaviour of consumers, was summarised. In addition, information about interrelated 
conditions such as level of employment, age of household members, and behaviour in terms 
of purchasing, cooking, and food storage habits was gathered. Finally, procedural issues of 
the research, including the timing, weighting, and integration decisions of the study, along 
with considerations for ethical issues, are discussed in this chapter. 
3.2  RESEARCH DESIGN 
The research design is the theoretical structure within which research is conducted and 
creates the plan for the collection, measurement, and analysis of data (Pandey, 2015). It 
sets the procedure for the required data, the methods to be applied to collect and analyse 
such data, and how all of it will culminate to answer the research question (Kothari, 2004).  
Quantitative research consists of mathematical tools that make use of statistical or 
computational techniques for analysis, and which provide numerical results from a selected 
subgroup that are measured more objectively in order to generalise the findings to the 
population that is being studied (Moore, 2016). Moreover, the data are collected in a logical 
and detailed manner using a predesigned data-collection tool (Dictionary of Epidemiology, 
2014).  
34 
An exploratory design is research conducted concerning a challenge that has not been 
studied intensively. It is the most appropriate research design for research projects that 
address a subject about which there are high levels of uncertainty and/or ignorance 
(Pandey, 2015). Exploratory research is often characterised by its flexibility and adaptability 
to change. It does not intend to offer final and conclusive solutions to existing problems, but 
only explores the research questions. Furthermore, it aims to articulate challenges more 
precisely, clarify concepts, gather explanations, gain insight, and form hypotheses (Moore, 
2016). 
Descriptive research design refers to the type of research questions, design, and data 
analysis that are applied to a given topic. The function of a descriptive study is to portray a 
picture of a situation, person, or event or to show how variables are related to one another 
(Kothari, 2004). Descriptive research defines research aspects such as “who”, “what”, 
“where”, “when”, and sometimes the “how” of the research. Descriptive research design 
often uses visual aids such as graphs and charts to help the reader to understand the data 
distribution by reducing the data to a manageable form (Moore, 2016).  
Consequently, a quantitative research design with an exploratory and descriptive approach 
was considered most suitable for this research in order to compare food waste in the rural 
and urban areas of Lesotho. The demographic characteristics of consumers and the 
behaviour that contributes to household food waste were also explored and described. 
3.3  TARGET POPULATION AND SAMPLING 
3.3.1  Population 
Data were collected from two urban districts of Lesotho, namely Maseru, which is also the 
capital city of Lesotho, and Butha Buthe. Mokhotlong was selected to represent the rural 
areas of Lesotho because it has the highest rate of malnutrition (49.9%) in comparison to 
other rural districts. Butha Buthe has the highest malnutrition rate (40.3%) among the urban 
districts, and Maseru has the densest population and is the largest district in Lesotho 
[Lesotho Demographic and Health Survey (LDHS)] (2014). The Butha Buthe and Mokhotlong 
districts are situated in the north-eastern part of Lesotho, and Maseru is located in central-
western Lesotho.  
35 
 
Figure 3.1: Map of Lesotho with ten administrative districts 
Mappery (2009) 
3.3.2  Sampling procedure 
Randomised probability sampling was employed, and the unit of analysis in this study was 
households. In this particular case, consumers under the age of 18 were excluded. Although 
some actively participate in food preparation and waste, they were excluded from the data-
collection process due to they cannot be given informed consent since they are minors. 
Consumers were chosen on the premise that they were above 18 years and also responsible 
36 
for food purchase and food preparation in households, and they were regarded as having 
the knowledge of all the food that is consumed and not consumed within the household, 
regardless of gender status (male, female, or other). Furthermore, the consumer had to be a 
permanent resident in one of the three study locations. Fieldworker administered the 
questionnaires to participating households.  
The fieldworker had Diploma in Home Economics obtained from Lesotho Agricultural 
College. The fieldworker was chosen from the list of 2 applicants because she was good 
speaker of both English and Sesotho language. In addition, she had good interviewing skills, 
listening skills and was skilful in personal interaction. The fieldworker was trained for four 
hours before undertaking quantitative data collection. The training was on how to use 
questionnaire and individual interview to gather data from consumers.  
The fieldworker did not in any way interfere with the process of completing the 
questionnaire but did clarify if the consumer asked a question. It took an average of 30 
minutes to complete the questionnaire. No incentives were provided, and participation was 
entirely voluntary. 
3.3.3  The size of the sample 
According to the Lesotho Bureau of Statistics (2016), the total number of households in 
Butha Buthe is 30 097, and 158 012 in Maseru, while the total number of households in 
Mokhotlong is 24 362. The minimum sample size selected for the three districts was 550 
consumers, based on a 95% level of significance, 80% power, 50% defects (which gives the 
maximum sample size), and a 0.05 margin of error (Wessa, 2019). The number of 
households sampled in Butha Buthe was 150, 250 in Maseru, and 150 in Mokhotlong. 
3.4  DATA COLLECTION 
3.4.1  Instrument 
A questionnaire was chosen as the measuring instrument for this study. The questionnaire 
was written in English and translated into the local language, Sesotho, to ensure that the 
consumers have a clear understanding of the questions asked, as it is the language 
37 
understood by the majority of citizens in Lesotho. The self-developed questionnaire is 
attached as Appendix B. 
The questionnaire consisted of nominal, ordinal, binary, and open-ended questions. Likert 
scaling was applied as possible answers to some of the closed-ended questions. For 
measuring the items, consumers were requested to mark their level of agreement on a five-
point Likert scale (from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”).  
The questionnaire consisted of the following sections: Section 1 contained all the 
demographic questions. Section 2 was related to shopping behaviour, such as how often 
consumers buy fruits, vegetables, and other food products for consumption in the home. 
Section 3 ascertained information regarding food storage and categorised food products 
according to the frequency of use. Questions to determine where consumers store fruits 
and vegetables in the home, as well as which fruits and vegetables are consumed most in 
the home, were asked.  
Section 4 investigated consumers’ management of leftovers. It included questions on 
behaviour such as what is done with excess food, and what consumers do if they notice that 
an item of food is coming close to its “best before” date. Consumers’ concerns about 
reheating leftovers that have been kept in the refrigerator for one or two days were 
reported. 
Section 5 related to food waste in general. The most common reasons for discarding food, 
the extent to which consumers were aware of the negative consequences of food waste, 
and self-reporting of the amount of food discarded were explored. The amount of effort 
consumers were willing to expend in order to minimise the amount of food thrown away 
was also estimated. 
3.4.2  Procedure 
The data were collected from February 2019 to May 2019. The questionnaire took 
approximately 30 minutes to complete. The sample was divided into two groups; the 
fieldworker interviewed the consumers that were illiterate and the literate consumers were 
given the questionnaire to complete. The concepts that were difficult to translate in Sesotho 
were explained. After completion, the fieldworker placed the questionnaire in a 
38 
tamperproof box, to which only the researcher had access. Consumers who requested to 
receive the results of the research after completion were instructed to complete a feedback 
form that contained details of where the results could be sent. 
Completed questionnaires, signed informed consent forms, and feedback forms were 
handed in separately to keep questionnaire anonymous and were taken to the researcher’s 
office on a daily basis and locked in a cabinet to which only the researcher had access. Every 
week the researcher captured data from completed questionnaires, on a password-secured 
computer, using Microsoft Excel 2013. Data were captured using a double-entry method, 
and in order to warrant the completeness of data, consistency and range checks were used. 
Communication between the fieldworker and consumers were in English or Sesotho, 
depending on the consumer’s preference. No identifying information was written on the 
questionnaire to ensure that data were anonymised. The created electronic database was 
stored on the researcher’s personal computer, which is password protected. In addition, a 
backup of the data was made on the researcher’s external hard drive, which is also 
password protected. The external hard drive was always kept in the researcher’s office in a 
locked cabinet. According to the University of the Free State’s (UFS) policy, at the end of the 
data-collection period, all forms that contain details to contact consumers for participation 
were destroyed by the researcher. 
3.5  DATA ANALYSIS 
Data gathered through questionnaires were analysed using the Statistical Package for the 
Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25. This was done in consultation with statisticians from the 
UFS, using the appropriate data-analysis methods. Basic descriptive and frequency statistics 
were conducted on the data. Moreover, Pearson’s correlations and chi-square tests were 
conducted to determine the significance and relationships between variables. The 
assumption that the expected number of responses in every category would be the same for 
a single question was made. The probability of seeing differences in the categories as large 
as or larger than what was observed under the assumption was calculated. If this probability 
is small, it is concluded that there is evidence of grouping or consensus. The significance 
level chosen was 0.05, which means that only the results where the p-value was less than 
0.05 were considered significant.  
39 
3.6  RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY 
Measuring instruments in quantitative research are determined by the reliability and 
validity of the measurements provided by the measuring tool to determine accuracy and 
consistency (Kimberlin & Winterstein, 2008). Reliability refers to the stability of findings, 
while validity is represented by the truthfulness of findings (Mohajan, 2017). The 
subsequent paragraphs describe how the reliability and validity of data-collection tools are 
evaluated. 
According to Drost (2011), reliability refers to the consistency of measurement or the 
stability of measurement over the variability of conditions in which, ultimately, the same 
results should be attained. A test used by several different people or at different times 
under stable conditions and that produces consistent results that are not changing is 
considered reliable. The reliability of a tool is ensured if it is free from measurement errors, 
since the more measurement errors occur, the less reliable the tool is (Pietersen & Maree, 
2016).  
The reliability of the questionnaire was ascertained by executing a pilot test. The measuring 
instrument was tested on a group of 20 consumers who completed it without the assistance 
of a fieldworker. The pre-test was conducted at Marakabei village in the Butha Buthe 
district. The questionnaire was left with each household that accepted the preliminary 
inquiry to participate in the survey. The pilot test revealed that the questions were 
understood and answered without any difficulties.  
Internal consistency demonstrates the degree of the reliability of the collected responses. 
The most common internal consistency measure is Cronbach’s alpha, which is typically 
interpreted as the mean of all possible split-half coefficients (Mohajan, 2017). Cronbach’s 
alpha is mostly used to determine the internal consistency coefficient of questionnaires. It is 
statistically calculated based on the pairwise correlations between different variables.  
According to Mohajan (2017), Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is measured on a scale from 
0 to 1, with perfect reliability equalling 1, and no reliability equalling 0. Alpha values above 
0.7 are typically considered acceptable and satisfactory, above 0.8 are generally considered 
quite good, and above 0.9 are considered to reflect exceptional internal consistency. Very 
high results (0.95 or higher) show that the items are unnecessary. Values under 0.7 indicate 
40 
weakness in achieving internal consistency. As a result, in social science, the acceptable 
range of alpha value estimates from 0.7 to 0.8 is measured to be the most desirable from a 
methodological point of view. The Cronbach’s alpha for this questionnaire was 0.82, which 
indicates good internal consistency. This is also a sign that each included variable 
contributes to unique information in the data-collection process.  
Validity is the degree to which any measuring instrument measures what it is intended to 
measure (Mohajan, 2017). Content validity is the degree to which the questions on the 
instrument (questionnaire) and the scores from these questions symbolise all possible 
questions that could be asked about the content or skill (Mohajan, 2017). The questionnaire 
was given to experts at the UFS and the Department of Nutrition and Home Economics at 
the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Lesotho. All comments and amendments to 
the questionnaire were included. 
The content validity of the questionnaire was tested to find questions that could be unclear 
or poorly understood by the consumers and the questions were amended to ensure that the 
questionnaire obtained the required information from consumers. As a result, the 
questionnaire items for readability, clarity, and comprehensiveness were included in the 
final questionnaire. In addition, the translated version was compared with the original 
version to ensure the validity of the questionnaire.  
Face validity is defined as the degree to which a test appears to measure what it intends to 
measure. It is a subjective judgment on the operationalisation of a construct (Mohajan, 
2017). A field test was conducted whereby 20 households from various socio-demographic 
and education backgrounds completed the questionnaire. The feedback was positive, and 
the questionnaire layout was reported to be clear, and both the font size and the 
questionnaire’s length to be acceptable. The questionnaire instructions were considered 
easy to understand. 
3.7  LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 
Different household members are expected to share similar food waste behaviour. 
However, in reality, it does vary. In most cases, only the household member who is 
responsible for the food purchase and preparation was asked to complete the 
41 
questionnaire. Hence, interviewing each household member could prove to add additional 
information and significance to the study results. 
Lack of previous research on the behaviour of Lesotho consumers relating to food waste 
presented a significant difficulty in analysing the results. Evidence discussion therefore 
focused on the present situation, instead of elaborating on a dynamic approach that clarifies 
the prevailing trend in consumers’ behaviour over time. 
3.8  ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 
Ethical matters need to be taken into consideration before, during, and after any research 
project, such as permission and informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, risks and 
benefits analysis, compensation of consumers, data management, and the dissemination of 
results. The data collection only commenced after ethical clearance from the Ethical 
Committee of the UFS was obtained (see Appendix A).  
The privacy of consumers was guaranteed through the process of obtaining informed 
consent, and the interviews were conducted in private. Fieldwork was conducted using hard 
copies of predesigned structured questionnaires. The researcher did not record the names 
of consumers on the questionnaire. 
Anonymity and confidentiality were ensured; during the completion of the questionnaire, 
the researcher did not use the consumers’ names in order to keep their identity 
confidential. The researcher, participants, and the supervisor signed a confidentiality 
agreement form. The information was kept safe and was not shared with any unauthorised 
person throughout the study.  
All data collected, from the process of obtaining signed informed consent forms to the 
interviews, were protected and kept confidential throughout the study. The researcher 
respected the consumers’ time and the questionnaires were completed at a time 
convenient for the consumers. The time for the interview was scheduled beforehand by the 
researcher. Before and during the process, the consumers were reminded of their right to 
withdraw at any time. 
The consumers were also encouraged to ask questions for clarification purposes if they did 
not understand something. The consumers who participated in the study were not 
42 
compensated in any way. All the processes in the study, including the consent form and 
interviews, were conducted in the villages where the consumers live. Table 3.1 describes the 
possible risks involved in the study and the preliminary precautions taken to mitigate these 
risks. 
Table 3.1: Summary of risks and precautions during the survey 
Risks Precautions 
Fieldworker administering the questionnaire face to To be done in private with only the consumer and 
face might cause consumers to be uncomfortable. the fieldworker present. Consumers were reminded 
that their participation is confidential. Consumers 
were given the freedom to withdraw at any time 
should they feel distressed. 
Consumers might be concerned about their The informed consent form was not linked back to 
anonymity as individuals and the confidentiality of any specific participating consumer. The researcher 
the information they would share. did not use any identifying information.  
Consumers might be worried about the Consumers were reminded that their participation in 
consequences should they decide to withdraw from the study is strictly voluntary and confidential, and 
the study. that withdrawing from the study would have no 
negative consequences. 
Consumers might experience some time lost and The appointment for completion of the 
might also experience some degree of boredom. questionnaire was scheduled beforehand. The 
fieldworker kept the process as short as possible to 
reduce time lost and to prevent boredom. 
Consumers might experience psychological harm Consumers were given the freedom to pass 
expressed through anxiety or embarrassment if they questions that they were uncomfortable answering. 
are not able to answer specific questions. However, consumers were allowed to respond to 
such questions at a later stage if they decide 
otherwise. 
 
 
 
  
43 
CHAPTER 4 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
4.1  INTRODUCTION 
The primary objective of this study was to compare the food waste in both the rural and 
urban areas of Lesotho. This chapter summarises the primary data collected. The collected 
quantitative data are presented in the form of tables, figures, and graphs, and discussions 
thereof. The relevant relationships were tested for significance between variables to 
provide answers to the research questions, with the assistance of statistical software and 
techniques. This chapter starts with a discussion of the demographics, continues on to 
discuss food waste behaviour, and makes a comparison between the rural and urban areas.  
4.2  THE DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF CONSUMERS 
The data were collected from two urban districts, namely Maseru and Butha Buthe, and a 
rural district, Mokhotlong. The trend was the same in all the districts, where female 
consumers represented a large proportion (>77%) of the sample (see Figure 4.1). It is 
generally assumed that females are mostly in charge of the household food supply (UNDP, 
2015), which was a prerequisite for participation in the study. 
Urban Rural
78% 77%
22% 23%
Male Female
 
Figure 4.1: Gender composition of the population (n=550) 
 
44 
The participating consumers’ ages varied from 18 years to older than 70 years. The socio-
demographic characteristics of the responding households showed some differences 
between the urban and rural areas. In urban areas, 35% of the consumers were between 30 
and 39 years old, whereas in rural areas 24% of the participating consumers were between 
40 and 49 years old, and 22% were between 30 and 39 years old (see Table 4.1). 
 
Table 4.1: Socio-demographic characteristics of consumers by area (N=550) 
Characteristics Urban Rural 
AGE   
<19 4% 0% 
20-29 17% 8 % 
30-39 35% 22% 
40-49 27% 24% 
50-59 12% 21% 
60-69 4% 19% 
>70 1% 6% 
LEVEL OF EDUCATION   
Did not attend school 4% 5% 
Completed primary school 11% 58% 
Completed high school 45% 17% 
University degree 27% 17% 
Postgraduate degree 13% 3% 
FAMILY STRUCTURE   
One-person household 8% 2% 
Two adults without children 6% 1% 
Two adults with children 62% 63% 
One adult with children 21% 32% 
Other combination 3% 2% 
HOUSEHOLD SIZE   
1 6% 2% 
2 8% 2% 
3 15% 14% 
4 36% 37% 
5-8 30% 31% 
9-10 5% 13% 
>10 0% 1% 
 
Regarding educational background, in urban areas, 72% of the participating consumers 
completed high school or obtained a university degree. In rural areas, most (75%) of the 
consumers only completed primary and high school. It is reassuring that low percentages of 
the consumers in urban (4%) and rural (5%) areas did not attend school. However, it is 
45 
essential to point out that more than half (58%) of the consumers in the rural areas 
indicated their highest level of education as primary school, as opposed to the urban areas 
where 45% listed high school as their highest level of education. 
From Table 4.1, it can be seen that the number of households that consist of two adults with 
children is the highest in both the urban (62%) and rural (63%) areas. The patterns regarding 
the number of members in the households varied among the two areas. Most importantly, 
in both urban (36%) and rural (37%) areas, the number of four-member households was 
similar, as well as the highest. Only 1% of households consisted of more than ten family 
members, regardless of the area. 
More than half (56%) of the consumers in urban areas and the majority (81%) of the 
consumers in rural areas earn less than LSL4 000 (LSL1 = USD0.069) per month (see 
Figure 4.2). According to a UNDP (2015) report, 57.1% of the Basotho population live below 
the poverty line (LSL138; USD9.59). Furthermore, 34% of adults in Lesotho live below the 
food poverty line every month; interpreted as one out of every three people. High 
unemployment (33%) has resulted in the prevalence of poverty, predominantly among 
youths, who constitute almost half of the population.   
Urban areas Rural areas
81%
56%
19%
7% 8% 7% 8% 7%
1% 3% 2% 0% 3% 0%
 
Figure 4.2: Monthly income of households by area (N=550) 
 
46 
4.3  KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS RELATING TO HOUSEHOLD FOOD WASTE 
Household food waste often goes unnoticed, and most consumers are not always aware of 
the food that they are wasting. Many consider food waste as unavoidable and thus also 
acceptable (Hebrok & Boks, 2017). Increasing the awareness of consumers about their own 
food waste levels and the consequences of food waste is therefore an important factor to 
alter food-wasting behaviour. This might lead to a sense of responsibility and guilt, which 
can positively influence practices and reduce food waste (Hebrok & Boks, 2017; Van Geffen 
et al., 2016). This research found that most consumers from rural areas (87%), as well as 
urban areas (72%), are not aware of the “Stop food waste programme”. 
4.3.1  Awareness and concern 
Discarding food is considered improper behaviour by most consumers, as well as the 
negative consequences associated with it (Schanes et al., 2018), which is confirmed by the 
results of this research, which indicate that the majority of consumers in both urban (92%) 
and rural (84%) areas were fully or somewhat aware of the negative consequences of food 
waste (see Figure 4.3).  
Urban Areas Rural Areas
62%
58%
30%
26%
15%
8%
Fully aware Somewhat aware Not aware at all
 
Figure 4.3: The negative consequences of food waste (N=550) 
 
 
47 
This is interpreted as very positive, considering that in other studies, the majority of 
consumers were not aware of the consequences of food waste (Hebrok & Boks, 2017). 
Financial concerns related to the money that is lost when throwing away food is commonly 
mentioned as the primary motivation for minimising food waste (Schanes et al., 2018). The 
reduction of food waste is therefore seen as an essential factor to achieving global food and 
nutrition security, freeing up limited resources for other uses, diminishing environmental 
risks, and avoiding financial losses (Thompson & Prendergast, 2015). Consumers who 
consider food wastage as a problem are likely to decrease their waste (Marangon et al., 
2015). 
Consumers were also asked how much it concerns them to discard food because it was not 
eaten. Many consumers in both rural (50%) and urban (66%) areas reported that it bothered 
them a great deal (see Figure 4.4). It was also indicated that they did not feel comfortable 
wasting considerable amounts of food, especially when they discarded food without using 
it. However, a minority of the consumers indicated that discarding food was not their 
choice, and consequently there was nothing to be bothered about, and, as a result, they did 
not think wasting food was a problem. Approximately one out of ten consumers in rural 
areas are not concerned at all when they discard food. This is slightly less (4%) in urban 
areas (see Figure 4.4). 
Urban Areas Rural Areas
66%
50%
22%
19% 17%
12% 10%
4%
A great deal A little Not very much Not at all
 
Figure 4.4: Level of concern when discarding food (N=550) 
 
48 
Concerns about discarding food are a significant predictor of food waste reduction and play 
an essential role in the intention to reduce food waste. The majority of households are 
concerned that when food is thrown away, a loss of money is also inevitable, which is the 
main motivation to reduce food waste. Furthermore, throwing away food is considered a 
waste of time put into the provision and preparation of the food (Schanes et al., 2018).  
4.3.2  Estimation of the amount of food discarded and efforts to minimise it 
Consumers qualitatively estimated the avoidable amount of food that their households 
discard. According to the consumers in urban (40%) and rural (45%) areas, they discard only 
a small amount of food or less (see Figure 4.5), although they expressed a sense of guilt 
about throwing away food. In contrast, 38% of consumers in rural areas discarded quite a 
lot of food, which was reasonably lower in urban areas (23%). Consumers tend to 
underestimate the amount of food they waste. In addition, consumers give the “correct” 
answer instead of the truthful one to display acceptable behaviour, which is known as social 
desirability bias (Jörissen et al., 2015). 
Urban areas Rural areas
45%
40%
38%
30%
23%
14%
6%
2%
Quite a lot Reasonable amount Small amount None
 
Figure 4.5: Consumers’ qualitative estimation of food discarded (N=550) 
 
The consumers in both the urban (67%) and rural (62%) areas did, however, apply a great 
deal of effort to minimise the amount of discarded food in their households, which was also 
statistically significant (p=0.022). Most indicated that a fair amount of waste was avoidable 
if they acted on it. The consumers’ effort to minimise food waste is illustrated in Figure 4.6.  
49 
Rural areas Urban areas
67%
62%
21% 20%
8% 10% 8%
2%
A great deal A little Not very much Not at all
 
Figure 4.6: Consumers’ efforts to minimise the amount of food wasted (N=550) 
4.3.3  Knowledge and correct storage 
The correct knowledge of food management is necessary in order to decrease the levels of 
household food waste. Lack of knowledge to accurately estimating food quantities for 
cooking also contributes to food waste (Van Geffen et al., 2016). Consumers frequently find 
it a challenge to make meals from leftover foods, which increases food waste. In addition, 
consumers lack knowledge of proper storage of food and they often store products 
incorrectly, which decreases the shelf life of products (Van Geffen et al., 2016). 
Correct storage helps to prolong the shelf life of products, which can include stocking food 
in a refrigerator, freezer, or cupboard (Van Geffen et al., 2016). From Figure 4.7, it can be 
seen that higher percentages in the urban areas (54%) stored fruits and vegetables in the 
refrigerator compared to the rural areas (18%). Thirty-eight percent (38%) of rural 
consumers stored their fruits and vegetables in a cupboard, and 28% used a fruit bowl as 
their primary storage. The consumers in both urban and rural areas were aware that fruits 
and vegetables should be stored in a cool place to extend their shelf life, as well as to 
protect against contamination and heat. 
50 
Urban areas Rural areas
54%
38%
30%
28%
18%
12%
10%
5% 4%
2%
Fridge In a fruit bowl In a cupboard Outdoor storage Other
 
Figure 4.7: Storage of fruit and vegetables (N=550) 
 
Moreover, the consumers ranked the food items according to priority concerning 
refrigerator storage (see Table 4.2). A significant number of consumers indicated that it is 
very important to store meat (56%) and milk (57%) in the refrigerator, regardless of the 
area. Yet, the same consumers indicated that it is not important at all to store fruits and 
vegetables (65%) and bread (81%) in a refrigerator. Less than half of the consumers 
regarded it as important to store cheese (44%), margarine (32%), and leftovers (39%) in the 
refrigerator, which are all items that should be stored in a refrigerator. It is especially 
important to store leftovers in a refrigerator as food-borne illnesses and bacterial growth 
can cause severe challenges for a household (Hebrok & Boks, 2017). 
Table 4.2: Consumers’ priority ranking of the necessity to store items in a refrigerator 
Food item Not important Somewhat important Very important 
Meat 8% 36% 56%* 
Milk 15% 28% 57%* 
Cheese  21% 34% 44% 
Margarine  34% 33% 32% 
Leftovers  22% 38% 39% 
Fruits and vegetables  65%* 17% 16% 
Bread  81%* 13% 4% 
*Significant as p-value is less than 0.05 
 
 
51 
Twenty two percent (22%) of the consumers indicated that it is not important to store 
leftovers in a refrigerator. Considering responses to the handling of leftover food (see 
Section 4.4.2), many of the consumers in rural areas indicated that they gave their leftover 
food to neighbours. It could be a plausible explanation of the fact that so many did not 
regard it as important. The responses to this question are indicative of the necessity to 
inform and educate consumers about the importance of correct storage in particular.    
4.4  BEHAVIOUR RELATED TO FOOD WASTE 
Consumers who are aware and concerned about food waste as a social challenge generally 
produce less waste and express a high degree of ethical concern related to food waste. In 
addition, household routines such as planning, shopping, storing, cooking, eating, and 
managing leftovers play a crucial role in food waste generation and management, and in 
some contexts become drivers of food waste (Schanes et al., 2018).  
4.4.1  Purchasing behaviour 
The frequency of purchasing food might contribute to buying more food than is needed and 
is also one of the most noticeable reasons that leads to wasted food (Schanes et al., 2018). 
It was found that buying fruits, vegetables, and other food products for both urban (53%) 
and rural (72%) households most often occurred once a week (see Figure 4.8). 
Urban areas Rural areas
72%
53%
25%
19%
15%
7%
3% 2%
Every day Every other day Once a week Twice a week
 
Figure 4.8: Summary of consumers’ frequency of shopping behaviour (N=550) 
 
52 
On assumption, this could be because there are more stores in urban areas as opposed to 
rural areas. The purchasing frequency also affects the amount of food waste. The result for 
rural areas relates to Jörissen et al.’s (2015) results, who found that the purchase of larger 
quantities for the whole week increased the probability of spoilage, especially of perishable 
products such as vegetables, milk, and meat. The habit of some people to purchase 
foodstuff in bulk or more than is necessary is related to reducing inconveniences and 
avoiding multiple trips to stores (Jörissen et al., 2015). Furthermore, due to the scarcity of 
adequate food-processing facilities, perishable products in Lesotho are not processed for 
prolonged shelf life, which includes storage in households. As a result, food spoils easier and 
this necessitates more frequent visits to stores (George, 2014). 
Consumers were also asked to identify their first and second choice of stores that they used 
for their main grocery purchases (see Figure 4.9). Approximately three-quarters of the 
consumers in urban areas (76%) undertake their main purchases from a supermarket, while 
it is the case with just more than half of the consumers in rural areas (53%). Seventeen 
percent (17%) of urban consumers do their shopping at a local convenience store, while 38% 
of rural consumers buy at local convenience stores due to access. A negligible number of 
households produce their own food.  
Urban Rural
76%
53%
38%
17%
7% 6%
3%
0%
Supermarket Local convenience Farmers' market Other
store
 
Figure 4.9: Summary of the respondents’ type of stores that are used (N=550) 
 
Schanes et al. (2018) explain that food waste is the highest when people exclusively shop at 
large supermarkets and decreases when purchasing takes place at different facilities, such 
53 
as small stores and local markets, and is the lowest when people grow their own food. It 
could be that consumers who spend a great deal of time doing their purchases at smaller 
stores or local markets attribute a higher value to foods than people who prefer quick and 
convenient large supermarkets.  
Majority (79%) of rural consumers and (70%) of urban consumers make use of these special 
offers, such as “buy one, get one free”.  Special offers such as “buy one, get one free” or the 
offer of discounted products motivate consumers to purchase more than they actually need, 
which contributes to the food waste generated (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; Schneider, 
2008). Less than one-third of rural (21%) and urban (30%) consumers were not interested in 
special offers. Purchasing these special offers might imply that consumers are tempted by 
the perceived low price, and are less concerned about the risk of wastage and the 
subsequent steps to act in a way that avoids food waste (Borisova, 2013).  
Table 4.3: Indication of consumers’ actions regarding food shopping (N=550) 
Indication of people’s actions Responses Rural Urban 
No 21% 30% 
Use of 2-for-1 offers on food products when food shopping 
Yes 79% 70%* 
No 32% 47% 
Often consume the “free” product before the “use by” date 
Yes 68% 53%* 
No 64% 68% 
Often buy more than needed when food shopping 
Yes 36% 32% 
N/A 2% 6% 
Buy fruits and vegetables that are available loose rather than pre-packed so 
No 23% 22% 
that I can buy the amount I need 
Yes 75% 72% 
*Significant as p-value is less than 0.05 
 
Most consumers (68%) in the rural areas and more than half of the urban consumers (53%) 
consumed free products before the “use by” date. Food expiry dates such as “use by” and 
“best before” dates have been indicated as one of the major causes of household food 
waste (Van Dooren & Mensink, 2014; Segrè et al., 2014; Borisova, 2013). Consumers 
(urban=68%; rural=64%) indicated that they did not buy more than needed when 
purchasing food. However, the results indicate that 36% of rural consumers and 32% of 
urban consumers often buy more than needed. According to Schneider (2008), items bought 
on offer or impulsively are more likely to be discarded. It is better to buy what you need so 
that you know it will stay fresh and that money will be saved.  
54 
Furthermore, 75% of rural and 72% of urban consumers try to buy items that are available 
loose, rather than pre-packed. In this manner, the quantity is more manageable, as 
consumers only buy the amount that they need and no more than necessary. The majority 
(64%) of consumers in rural areas did not discard the food if the “best before” date has 
expired, regardless of its appearance or smell, whereas most (65%) of the consumers in 
urban areas discarded the food if the “best before” date has expired, despite what it might 
look or smell like.  
4.4.2  Storage 
Packaging helps to keep products fresh for a longer period, both at home and on the 
retailers’ shelves (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015). According to Table 4.4, many of the 
consumers, both in the rural (74%) and urban areas (74%), followed the recommended 
storage information of packaged goods. Moreover, more than half of the urban (56%) and 
rural (63%) consumers stored fruit, vegetables, and salads in their original packaging. Other 
studies had found that consumers do not make the best use of packaging functions or the 
information provided on the packaging, and they are not aware of how packaging might 
prolong a product’s lifetime at home (Schanes et al., 2018; Hebrok & Boks, 2017). These 
results are encouraging as they imply that the consumers who participated in this study 
were responsive and attentive to the instructions of the packaging of produce. However, it 
is necessary to note that many of the consumers indicated that they preferred to buy loose 
food items (see Section 4.4.1). 
Table 4.4: Indication of consumers’ actions regarding food waste (N=550) 
Indication of people’s actions Responses Rural Urban 
No 26% 26% 
Follow the recommended storage information on packaged goods 
Yes 74%* 74%* 
N/A 2% 2% 
Store fresh fruit, vegetables, and salads in the manufacturer’s wrapping that 
No 35% 42% 
they came in 
Yes 63% 56% 
*Significant as p-value is less than 0.05 
4.4.3  Handling leftover food 
Reusing leftovers is one of the most effective action plans to combat food waste at the 
household level. Consumers who often eat leftovers create less food waste. Households 
55 
have difficulties in assessing the durability of leftovers and therefore tend to be concerned 
about safety issues when considering them for reuse (Schanes et al., 2018). 
The majority of the consumers in the rural areas (91%), as well as the urban areas (89%), 
used an item or product as soon as possible if they realised that it was coming close to its 
“best before” date (see Figure 4.10). Reassuringly, it is the minority of consumers in both 
rural (6%) and urban areas (3%) who discarded such items without bother. This indicates 
that consumers do not discard food unnecessarily, probably because food is expensive, and 
most of the consumers do not have a high monthly income. Some even rely on social grants 
and therefore work economically with their food products. Moreover, Van Dooren and 
Mensink (2014) indicate that if consumers focused more on the “best before” dates, it could 
save up to 14 kg of food waste per person per year. 
Urban areas Rural areas
89% 91%
3% 6% 6%0% 2% 3%
Use it up as soon as Freeze it Prepare it and Discard it without
possible freeze it bother
 
Figure 4.10: Ways to handle an item that is coming close to its “best before” date (N=550) 
 
Another major reason that food is thrown away is because too much is prepared 
(Van Dooren & Mensink, 2014). In this study, the majority (80%) of the consumers in urban 
areas indicated that they stored food in the refrigerator (see Figure 4.11), whereas in rural 
areas only 29% of consumers have access to store food in refrigerators. More than half 
(52%) of the consumers in rural areas did not discard food, but rather gave it to their 
neighbours, and put the food in a cooler place so that it could be reused the following day. 
However, 10% of urban and 18% of rural consumers discarded leftover foods. It could be 
because some consumers found it tedious to eat the same meal repetitively, others disliked 
56 
reheating leftovers, and some perceived it to have less quality and freshness (Schanes et al., 
2018). 
Urban areas Rural areas
80%
52%
29%
18%
10% 8%
Throw it out Store in the fridge Other
 
Figure 4.11: Summary of what is done when too much food is prepared (N=550) 
 
Leftover food is the result of excess preparation and the most significant contributor to 
household food waste because of the way it is dealt with (Pärn, 2016). However, many 
consumers find it challenging to prepare meals using leftovers in the refrigerator. This could 
be due to a lack of cooking confidence and skills (Van Geffen et al., 2016). A relatively low 
percentage of consumers in rural (18%) and urban areas (10%) indicated that they discarded 
food if too much was prepared. This is positive as one can assume that consumers are aware 
of the negative consequences of discarding food and, as a result, they attempt to save food 
and indirectly, money. 
Schanes et al. (2018) explain that reusing leftovers is considered one of the best as well as 
most efficient strategies to reduce food waste in households. Reusing leftovers saves time, 
effort, and money. In addition, the consumption of leftovers is regularly related to feelings 
of sacrifice and thrift for the good of the family. The findings of this research indicate that 
more than half of the consumers in the rural (59%) and urban areas (54%) considered 
additional meals that could be made from leftover ingredients (see Table 4.5). Furthermore, 
at the point of purchase and when planning meals, they considered what could be made 
from leftovers.  
57 
Table 4.5: Indication of consumers’ actions regarding leftovers (N=550) 
Indication of people’s actions Responses Rural Urban 
When planning meals, do you ever think what could be made from leftover No 44% 46% 
food? Yes 56% 54% 
Do you consider additional meals that can be made from leftover No 40% 45% 
ingredients at the point of purchase? Yes 60% 55% 
N/A 2% 2% 
Do you buy perishable food items, and check the date on the pack first? No 20% 8% 
Yes 78% 90%* 
N/A 2% 5% 
Do you throw away food like bread, cakes, and eggs, no matter what it looks 
No 64% 28% 
or smells like if the “best before” date has expired? 
Yes 34% 67% 
N/A 62% 8% 
Do you worry about reheating leftovers that have been kept in the freezer? No 22% 53% 
Yes 16% 39% 
N/A 64% 9% 
Do you worry about reheating leftovers that have been kept in the 
No 25% 47% 
refrigerator for one or two days? 
Yes 11% 44% 
*Significant as p-value is less than 0.05 
 
Consumers were also asked if they were concerned about reheating leftovers that have 
been kept in the freezer. Sixty-one percent (62%) of the rural consumers indicated that they 
did not have refrigerators, but they kept leftover foods in cool places. Consequently, they 
did not worry about reheating leftovers that have been kept in the refrigerator. Slightly 
fewer consumers (53%) in the urban areas shared the same sentiment, although they did 
have refrigerators. In contrast, 44% of the urban consumers and 11% of the rural consumers 
did worry about reheating leftovers that have been kept in the refrigerator for one or two 
days. When put in storage, leftovers are often misplaced, forgotten, and/or stored for too 
long, and therefore spoil more frequently (Schanes et al., 2018). 
4.4.4  Food waste management 
Consumers judge whether food is still fit for consumption in different ways, which include 
date labels, sense of smell, and visual judgements. Some research indicates that consumers 
who use a variety of strategies to define edibility tend to waste more food than those who 
depend on only one or two strategies, such as look and smell (Hebrok & Boks, 2017). 
According to the results of this study, regarding reasons why food is wasted, many of the 
consumers in urban areas discarded food when it was found to be mouldy (76%) or had an 
off smell (67%) (see Table 4.6). 
58 
Table 4.6: Reasons for discarding food (N=550) 
Reasons for household food waste Urban Rural 
Mouldy 76% 43% 
Off smell 67% 57% 
Leftover food (plate) 36% 57% 
Off appearance/texture 38% 10% 
Prepared too much 15% 20% 
Did not like it 15% 3% 
Bought more than needed 9% 9% 
Needed space 2% 8% 
 
More than half (57%) of the consumers in rural areas threw away food when it had an off 
smell, and when there were leftovers on the plate. As indicated in Table 4.6, the minority of 
consumers who resided in urban areas discarded food when they had prepared too much 
(15%), did not like it (15%), bought more than needed (9%), or needed the space to store 
other food (2%); compared to rural consumers who discarded food when it had an off 
appearance (10%), prepared too much (20%), did not like it (3%), bought more than needed 
(9%), and additional needed space (8%). 
The consumers had to indicate where they thought most of the household food wastage 
came from (see Figure 4.12). Approximately half (51%) of rural consumers stated that it 
came from plate waste and over-purchasing of ingredients. Most of the consumers (64%) in 
the urban areas indicated that it came from food spoilage, and more than half (51%) stated 
that food wastage came from plate waste. Furthermore, less food waste in rural areas (11%) 
originated from food preparation and cooking, which was also the case in urban areas 
(14%).  
Urban Rural
64%
51% 51% 51%
35%
24%
14% 11%
3% 0%
Food spoilage Plate waste Over-purchasing During food No response
ingredients preparation and
cooking
 
Figure 4.12: Summary of the origin of household food waste (N=550) 
 
59 
The results in Figure 4.13 illustrate the category of food consumers tend to buy too much of, 
which is ultimately discarded. It seems that the consumers in both the rural (50%) and urban 
(48%) areas tended to purchase too many fruits and vegetables, which end being discarded. 
It can be assumed that this is due to rural consumers who do not have refrigerators in which 
to store fruits and vegetables. It can also be assumed that it might be due to consumers 
from both the urban and rural areas buying in bulk. 
 
Uban Areas Rural Areas
48% 50%
30%
25% 24%
20% 19% 21%
8%
1% 1% 0%
Fruits and Convenience Take-aways Dairy Meat None
vegetables foods
 
Figure 4.13: Category of food consumers tend to over-purchase and then discard (N=550) 
 
The researcher sought to identify whether there were any relationships between different 
food items consumed and discarded. If so, an assumption can be made that if there is a 
strong relationship, the propensity for discarding certain food items might also indicate that 
other food items will be discarded. Consequently, the researcher can start to compile an 
estimate of the consumption of certain foods in households. All the correlations and their 
values are summarised in Table 4.7. The top pane from left to right represents the 
consumed food items (indicated with B), and the left pane from top to bottom represents 
the discarded food items (indicated with D).  
It is important to note that it is expected that perfect relationships exist between food 
consumed and food discarded. If a particular food item is purchased, it is consumed, but 
some of it might be discarded. One cannot consume a food item if it has not been bought. 
There were no strong relationships between different food items, as confirmed by quite a 
few indications of no relationships existing between particular food items. 
60 
There were moderate positive relationships between apples, grapes, and oranges, or 
bananas, grapes, and oranges, which implies that the two groups of three different fruits are 
often consumed in combination within households. Interestingly, there is a weak 
relationship between apples and bananas, which could indicate that in most instances, 
bananas and apples are not consumed at the same time, but rather in combination with 
grapes and oranges.  
Table 4.7: Summary of the category of fruits and vegetables that are bought and discarded 
ApplesD 1.0 0.3* 0.5** 0.4** 0.2* 0.2* 0.4** 0.1* 0.2* 0.4** 0.3* 0.3* 
BananasD 0.3* 1.0 0.5** 0.5** 0.1* 0.2* 0.4** 0.2* 0.3* 0.4** 0.3* 0.3* 
GrapesD 0.4** 0.5** 1.0 0.4** 0.0 0.1* 0.3* 0.0 0.1* 0.4** 0.2* 0.1* 
OrangesD  0.4** 0.5** 0.5** 1.0 0.1* 0.2* 0.1* 0.1* 0.2* 0.2* 0.2* 0.2* 
Seasonal 
0.2* 0.1* 0.0 0.2* 1.0 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 
fruitsD 
CabbageD 0.2* 0.2* 0.1* 0.3* 0.2* 1.0 0.4** 0.1* 0.2* 0.3* 0.2* 0.2* 
SpinachD 0.3* 0.3* 0.2* 0.2* 0.2* 0.4** 1.0 0.4** 0.2* 0.3* 0.2* 0.3* 
Swiss 
0.1* 0.2* 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4** 1.0 0.5** 0.0 0.0 0.2* 
chardD 
RadishD 0.2* 0.3* 0.1* 0.3* 0.0 0.2* 0.3* 0.5** 1.0 0.1* 0.0 0.2* 
PotatoesD 0.4** 0.4** 0.4** 0.2* 0.2* 0.3* 0.4** 0.0 0.1* 1.0 0.4 0.2* 
CarrotsD 0.3* 0.3* 0.2* 0.2* 0.1* 0.1* 0.3* 0.0 0.0 0.4** 1.0 0.5** 
BeetrootD 0.3* 0.3* 0.1* 0.2* 0.0 0.1* 0.4** 0.2* 0.2* 0.2* 0.5** 1.0 
***Strong correlation (0.7≤r<1); **Moderate correlation (0.4≤r<0.7); * Weak correlation (0.1≤r<0.4); 0 = no 
correlation; 1 = perfect correlation 
 
There is a moderate relationship between spinach and cabbage, swiss chard, potatoes, and 
beetroot, but not necessarily between cabbage, swiss chard, potatoes, and beetroot. This 
suggests that there is a possibility that spinach is consumed in combination with either 
cabbage, swiss chard, potatoes, or beetroot. Moreover, swiss chard is often consumed with 
radishes. It is also likely that carrots are consumed with either beetroot or potatoes. 
4.5  FOOD CONSUMPTION 
The adequacy of food refers to food that is available and accessible in a quantity that is 
satisfactory or acceptable and sufficient in quality for someone to enjoy a healthy and active 
life (FAO, 2018), which involves consumer or cultural acceptance. The standard by which it is 
61 
 
ApplesB  
BananasB 
GrapesB 
OrangesB  
Seasonal 
fruitsB  
CabbageB  
SpinachB  
Swiss 
chardB  
RadishB  
PotatoesB  
CarrotsB  
BeetrootB 
measured exceeds dietary needs and includes non-nutrient-based values for food, such as 
expiry dates that determine consumers’ behaviour towards food acceptance and their 
perception of adequate food (FAO, 2018). Food consumption is related to food waste when 
food is not consumed in time, when food is discarded because it exceeded the expiration 
date stated on the package, when it spoiled, or no longer seems edible (Segrè et al., 2014). 
It is essential to obtain information from consumers regarding the types of food they 
consume. This assists in designing interventions or food waste campaigns. The fruit and 
vegetables mostly consumed in the rural and urban areas of Lesotho are illustrated in 
Figures 4.14 and 4.15 respectively.  
Urban Areas Rural Areas
88%
74%
58%
43% 42%
34%
21%
15% 13%
4% 3% 1%
Apples Seasonal Oranges Bananas Grapes Other
fruits
 
Figure 4.14: Fruits that are consumed the most (N=550) 
 
The most commonly consumed and locally produced fruits are peaches and apricots (FAO, 
2013a), as confirmed by the majority of the consumers. In rural areas, consumers consume 
seasonal fruits (88%), as opposed to urban consumers who mostly consume apples (74%), as 
illustrated in Figure 4.14. Other fruits such as mangos, kiwis, and papayas are consumed, 
although much less in the urban (3%) and rural areas (1%). When a type of fruit is in season, 
it is at its peak in terms of flavour and harvest during that time of the year. Seasonal fruits 
during summertime in Lesotho are peaches, apricots, and prunes. It is assumed that the 
majority of rural consumers consume seasonal fruits because they are readily available 
during the summer season and less expensive as well. In urban areas, apples are mostly 
consumed because they are more readily available. 
62 
Cabbage is the most consumed vegetable by both the urban (73%) and rural (88%) 
consumers (see Figure 4.15). In rural areas, many consumers (68%) consume spinach and 
more than half (57%) of the consumers in urban areas consume spinach. More than half of 
the consumers in urban areas consume potatoes (56%) and carrots (55%). Traditionally, the 
most commonly consumed vegetables in rural areas are cabbage and spinach. It is assumed 
that cabbage and spinach are consumed mainly because they are grown in most family 
gardens, and they can withstand the cold climate in rural areas. 
Urban Areas Rural areas
88%
73%
68%
57% 56% 55%
47%
42% 39%
27% 28%24%
17%
9% 8%
4%
Cabbage Spinach Potatoes Carrots Beetroot Radish Swiss Other
chard
 
Figure 4.15: Vegetables that are consumed the most (N=550) 
 
4.6  INDICATORS OF FOOD WASTE GENERATION 
A variety of factors influence the amount of food waste generated. Consequently, certain 
factors are more important than others in their prediction of or contribution to food waste. 
Demographic factors have an indirect influence on food waste behaviour, but most likely 
influence motivation, ability, or opportunity. By these means, these constructs affect food 
waste, as well as the consumer food management process (Van Geffen et al., 2016). 
4.6.1  Education and income  
According to the results of this study, education is a significant indicator (p=0.019) of food 
waste, and there is a strong negative correlation (r=-0.8) between education and food waste 
generation. The majority of consumers who have a higher level of education are aware of 
63 
the negative consequences of food waste. Some scholars indicate that there is not a strong 
correlation between education level and food waste. Furthermore, employment status can 
also potentially be linked with food waste generation, most likely because income is related 
to employment status (Schanes et al., 2018).  
Regarding the strong negative correlation (r=-0.78) between food waste generation and 
income, income is a significant indicator of food waste generation (p=0.0027). It seems that 
people in lower-income households waste more food. The main reason given is a lack of 
planning, possibly due to a lack of sufficient knowledge concerning planning. Households 
with different income levels differ in particular with regard to their attitudes towards food 
waste reduction, as well as with regard to which type of food is wasted (Schanes et al., 
2018). 
In addition, other studies have indicated that more educated people tend to discard more 
food due to a higher income and eating out more often, which may influence storage 
management (Jörissen et al., 2015; Glanz, 2008). The level of education correlates positively 
with food waste, whereby a full-time employed person may have less time to plan and use 
their food stock (Schneider, 2008).  
4.6.2  Household size  
Household size is not a significant indicator (p=0.131) of the amount of food wasted in this 
research. The literature indicates that larger families tend to throw away less food. The 
majority of the available studies have shown a strong correlation between the amount of 
food waste and household size. The more people living in a household, the more food is 
wasted. Smaller households typically produce less waste than larger households, although 
the amount of food waste generated per capita decreases with increasing household size 
(Jörissen et al., 2015).  
Segrè et al. (2014), however, disagree, and explain that larger families tend to be more 
disciplined due to less waste per person, while smaller households tend to have more waste 
per person. According to Schanes et al. (2018), the presence of children in households tends 
to significantly affect the quantities of food waste. This is possibly due to the selective 
eating habits of children and the fact that their parents pay more attention to food safety 
64 
and food quality; they are therefore more likely to throw away food and to be less 
knowledgeable about how to avoid food waste (Schanes et al., 2018). 
 
  
65 
CHAPTER 5 
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
5.1  CONCLUSION  
This study compared food waste in Lesotho and explored reasons for possible household 
behaviours, purchasing habits, attitudes, and demographic and socio-economic 
characteristics of households in both the rural and urban areas that could contribute toward 
food waste. This study has provided useful information about drivers that influence 
households’ behaviour concerning food waste, food storage, and managing leftovers. It 
highlighted in detail specific factors that may motivate household food waste.  
When comparing food waste in the rural and urban areas of Lesotho, the study identified 
that consumers in urban areas wasted more food than consumers in rural areas. It is 
assumed that consumers in urban areas have more access to food. Moreover, regardless of 
a rural or urban setting, the majority of discarded food consisted of fresh produce such as 
fruits and vegetables. The majority of the consumers in rural areas consumed seasonal fruits 
such as peaches, apricots, and prunes during summer, as opposed to urban consumers who 
mostly consumed apples. Consequently, seasonal fruits were primarily wasted in rural areas, 
and apples were mostly wasted in urban areas.  
The most commonly wasted vegetables in both the rural and urban areas were cabbage and 
spinach, with the addition of potatoes in rural regions and carrots in urban areas. There is a 
relationship between the fruits and vegetables consumers purchase and that which is 
ultimately discarded. The prepared foods that were commonly wasted in rural and urban 
areas were staples, such as porridge and rice.  
Another objective was to determine the attitudes and knowledge of citizens towards food 
waste in rural and urban Lesotho. The results indicated that consumers from rural and 
urban areas were not aware of the “stop food waste programme”, which was confirmed by 
the majority of consumers from rural and urban areas, who clearly underestimated the 
amount of food waste their households generated. However, many consumers in both the 
66 
rural and urban areas were fully aware of the negative consequences of food waste and 
mentioned that it concerned them a great deal when they threw away food.  
The majority of consumers in the rural areas and more than half of consumers in the urban 
areas buy fruits, vegetables, and other food products for consumption in the home once per 
week. The increased quantities bought once a week might imply that the fresh produce 
spoils more often. Moreover, the findings indicated that approximately three-quarters of 
the consumers in urban areas undertook their main shopping from a supermarket, while it 
was the case with just more than half of the consumers in the rural areas.  
Majority of consumers in the rural and urban areas buy items that are available loose, rather 
than pre-packed. In this manner, the quality is more manageable as consumers only buy the 
amount that they need and not more than necessary. Consumers of rural areas majority of 
them purchase large quantities for the whole week, on assumption this could be because 
there are more stores in urban areas as opposed to areas in order to avoid multiple trips to 
stores. 
In the case of purchasing behaviour, the study found that consumers in both the rural and 
urban areas were attracted to special offers that persuade them to buy more than they 
need. Furthermore, the majority of consumers in the rural areas did not discard the food if 
the “best before” date had expired, regardless of appearance or smell, whereas most of the 
consumers in the urban areas discarded the food if the “best before” date had expired, 
despite what it might look or smell like.  
The majority of rural and urban consumers followed the recommended storage information 
of packaged goods. In addition, the majority of consumers in urban areas had refrigerators 
in which to store food, while the majority of rural consumers did not have refrigerators for 
proper storage of perishable foods. Consumers in both the rural and urban areas were 
concerned when discarding food, and it bothered them a great deal.  
Furthermore, the majority of urban consumers stored leftover foods in refrigerators when 
too much was prepared, whereas the consumers in the rural areas gave it to neighbours 
because there was no space to store the leftovers, or put the food in a cooler place so that it 
could be reheated the following day. In some instances, in both the rural and urban areas, 
67 
leftovers were thrown away because consumers did not know what to do with their 
leftovers. 
Reasons for discarding food in urban areas included mould and an off smell, whereas more 
than half of the consumers in the rural areas threw away food when it had an off smell, and 
threw away leftovers from plates.  
Lastly, it was found that education and income are significant predictors of food waste in 
Lesotho, whereas household size was not. 
5.2  RECOMMENDATIONS  
5.2.1 Recommendation for awareness campaigns and educating consumers. 
It is recommended that knowledge and skills to increase the awareness of consumers about 
their household food waste, as well as the consequences of food waste, should be provided 
by consumer scientists, as this is an essential factor to alter food waste behaviour. The 
reduction of food waste is seen as a critical factor for achieving food and nutrition security.  
Awareness raising campaigns (such as the “stop waste food programme”) should be 
implemented by consumer scientists to stimulate food waste reduction at home. Consumers 
should be encouraged to plan meals, proper food preparation, do shopping list that contain 
the products needed to reduce food waste. Consumers should be encouraged to save 
leftovers and be provided with the skills and knowledge on how to re-use and transform 
leftovers into a new a meal by consumer scientists. 
 
It is recommended that these empirical data and findings are used to develop 
communication campaigns that can be conducted to assist in influencing consumer 
behaviour at the household level. There should also be increased awareness and 
educational campaigns that focus on consumers’ food purchasing skills; using leftovers to 
create new meals; interpreting “sell by”, “use by”, and “best before” dates; as well as food 
management and storage for household food waste reduction. 
 
In addition, the appropriate way of storing foods should be communicated in rural areas to 
save food. Integrated approaches are therefore required to address this developmental 
68 
issue in Lesotho, which includes encouraging proper food management in order to decrease 
household food waste. 
5.2.2 Recommendations for food producers and retailers and their role in preventing 
and reducing food waste and educating of consumers. 
 
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security should coordinate retailers and farmers to work 
together on demand planning, management of tighter grading and quality control decisions 
in order to reduce food waste. In this case food retailers will be able to share their forecast 
data for specific food items to help farmers with their production plan and avoid 
overproduction. As a result, agricultural food waste can be significantly reduced. In addition, 
the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security should make a policy that will bind farmers to 
sell directly to retailers to reduce an easy access of farm produce to everybody. Lesotho 
should make food waste reduction a priority in their national food and agriculture policies, 
programs and incentives. 
 
Retailers can help to reduce food waste by improving freshness and quality by increasing 
the speed through supply chain and ensuring that food is properly handled at each stage. 
Based on the findings of my research, I suggest retailers should also help consumers avoid 
buying too much food by giving more tailored assortment and smaller pack sizes and cutting 
back buy promotions on perishable food items. 
 
5.2.3 Recommendations for further research 
 
This study has covered most of the consumers’ behaviour about household food waste in 
rural and urban areas of Lesotho using quantitative approach. Further research should 
focus on a qualitative component such as focus group discussion or extending the 
research to other locations. In addition it should include impact of food waste on food and 
nutrition security. 
 
 
 
 
69 
REFERENCES 
 
Albisu, L.M. (2016). Consumer behaviour with respect to food losses and waste. Mediterra: 
Zero Waste in the Mediterranean, 2016:303-317. 
Amini, H.R., Reinhart, D.R. & Mackie, K.R. (2012). Determination of first-order landfill gas 
modeling parameters and uncertainties. Waste Management, 32(2):305-316. 
Anding, J. (2016). Reducing Food Waste at Home. [Online]. Available: 
https://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/earthkindliving/files/2016/04/Earth-Kind-Reducing-
Food-Waste.pdf [2019, December 15]. 
Aschemann-Witzel, J., Rohm, H., Oostindjer, M., Symmank, C., Almli, V., De Hooge, I., 
Normann, A. & Karantininis, K. (2017). Consumers in a sustainable food supply chain 
(COSUS): Understanding consumer behaviour to encourage food waste reduction. 
Foods 6(12):E104. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 
29186883 [2019, November 15]. 
Aschemann-Witzel. J., De Hooge I., Pegah, A., Tino, B. & Oostindjer, M. (2015). Consumer-
related food waste: Causes and potential for action. Sustainability 7(6):6457-6477. 
Boom, I.F.A. (2012). Interaction between Consumers and Supermarkets to Reduce 
Household Food Waste. M.Sc dissertation. Wageningen University. 
Borisova, A. (2013). Food Waste in Denmark: Investigating the Antecedents of Food Waste 
Avoidance among Danish Households. M.Sc dissertation. University of Aarhus. 
Borma, A. (2017). Food waste: Global problem. SEA Practical Application of Science 
15(3):353-362. 
Boto, I. & Biasca, R. (2012). Small Island Economies: From Vulnerabilities to Opportunities. 
[Online]. Available: http://www.cta.int/joomlatools-files/docmanfiles/policy_ 
papers/8_Building_resilience_in_small_island_economies.pdf [2019, December 15]. 
Britain, E., Brigden, A., Smith, L.D. & Mitchell, M. (2015). The Economics of Food Waste. 
Warwickshire: WRAP. 
70 
Buchner, B., Fischler, C., Gustafson, E., Reilly, J., Riccardi, G. & Ricordi, C. (2012). Food 
Waste: Causes, Impacts and Proposals. [Online]. Available: https://www.barillacfn. 
com/m/publications/food-waste-causes-impact-proposals.pdf [2019, December 15]. 
Chakona, G. & Shackleton, C.M. (2017). Local setting influences the quantity of household 
food waste in mid-sized South African towns. PLoS ONE 12(12):e0189407. [Online]. 
Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal [2019, November 15].  
Chrobog, C.K. (2014). Wasted: Understanding the Economic and Social Impact of Food 
Waste. M. dissertation. Academic Training and Research Center. [Online]. Available: 
http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/themes/Mirage2/pages/pdfjs/web/viewer.html
?file=http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/bitstream/handle/10438/13325/CHROBOG
.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [2019, November 17]. 
Condrasky, M.D., Hegler, M., Sharp, J.L., Carter, C. & Komar, G.R. (2015). Opinions, 
knowledge, and current practices of culinary arts instructors and professionals in 
regards to healthy food techniques. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology 
13(4):287-302. 
Cronjé, N., Van der Merwe, I., Muller, I., (2018). Household food waste: A case study in 
Kimberley, South Africa. Journal of Consumer Science 46:1-9. 
Dictionary of Epidemiology. (2014). 6th Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  
Drost, E.A. (2011). Validity and reliability in social science research. Education Research and 
Perspectives 38:105-123. 
Enos, A. (2019). Assessing the Socio-Economic Impact of Food Waste Among International 
Students. Dissertation. Szent István University. 
Evans, D. (2012). Binning, gifting and recovery: The conduits of disposal in household food 
consumption. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 30(6):1123-1137.  
Falasconi, L., Franco, S., Segré, A., Setti, M., Vittuari, M. & Cusano, I. (2016). Consumer 
approach to food waste: Evidences from a large-scale survey in Italy. Italian Review of 
Agricultural Economics 71(S1):266-277. 
71 
Florkowski, W.J., Us, A. & Klepacka, A.M. (2018). Food waste in rural households support for 
local biogas production in Lubelskie Voivodship (Poland). Resources, Conservation and 
Recycling 136:46-52. 
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2010). The State of Insecurity in the World: 
Addressing Food Insecurity in Prostrated Crises. Rome: FAO. 
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2011). Global Food Losses and Food Waste: 
Extent, Causes and Prevention. Rome: FAO. 
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2013a). Food Wastage Footprint: Full Costs 
Accounting. Rome: FAO. 
Food and Agriculture Organization. (FAO). (2013b). Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on 
Natural Resources: Summary Report of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the 
United Nations. Rome: FAO. 
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2015). Regional Strategic Framework: Reducing 
Food Losses and Waste in the Near East & North Africa Region. [Online]. Available: 
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4545e.pdf [2019, December 20]. 
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2018). Food Loss and Waste and the Right to 
Adequate Food: Making the Connection. Rome: FAO. 
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2019). The State of Food and Agriculture: Moving 
Forward on Food Loss and Waste Education. Rome: FAO. 
Furin, J., Rigodon, J., Cancedda, C., Keshavjee, S., Seung, K., Letsie, M., Kim, J. & Joseph, J. 
(2007). Improved case detection of active tuberculosis associated with an 
antiretroviral treatment program in Lesotho. The International Journal of Tuberculosis 
and Lung Disease 11(10):1154-1156. 
George, M.J. (2014). The status of food industry and associated socio-economic implications 
in Lesotho: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Science Policy & Governance 
September:1-14. 
72 
Gibson, M. (2016). The Feeding of Nations: Redefining Food Security for the 21st Century. 
Boca Raton: CRC Press. 
Gjerris, M. & Gaiani, S. (2013). Household food waste in Nordic countries: Estimations and 
ethical implications. Etikk i Praksis: Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics 1:62-68. 
Glanz, R. (2008). Causes of Food Waste Generation in Households: An Empirical Analysis. 
M.Sc dissertation. University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences. 
Göbel, C., Langen, N., Blumenthal, A., Teitscheid, P. & Ritter, G. (2015). Cutting food waste 
through cooperation along the food supply chain. Sustainability 7:1429-1445. 
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U. & Emanuelsson, A. (2013). Global Food Losses 
and Food Waste – Extent, Causes and Prevention. SIK Report No. 857. Sweden: The 
Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology. 
Hebrok, M. & Boks, C. (2017). Household food waste: Drivers and potential intervention 
points for design – an extensive review. Journal of Cleaner Production 151:380-392. 
Hoover, D. (2017). Estimating Quantities and Types of Food Waste at the City Level. New 
York: Natural Resources Defence Council. 
Hudson, U. & Messa, M. (2014). Position Paper on Food Losses and Waste. [Online]. 
Available: http:// www.helsinki.fi/henvi/yvv/esitykset/Koivupuro.pdf [2019, June 5]. 
Jörissen, J., Priefer, C. & Braeutigam 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.  
Kimberlin, C.L. & Winterstein, A.G. (2008). Validity and reliability of measurement 
instruments used in research. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 
65(23):2276-2284.  
Koivupuro, H.K. (2011). Foodspill – Food Wastage and Environmental Impacts. [Online]. 
Available: http:// www.helsinki.fi/henvi/yvv/esitykset/Koivupuro.pdf [2019, March 
15]. 
73 
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. International Journal of Consumer Studies 36(2):183-191.  
Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. 2nd Edition. Jaipur: 
University of Rajasthan.  
Leduka, R., Crush, J., Frayne, B., McCordic, C., Matobo, T., Makoa, T., Mphale, M., Phaila, M. 
& Letsie, M. (2015). The State of Poverty and Food Insecurity in Maseru, Lesotho. 
Kingston and Cape Town: African Food Security Urban Network.  
Lesotho Bureau of Statistics (BoS). (2016). National Statistical System of Lesotho Statistical 
Reports, No. 42. Maseru: BoS. 
Lesotho Demographic Health and Survey (LDHS). (2014). Ministry of Health, Maseru, 
Lesotho. Available: https://www.dhsprogram.com/pub 
Lesotho Voluntary National Review (LVNR). (2019). United Nations Lesotho, Voluntary 
National Review. [Online]. Available: https://www.undp.org/content/dam/unct/ 
lesotho/docs/Speeches/UN%20RC%20Remarks%20on%20Lesotho%20Voluntary%20R
eview%20June%202019%20.pdf [2019, August 25]. 
Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L., Waite, R. & Searchinger, T. (2013). Reducing 
Food Loss and Waste. Working Paper: Instalment 2 of Creating a Sustainable Food 
Future. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. [Online]. Available: 
http://www.workresourcereport.org [2019, March 15]. 
Mappery. (2009). Lesotho Map. [Online]. Available: http://www.mappery.com/Lesotho- 
Map-2 [2019, January 13]. 
Marangon, F., Tempesta, T., Troiano, S. & Vecchiato, D. (2015). Food waste, consumer 
attitudes and behaviour: A study in the north-eastern part of Italy. Italian Review of 
Agricultural Economics 69(2-3):201-209.  
74 
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS). (2008). Food Security Report. Maseru: 
MAFS. 
Mohajan, H.K. (2017). Two criteria for good measurements in research: Validity and 
reliability. Annals of Spiru Haret University 17(4):56-82. 
Moore, D.F. (2016). Applied Survival Analysis Using R. Switzerland: Springer International 
Publishing. 
Neff, R.A., Spiker, M.L. & Truant, P.L. (2015). Wasted food: U.S. consumers’ reported 
awareness, attitudes and behaviors. PLoS ONE 10:e0127881. [Online]. Available: 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26062025 [2019, March 12]. 
Oelofse, S.H.H. & Nahman, A. (2013). Estimating the magnitude of food waste generated in 
South Africa. Waste Management and Research 31(1):80-86.  
Pandey, K. (2015). Introduction to Research Methodology. [Online]. Available: 
http://www.krishanpandey.com/rpapersd/research_methodology.pdf [2019, May 26].  
Pärn, A. (2016). Designing a Solution for Food Waste Reduction. M.Sc dissertation. Aalborg 
University. 
Phil, A., Li, F., Augis, F., Patama, M., Mouhdi, O., Delabruyère, R. & Parviainen, T. (2015). The 
food wastage phenomena: An overview of the current situation in three countries: 
France, Finland and Taiwan. Taiwanese Journal of Asian Economics 6(2):6457-6477. 
Pietersen, J. & Maree, K. (2016). “Standardisation of a Questionnaire.” In First Steps in 
Research. Maree, K. (ed). Pretoria: Van Schaik. 235-247. 
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(7):e0159250. [Online]. Available: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10. 
1371/journal.pone.0159250 [2019, March 15]. 
Radzymińska, M., Jakubowska, D. & Staniwska, K. (2016). Consumer attitude and behaviour 
towards food waste. Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development 1(39):175-181. 
75 
Ramukhwatho, F.R., Du Plessis, R. & Oelofse, S. (2016). “Household Food Wastage by 
Income Level: A Case Study of Five Areas in the City of Tshwane Metropolitan 
Municipality, Gauteng Province, South Africa.” In Proceedings of the 23rd WasteCon 
Conference, 17-21 October 2016, Emperors Palace, Johannesburg, South Africa. 
Russel, S.V., Younga, C.W., Unsworth, K.L. & Robinsona, C. (2017). Bringing habits and 
emotions into food waste behaviour. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 125:107-
114. 
Schanes, K., Dobernig, K. & Gözet, B. (2018). Food waste matters: A systematic review of 
household food waste practices and their policy implications. Journal of Cleaner 
Production 182:978-991.  
Schneider, F. (2008). Wasting Food – An Insistent Behaviour. [Online]. Available: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237566848 [2019, April 15]. 
Segrè, A., Falasconi, L., Politano, A. & Vittuari, M. (2014). Save Food: Global Initiative on 
Food Loss and Waste Reduction. Background Paper on the Economics of Food Loss and 
Waste. Rome: FAO. 
Shafiee-Jood, M. & Cai, X. (2016). Reducing food loss and waste to enhance food security 
and environmental sustainability. Environmental Science and Technology 50:8432-
8443. 
Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuun, J.M., Hartikainen, H. & Heikkla, L. (2014). Food waste volume 
and composition in Finnish households. British Food Journal 116(6):1058-1068. 
Thompson, E.R. & Prendergast, G.P. (2015). The influence of trait effect and the five-factor 
personality model on impulse buying. Personality and Individual Differences 
76(Supplement C):216-221.  
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2015). Lesotho National Human 
Development Report: Leveraging the Power of Youth to Promote Human Development. 
[Online]. Available: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/final_lesotho_high_ 
res_single_pages.pdf [2019, June, 24]. 
76 
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2019). Sustainable Development Goals. 
[Online]. Available: https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-
development-goals.html [2019, December 19].   
Van Dooren, C. & Mensink, F. (2014). “Consumer Food Waste” [Fact Sheet]. In Causes & 
Determinants of Consumers Food Waste. Van Geffen, L.E.J., Van Herpen, E. & Van 
Trijp, J.C.M. (eds.). (2016). REFRESH Deliverable 1.1. [Online]. Available: https://eu-
refresh.org/causes-determinants-consumers-food-waste [2019, April 15]. 
Van Geffen, L.E.J., Van Herpen, E. & Van Trijp, J.C.M. (eds.). (2016). Causes & Determinants 
of Consumers Food Waste. REFRESH Deliverable 1.1. [Online]. Available: https://eu-
refresh.org/causes-determinants-consumers-food-waste [2019, April 15]. 
Ventour, L. (2008). Food Waste Report: The Food We Waste. Banbury: WRAP. 
Wassermann, G. & Schneider, F. (2005). “Edibles in Household Waste.” In Proceedings of the 
Tenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, Pula, Sardinia, Italy. 
Cossu, R. & Stegmann R. (eds). 913-914. 
Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). (2011). Investigation into the Possible 
Impact of Promotions on Food Waste. [Online]. Available: http://www.wrap.org.uk/ 
content/investigation-possibleimpact-promotions-food-waste [2019, March 15]. 
Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). (2013). Consumer Attitudes to Food 
Waste and Food Packaging. [Online]. Available: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/ 
wrap/Slides%20-%20Consumer%20attitudes%20to%20food%20waste%20and%20 
food%20packaging.pdf [2019, January 27]. 
Wessa, P. (2019). Free Statistics Software, Office for Research Development and Education, 
version 1.2.1. [Online]. Available: https://www.wessa.net/ [2019, January 28]. 
World Food Programme (WFP). (2017). Report of 2017 Country Programme: Lesotho (2013-
2017): Standard Project Report. Maseru: WFP. 
Žitnik, M. & Vidic, T. (2016). Food Among Waste. [Online]. Available: http://www.stat.si/ 
StatWeb/en/publications [2019, November 29]. 
77 
APPENDIX A: ETHICAL CLEARANCE 
 
 
 
 
78 
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE 
 
Household food waste in urban and rural areas Lesotho: Maseru, 
Botha Bothe, and Mokhotlong 
PLEASE NOTE:  All questionnaires will be kept confidential. 
1 BASIC INFORMATION/ TLHAHISOLESEDING EA MOTHEO 
1.1 Gender of the respondent / Tekano ea ho hlompholla 
Male / Motho ea motona   
Female / Motho ea motshehali   
 
1.2 How old are you? / Lilemo? 
< 19    
20 - 29    
30 - 39    
40 - 49    
50 - 59    
60 - 69    
>70    
 
1.3 What is your highest level of education? / Boemo ba hoa bo phahameng ka ho fetisisa ba thuto ke 
bofe? 
Did not attend school / Ha aa ka a ea sekolong  
Completed primary school / O qetile sekolong sa primary e nnyane  
Partially completed high school / O qetile karolo e-itseng ea sekolo se phahameng?  
Completed high school / O qetile sekolong se phahameng  
University degree / Lengolo la Yunivesithi le qalang  
Postgraduate degree / Lengolo la Yunivesithi le phahameng  
 
  
79 
1.4 How is your family structured? / Lelapa la hau le hlophisitsoe joang? 
One-person household / Ntlo ea motho a le mong    
Two adults without children / Batho ba babeli ba baholo ba se na bana   
Two adults with children / Batho ba babeli ba baholo ba nang le bana   
One adult with children / Motho e moholo ea nang le bana   
Other combination / Ho kopana tse ling   
 
1.5 Including you, how many people live in the household? / Ho kopanyelletsa le uena, ke batho ba 
bakae ba lulang lapeng? 
1   
2   
3   
4   
6 – 8   
9 - 10   
 >10   
 
1.6 Who prepares and cooks dinner? / Ea itokisetsang le ea phehang lijo tsa mantsiboea? 
Mother / Mme  
Father / Ntate  
Other family members / Litho tse ling tsa lelapa  
Paid helper / Mothusi ea lefshoang  
Voluntary helper / Mothusi ea ithaopelang  
Every one cooks their own / E mong le e mong o pheha lijo tsa hae  
Othe r/ Tse ling  
 
If other, please specify: / Haeba e le tse ling, ka kopo hlalosa:  
 
 
  
80 
1.7 What is your marital status? / Sebaka sa hau sa lenyalo ke eng? 
Single / Ke masoha  
Married / Lenyalong  
Living together / Ho phela hammoho  
Divorced / Ho hlalane  
Widowed / Mohlolohali  
 
1.8 What is your monthly income of the household? / Ke chelete efe ea hau ea khoeli le khoeli ea ntlo? 
< R4 000  
R4 000 - R7 499  
R7 500 - R10 999  
R11 000 - R14 999  
R15 000 - R19 999  
R20 000 - R25 999  
R26 000 +  
 
1.9 Do you have a vegetable garden? / Na u na le serapa sa meroho? 
Yes / Ee  
No / Che  
 
2 REQUIREMENTS / MEKOA EA HO REKA 
2.1 How often do you buy fruits, vegetables and other food products for consumption in the home? / Ke 
hangata hakae u rekang litholoana, meroho le lihlahisoa tse ling tsa lijo bakeng sa ho sebelisoa ka 
tlung?  
Every day / Letsatsi le letsatsi  
Every other day / Letsatsi le leng le le leng la bobeli  
Once a week / Hang ka beke  
Twice a week / Habeli ka beke  
 
2.2 Where do you regularly shop for food? / U lula u reka lijo kae? 
Supermarket / Supamakete  
Local convenience store / Lebenkele la lijo tsa sebakeng seo  
Farmers market / Lihoai tsa lihoai  
Other / Tse ling  
81 
If other, please specify: / Haeba e le tse ling, ka kopo hlalosa:  
 
 
3 GUIDE / POLOKELO 
 
3.1 Where do you store fruits and vegetables in the home? / U boloka litholoana le meroho ho kae 
moo ka tlung? 
Fridge / Friji  
In a fruit bowl / Ke sekotlolo sa litholoana  
In a cupboard / Ka lebokoseng  
Outdoor storage / Polokelo ea ka ntle  
Other / Tse ling  
 
If other, please specify: / Haeba e le tse ling, ka kopo hlalosa:  
 
 
Rank the following food items according to their priority in regard to refrigerator storage. / Beha lintlha tse 
latelang tsa lijo ho latela lintho tsa bona tse tlang pele ka ho boloka sehatsetsing. 
 Not important/ Somewhat important/ Very important/ E 
Ha se bohlokoa Ho bohlokoa haholo bohlokoa haholo 
3.2      Meat / Nama    
3.3      Milk / Lebese    
3.4      Cheese / Chisi    
3.5       Margarine / Margarine    
3.6       Leftovers / Tse setseng    
3.7       Fruit and vegetables /    
Litholoana le meroho 
3.8      Bread / Bobobe    
 
3.9 Are you aware that the majority of fruits and vegetables should be kept in a cool place in order to 
extend shelf life? / Na u hlokomela hore boholo ba litholoana le meroho li lokela ho bolokoa 
sebakeng se phodileng e le hore se atolose sethala sa bophelo? 
Yes / Ee   
No / Che   
 
 
82 
4 FOOD WASTE / HO SENYA 
4.1 Which fruits are consumed most in your home? More than 1 can be selected. / Ke life litholoana tse 
jeoang kaho fetisisa ka tlung ea hau? Ho feta 1 ho ka khethoa. 
Apples / Liapole  
Bananas / Libanana  
Grapes / Morara  
Oranges / Li-oranges  
Seasonal fruits (peaches, apricot, plums) / Litholoana tsa selemo (ka mohlala diperekisi; aperekisi;  
plums) 
Other / Tse ling  
 
4.2 If other, please specify: / Haeba e le tse ling, ka kopo hlalosa:  
 
 
4.3 Which vegetables are consumed most in your home? More than one can be selected. / Ke efe 
meroho e jeoang haholo ka tlung ea hau? Ho feta 1 ho ka khethoa. 
Cabbage / Khabeche  
Spinach / Khabeche  
Swiss chard / Swiss chard  
Radish / Radish  
Potatoes / Litapole  
Carrots / Lihoete  
Beetroot / Beetroot  
Other / Tse ling  
 
4.4 If other, please specify: / Haeba e le tse ling, ka kopo hlalosa:  
 
 
How often do you throw away the following fruit? / Ke ka makhetlo a makae u lahlehang litholoana tse 
latelang? 
 Never/ Ha Sometimes/ Ka Often/ 
ho mohla linako tse ling Hangata 
4.5      Apples / Liapole    
4.6      Bananas / Libanana    
4.7      Grapes / Morara    
4.8      Oranges / Li-oranges    
4.9 Seasonal fruits (peaches, apricot, plums) / Litholoana tsa    
selemo (ka mohlala diperekisi; aperekisi; plums) 
83 
How often do you throw away the following vegetables? / Ke ka makhetlo a makae u lahlehang meroho e 
latelang? 
 Never/ Ha Sometimes/ Ka Often/ 
ho mohla linako tse ling Hangata 
4.10      Cabbage / Khabeche    
4.11      Spinach / Sepinichi    
4.12      Swiss chard / Swiss chard    
4.13      Radish / Radish    
4.14      Potatoes / Litapole    
4.15      Carrots / Lihoete    
4.16      Beetroot / Beetroot    
 
4.17 Which other food products are also wasted in your home (More than one can be selected)? / Ke 
lihlahisoa life tse ling tsa lijo tse senyehang ka tlung ea hau? Ho feta 1 ho ka khethoa. 
Butter and cheese / Botoro le chisi  
Milk / Lebese  
Condiments (spreads, jams, relishes, sauces) / Li-condiments (Ea ata, jams, e tsosolosa, li-sauces)  
Fresh meat, fish and eggs / nama e ncha, tlapi le mahe  
Yogurt / Yogurt  
Staples (rice, pasta, noodles, pap) / Ho folotseha (raese, pasta, li-noodle, pap)  
Bread / Bohobe  
Leftovers (take-always) / Tse setseng (ho nka li-aways)  
Other / Tse ling  
 
4.18 If other, please specify: / Haeba e le tse ling, ka kopo hlalosa:  
 
 
4.19 To what extent are you aware of the negative consequences of food waste at home? / U ela hloko 
liphello tse bohloko tsa litšila tsa lijo lapeng ha kae? 
Fully aware/ Tseba hantle  
Somewhat aware/ Ba tseba hantle  
Not aware at all/ Ke sa tsebe letho  
 
  
84 
4.20 What is your most common reason for throwing out food (More than one can be selected)?? / Lebaka 
le tloaelehileng ka hofetisisa la ho qhala lijo? Ho feta 1 ho ka khethoa. 
Left-over food / Masalla a lijo  
Bought more than I needed / Reka ho feta ho hlokahala  
Mouldy / Ho mela hlobo  
Off appearance / texture / Ho bonahala ponahalo/moaparo  
Off smell / Monko o mobe  
Didn’t like it / Ha aa ka a rata joalo  
Needed space / Sebaka se hlokahalang  
Prepared too much / Pheha haholo  
 
4.21 Where do you think food wastage comes from (more than one answer can be selected)? / U nahana 
hore ho senyeha ha lijo tsa hau li ho tsoa kae? Ho feta 1 ho ka khethoa. 
Over-purchasing ingredients / Ho reka haholo  
Food spoilage / Lijo tse senyehang  
During food preparation and cooking / Nakon ea ho lukisa lijo le ho pheha   
Plate waste / Litsila tse ngata  
 
  Yes/ No/ 
Ee Che 
4.22 Did you follow the recommended storage information on packaged goods? / Na u latela   
tlhahiso-leseling e boletsoeng e khothalletsoang ka thepa e phuthetsoeng? 
4.23 Do you regularly discard left-over food after preparing a meal? / Na kamehla u lahla lijo   
tse setseng ka mor'a hore u phehe? 
4.24 Do you consider additional meals that can be made out of leftover ingredients at point of   
purchase? / Na u nahana ka lijo tse ling tse ka etsoang ka ho setseng nakong ea theko? 
4.25 Do you avail of 2 for 1 offers on food products when food shopping? / Naa u e u shebe lijo   
tse tsoang ka bobeli bakeng sa theko ea e le ngoe ha u reka lijo?  
4.26 Do you often consume the “free” product before the used by date? / Na u atisa ho ja   
sehlahisoa sa "mahala" pele se sehlahisoa seo se felloa ke nako e lekantsoeng ya sona?  
4.27 Do you feel that you often buy more than needed when food shopping? / Na u ikutloa u   
atisa ho reka ho feta kamoo ho hlokahalang ha ho reka lijo? 
 
  
85 
4.28 Thinking about food waste in your household, overall how much food would you say you throw away 
in general? / Ho nahana ka litšila tsa lijo malapeng a hau, ka kakaretso u ka re u ka lahleheloa ke lijo 
tse kae ka kakaretso. 
A lot / E ngata  
Some / Tse ling  
Very little / Hanyane haholo  
None / Ha ho joalo  
 
4.29 Thinking about when you throw food away, to what extent, if at all, does it bother you? / Ho nahana 
ka ha u lahlela lijo, ho isa bohōleng bofe, haeba ho joalo, ho u tšoenya? 
A great deal / E ngata haholo  
A little / Hanyane  
Not very much / Eseng haholo  
Not at all / Ho hang  
 
4.30 How much effort do you and others in your household go to in order to minimize the  amount of food 
thrown away? / Ke boiteko bo bokae boo uena le ba bang ba lelapeng la hau le eang ho bona ho 
fokotsa lijo tse lahlehileng? 
A great deal / E ngata haholo  
A little / Hanyane  
Not very much / Eseng haholo  
Not at all / Ho hang  
 
4.31 If you notice that an item of food is coming close to its best before date, do you / Haeba u hlokomela 
hore nako e baletoeng ya sehlahisoa e se e le haufi haholo, u etsa eng? 
Use it up as soon as possible / E sebelise hang ha ho khoneha  
Freeze it / E phunyeletse  
Prepare it and freeze it / E lokise le ho e qeta  
Discard it without bother / E lahle  
 
4.32 What category of food do you tend to overbuy and end up throwing out? (You may select more than 
one) / Ke mofuta ofe oa lijo tseo u atisang ho li reka haholo 'me u qetella u lahla? (U ka khetha tse 
fetang tse le 'ngoe) 
Meat / Nama  
Fruits and vegetables / Litholoana le meroho  
Dairy / Lebese  
Convenience foods / Lijo tse bonolo  
Take-aways / Ho nka li-aways  
 
86 
4.33 When the food has been prepared and there is too much, what do you do? / Ha lijo li se li lokiselitsoe 
mme ho na le tse ngata haholo, u etsa'ng? 
Throw it out / E lahlele  
Store in the fridge / Boloko fereji  
 
4.34 If other, please specify: / Haeba e le tse ling, ka kopo hlalosa:  
 
 
Please select Yes/No for the following statements in terms of your own actions. / Ka kopo khetha E / Che Che 
lipolelo tse latelang ho latela liketso tsa hau. 
  Yes/ No/ N/A 
Ee Che 
4.35 When I buy fresh fruit and vegetables, I try to buy items that are available loose    
rather than pre-packed, so that I can buy the amount I need. / Ha ke reka 
litholoana le meroho e mecha  ke leka ho reka lintho tse fumanehang  ka bo-
ngoe ho e-na le hore ke li reke li phuthetsoe ka bongata pele, e le hore nka reka 
thepa eo ke e hlokang. 
4.36 I tend to store fresh fruit, fresh vegetables and salads in manufacturer’s wrapping    
that they come in. / Ke atisa ho boloka litholoana tse ncha, meroho e mecha le 
salate ka ho koahela ha lihlahisoa tseo ba li  kentseng teng. 
4.37 When I buy perishable food items, I check the date on the pack first. / Ha ke reka    
lihlahisoa tsa lijo tse senyehang, ke sheba letsatsi la pakete ea pele. 
4.38 I throw away food like bread, cakes and eggs no matter what it looks or smells like    
if the best before date has expired. / Ke lahla lijo joaloka bohobe, mahobe le 
mahe ho sa tsotellehe hore na li shebahala joang kapa li nkha joaloka eka ha e le 
hantle pele ho letsatsi. 
4.39 I throw away food like fresh meat no matter what it looks or smells like if the use    
by date has expired. / Ke lahla lijo joaloka nama e ncha ho sa tsotellehe hore na e 
shebahalang kapa e nkha joaloka eka ha letsatsi le sebelisoa. 
4.40 I worry about reheating leftovers that have been kept in the freezer. / Ke a    
tsoenyeha ha ke omosa lijo tse bolokiloeng ka sehatsesing (Freezer). 
4.41 I worry about reheating leftovers that have been kept in fridge for one or two days.    
/ Ke tsoenyehile ka ho tsosolosa lichelete tse bolokiloeng firiji ka matsatsi a le 
mong kapa a mabeli. Ke a tsoenyeha ha ke omosa lijo tse bolokiloeng ka hara friji 
letsatsi kapa a mabeli. 
4.42 I prefer to buy frozen vegetables rather than fresh ones. / Ke khetha ho reka    
meroho e nang le serame ho e-na le hore ke reke e mecha. 
87 
  Yes/ No/ N/A 
Ee Che 
4.43 When planning meals do you ever think what could be made of leftover food. / Ha    
u rera lijo u nahane hore na ho ka etsoa'ng ka lijo tse setseng. 
4.44 Do you label and date items in your freezer? / Na o hlahisa lintho le ho etsa lintho    
tsa letsatsi kahare ea hau? 
4.45 Are you aware of the stop food waste programme? / Na u tseba lenaneo la ho    
emisa ho lahla lijo? 
 
4.36 If yes, where did you hear about it? / Haeba e, u kile ua utloa hokae ka eona? 
Television/radio / Thelevishene/radio  
Social media / Melaetsa ea sechaba  
Internet / Internet  
Word of mouth / Lentsoe la molomo  
 
 
Thank you for your participation! / Kea le leboha ka karolo 
ea hau! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
88 
APPENDIX C: TURNITIN REPORT 
 
 
 
 
89 
APPENDIX D: EDITING CERTIFICATE 
 
 
90