Exploring South Australian households' perceptions towards various food waste policies

IF 6.6 2区经济学 Q1 ECOLOGY

Ecological Economics Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108431

By Sarah Ann Wheeler , Ying Xu , Daniel Gregg

{"title":"Exploring South Australian households' perceptions towards various food waste policies","authors":"By Sarah Ann Wheeler , Ying Xu , Daniel Gregg","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Increasing landfill and environmental costs are driving municipalities to search for effective policies to change household food waste disposal, balancing competing attributes such as effectiveness, fairness and feasibility. In order to better understand households' policy perspectives, we conducted an online survey with 1520 South Australians regarding four different food waste policies, namely: 1) frequency-based pricing for bin collection; 2) penalties for bin misuse; 3) changing bin collection timing; and 4) extension and education. A structural equation modelling approach was used to model overall policy preference, based on perceived policy attributes and household socio-demographics. Results highlighted that respondents' rated economic incentives (pricing and penalties) as the most effective in changing food waste behaviour, but rank these policies low in feasibility or acceptability. Conversely, education and information campaigns were rated as the lowest in effectively changing behaviour, but the most acceptable and fairest policy overall. Overall, respondents from households producing less food waste were more favourable towards introducing economic incentive food waste policies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51021,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924003288","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Increasing landfill and environmental costs are driving municipalities to search for effective policies to change household food waste disposal, balancing competing attributes such as effectiveness, fairness and feasibility. In order to better understand households' policy perspectives, we conducted an online survey with 1520 South Australians regarding four different food waste policies, namely: 1) frequency-based pricing for bin collection; 2) penalties for bin misuse; 3) changing bin collection timing; and 4) extension and education. A structural equation modelling approach was used to model overall policy preference, based on perceived policy attributes and household socio-demographics. Results highlighted that respondents' rated economic incentives (pricing and penalties) as the most effective in changing food waste behaviour, but rank these policies low in feasibility or acceptability. Conversely, education and information campaigns were rated as the lowest in effectively changing behaviour, but the most acceptable and fairest policy overall. Overall, respondents from households producing less food waste were more favourable towards introducing economic incentive food waste policies.

查看原文本刊更多论文

探索南澳大利亚家庭对各种食物浪费政策的看法

不断增加的垃圾填埋成本和环境成本促使市政当局寻找有效的政策来改变家庭食物垃圾的处理方式，同时兼顾有效性、公平性和可行性等相互竞争的属性。为了更好地了解家庭对政策的看法，我们对 1520 名南澳大利亚人就四种不同的食物垃圾政策进行了在线调查，这四种政策分别是1) 基于频率的垃圾桶收集定价；2) 垃圾桶滥用处罚；3) 改变垃圾桶收集时间；4) 推广和教育。根据感知到的政策属性和家庭社会人口特征，采用结构方程建模法对总体政策偏好进行建模。结果显示，受访者认为经济激励措施（定价和处罚）对改变食物浪费行为最有效，但这些政策的可行性和可接受性较低。相反，教育和宣传活动在有效改变行为方面被评为最低，但总体而言却是最可接受和最公平的政策。总体而言，来自食物浪费较少家庭的受访者更倾向于引入经济激励的食物浪费政策。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Ecological Economics 环境科学-环境科学

CiteScore

12.00

自引率

5.70%

发文量

313

审稿时长

6 months

期刊介绍： Ecological Economics is concerned with extending and integrating the understanding of the interfaces and interplay between "nature''s household" (ecosystems) and "humanity''s household" (the economy). Ecological economics is an interdisciplinary field defined by a set of concrete problems or challenges related to governing economic activity in a way that promotes human well-being, sustainability, and justice. The journal thus emphasizes critical work that draws on and integrates elements of ecological science, economics, and the analysis of values, behaviors, cultural practices, institutional structures, and societal dynamics. The journal is transdisciplinary in spirit and methodologically open, drawing on the insights offered by a variety of intellectual traditions, and appealing to a diverse readership. Specific research areas covered include: valuation of natural resources, sustainable agriculture and development, ecologically integrated technology, integrated ecologic-economic modelling at scales from local to regional to global, implications of thermodynamics for economics and ecology, renewable resource management and conservation, critical assessments of the basic assumptions underlying current economic and ecological paradigms and the implications of alternative assumptions, economic and ecological consequences of genetically engineered organisms, and gene pool inventory and management, alternative principles for valuing natural wealth, integrating natural resources and environmental services into national income and wealth accounts, methods of implementing efficient environmental policies, case studies of economic-ecologic conflict or harmony, etc. New issues in this area are rapidly emerging and will find a ready forum in Ecological Economics.