4.7 Article

A meta-analytical review of intervention experiments to reduce food waste

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac72b6

关键词

food waste; meta-analysis; behavioural intervention; pro-environmental behaviour

资金

  1. Major projects of the National Social Science Fund [18ZDA047]
  2. National Statistical Science Research Project [2019316]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents a meta-analysis of 58 studies conducted between 2011 and 2021, involving 26,533 participants, to assess the effectiveness of behavioral interventions in reducing food waste. It confirms that behavioral interventions have a moderate effect on food waste reduction, with education programs having the most significant impact. The analysis also reveals that interventions in elementary and middle school settings marginally improve the overall effect size, and controlled experiments show a higher effect size compared to pre-post experiments in education interventions.
To reduce food waste, many behavioural intervention experiments have been conducted worldwide, but their effectiveness remains unclear. To assess their impacts, we present a meta-analysis based on 58 studies, selected after screening 1143 papers, which were conducted between 2011 and 2021 covering 26 533 participants. We confirm that behavioural interventions have a moderate effect (z = 0.22) on food waste reduction, with education programs having the most significant impact and informational feedback having the least. We also show that interventions in elementary and middle school settings marginally improve the overall effect size (P < 0.1), and controlled experiments exhibit a higher effect size compared to pre-post experiments in education interventions (P < 0.05). Finally, we present a roadmap to guide future research in the next decade to further improve our understanding on the effects of behavioural interventions to reduce food waste.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据