IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i1p141-d88213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumers’ Perspective on Circular Economy Strategy for Reducing Food Waste

Author

Listed:
  • Massimiliano Borrello

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Via Università 100, 80055 Portici, Italy)

  • Francesco Caracciolo

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Via Università 100, 80055 Portici, Italy)

  • Alessia Lombardi

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Via Università 100, 80055 Portici, Italy)

  • Stefano Pascucci

    (Business School, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, G16 The SERSF Building, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9EZ, UK)

  • Luigi Cembalo

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Via Università 100, 80055 Portici, Italy)

Abstract

The current linear system of production and consumption is unsustainable. In the food sector, despite the fact that valuable natural resources are intensively used to produce and distribute food products, little is done to upcycle residues generated along the supply chain. Circular economy strategies are crucial for restructuring the take-make-dispose model through the active participation of all actors of supply chains. However, little is known about consumers’ willingness to participate in circular economy. A structured questionnaire was submitted to a representative sample of Italian households to assess the willingness of consumers to be actively involved in closed loops aiming at reducing food waste. Consumers are involved by returning their organic food waste to retailers in exchange for discounts on the purchase of animal products. The organic food waste returned enters in the production process of animal products. A choice experiment was designed to analyse alternative programs. Two scenarios were presented: one with a traditional technology (composting), and a second one with a radically innovative technology (insects as feed). Preferences and trade-offs, in monetary terms, among attributes were computed. Results depict a comprehensive portrait of the potential participation of consumers to closed loops inspired by the principles of circular economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Massimiliano Borrello & Francesco Caracciolo & Alessia Lombardi & Stefano Pascucci & Luigi Cembalo, 2017. "Consumers’ Perspective on Circular Economy Strategy for Reducing Food Waste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:1:p:141-:d:88213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/1/141/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/1/141/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & Andrea Bieberstein, 2014. "Consumer Acceptance of New Food Technologies: Causes and Roots of Controversies," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 381-405, October.
    2. Premalatha, M. & Abbasi, Tasneem & Abbasi, Tabassum & Abbasi, S.A., 2011. "Energy-efficient food production to reduce global warming and ecodegradation: The use of edible insects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4357-4360.
    3. Luigi Cembalo & Alessia Lombardi & Stefano Pascucci & Domenico Dentoni & Giuseppina Migliore & Fabio Verneau & Giorgio Schifani, 2015. "“Rationally Local”: Consumer Participation in Alternative Food Chains," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 330-352, June.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, May.
    5. Roland Strausz, 2009. "Planned Obsolescence as an Incentive Device for Unobservable Quality," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(540), pages 1405-1421, October.
    6. Brian Roe & Thomas L. Sporleder & Betsy Belleville, 2004. "Hog Producer Preferences for Marketing Contract Attributes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 115-123.
    7. Francesca Colantuoni & Gianni Cicia & Teresa Del Giudice & Daniel Lass & Francesco Caracciolo & Pasquale Lombardi, 2016. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Domestic Fresh Produce: Evidence from German and Italian Early Potato Markets," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 512-530, November.
    8. Brian Roe & Thomas L. Sporleder & Betsy Belleville, 2004. "Hog Producer Preferences for Marketing Contract Attributes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(1), pages 115-123, February.
    9. Pascucci, Stefano & Magistris, Tiziana de, . "Information Bias Condemning Radical Food Innovators? The Case of Insect-Based Products in the Netherlands," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 16(3), pages 1-16.
    10. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    11. Josephine Mylan & Helen Holmes & Jessica Paddock, 2016. "Re-Introducing Consumption to the ‘Circular Economy’: A Sociotechnical Analysis of Domestic Food Provisioning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-14, August.
    12. Daniel McFadden, 2001. "Economic Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 351-378, June.
    13. Cembalo, Luigi & Pascucci, Stefano & Tagliafierro, Carolina & Caracciolo, Francesco, . "Development and Management of a Bio-Energy Supply Chain Through Contract Farming," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 17(3), pages 1-20.
    14. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    15. Mariale Moreno & Carolina De los Rios & Zoe Rowe & Fiona Charnley, 2016. "A Conceptual Framework for Circular Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-15, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cembalo, Luigi & Pascucci, Stefano & Tagliafierro, Carolina & Caracciolo, Francesco, 2014. "Promoting Agro-Energy Supply Chain As A Collective Action," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170481, Agricultural Economics Society.
    2. Cembalo, Luigi & Pascucci, Stefano & Tagliafierro, Carolina & Caracciolo, Francesco, 2014. "Managing integration in bio-energy chains by promoting a collective action," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182690, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Maria Raimondo & Francesco Caracciolo & Luigi Cembalo & Gaetano Chinnici & Biagio Pecorino & Mario D’Amico, 2018. "Making Virtue Out of Necessity: Managing the Citrus Waste Supply Chain for Bioeconomy Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Pascucci, Stefano & Grandori, Anna & Borrello, Massimiliano & Cembalo, Luigi, 2025. "Designing contracts for the bioenergy industry: The role of swift relational contracting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    5. Cembalo, Luigi & Pascucci, Stefano & Tagliafierro, Carolina & Caracciolo, Francesco, . "Development and Management of a Bio-Energy Supply Chain Through Contract Farming," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 17(3), pages 1-20.
    6. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 87-101.
    7. Fewell, Jason E. & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2016. "Farmers' willingness to contract switchgrass as a cellulosic bioenergy crop in Kansas," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 292-302.
    8. Bergtold, Jason S. & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Fewell, Jason E. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2017. "Annual bioenergy crops for biofuels production: Farmers' contractual preferences for producing sweet sorghum," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 724-731.
    9. Jose Blandon & Spencer Henson & Towhidul Islam, 2009. "Marketing preferences of small-scale farmers in the context of new agrifood systems: a stated choice model," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 251-267.
    10. Kwabena Krah & Daniel R Petrolia & Angelica Williams & Keith H Coble & Ardian Harri & Roderick M Rejesus, 2018. "Producer Preferences for Contracts on a Risky Bioenergy Crop," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 240-258.
    11. Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Musshoff, Oliver, 2012. "Design of substrate supply contracts for biogas plants," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124428, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    12. Andrew M. Johnson & Tahirou Abdoulaye & Bamikole Ayedun & Joan R. Fulton & Nicole J. Olynk Widmar & Akande Adebowale & Ranajit Bandyopadhyay & Victor Manyong, 2020. "Willingness to pay of Nigerian poultry producers and feed millers for aflatoxin‐safe maize," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(2), pages 299-317, April.
    13. Michael Vassalos & Wuyang Hu & Timothy Woods & Jack Schieffer & Carl Dillon, 2016. "Risk Preferences, Transaction Costs, and Choice of Marketing Contracts: Evidence from a Choice Experiment with Fresh Vegetable Producers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), pages 379-396, July.
    14. Schreiner, J.A., 2018. "Assessing consumer and producer preferences for animal welfare using a common elicitation format," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277467, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Julia A. Schreiner & Sebastian Hess, 2017. "The Role of Non-Use Values in Dairy Farmers’ Willingness to Accept a Farm Animal Welfare Programme," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 553-578, June.
    16. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    17. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    18. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    19. Bertoli, Simone & Fernández-Huertas Moraga, Jesús, 2013. "Multilateral resistance to migration," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 79-100.
    20. Georg Bechler & Claudius Steinhardt & Jochen Mackert, 2021. "On the Linear Integration of Attraction Choice Models in Business Optimization Problems," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-13, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:1:p:141-:d:88213. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.