dr. ronald e. mcnair acknowledgements - University of St. Thomas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

UST McNair Scholars Program Research Journal an average American man (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, as cited in Bloom). Bloom highlights three compelling reasons why Americans should care about food waste: Environmental Impact The majority of food being thrown away is not recycled or recovered, meaning the majority of food waste ends up in landfills (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2011). When food decomposes in landfills it creates methane, a harmful greenhouse gas. Methane traps heat more effectively than carbon dioxide, meaning methane emissions may contribute to global warming even decades from now (Bloom, 2010). Multiple EPA reports detail alarming facts about the consequences related to these landfills. In 2007, the EPA reported food scraps to account for 19 percent of the waste Americans dumped into landfills, making it the second most disposed item in landfills behind paper waste (as cited by Bloom). The most current information identifies landfills as a leading source of human related methane emissions in the United States (EPA, 2011). There are also concerns regarding the potential for landfill toxins to leach into surrounding bodies of water, which would pollute the drinking supply of nearby inhabitants (Bloom). Reducing food wasted in America is one way to combat global warming and environmental degradation. Economic Significance Wasting food translates to wasting money. With a family of four discarding an estimated 15- 25 percent of the food purchased each year, financial losses are estimated to be between $1,350 and $2,200 (Bloom, 2010). American consumers are also paying an increased price for food wasted throughout the food chain, as it is built into the price of our groceries. Farmers produce the amount of crops necessary to supply the amount of food demanded by consumers. The more food wasted by consumers, the higher the demand for more food to be supplied. Our current agricultural system is mostly dependent upon expensive technology, such as pesticides, which is predicted to drive up the price of all produce (USDA, 2010). Cutting down on the amount of food our country grows each year would lead to reducing the amount of money needed to produce it. One calculation estimated a rough total annual cost in the United States to be $160 billion in squandered food costs (Bloom, 2010). This cost for Americans should encourage waste avoidance. The amount of money being lost due to squandered food 48 is shocking, but it is also preventable if consumers change their wasteful habits. Societal Dilemma In a country where virtually half of the food being produced is wasted, there are still 35 million Americans living in households without sufficient food access (Stuart, 2009). In 2008, 15 percent of Americans did not have enough to eat at some point in the year and 22 percent of children in America lived in homes lacking food security (Bloom, 2010). Both food waste and food insecurity exist within the United States, one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Part of the problem is the unequal distribution of resources. Recovering a portion of the food wasted in this country could potentially feed millions of Americans (EPA, 2011). These three reasons alone should provide strong motivation for Americans to change their food wasting ways. Strong efforts to mitigate food waste in the United States must occur now. Consumers have the ability to reduce food wasted in their households even though food wasted during agricultural production, transport, and processing is outside of their control. Currently, though most American households throw away a substantial amount of food that could have been eaten, most do not recognize it as a major problem or feel the need to address it. How can the issue of food waste be brought to American households’ attention and create a national effort toward reducing food waste? How can the problem be communicated in a way that will provoke Americans to take action? Successful efforts to reduce food waste have been made in other countries. For example, the Japanese government passed the Food Waste Recycling Law in 2001 which demanded food businesses to recycle 48 percent of their food waste by 2006, which resulted in 59 percent commercial and industrial food waste recycling (Stuart, 2009). This law has since been revised with a goal for businesses to reach a recycling rate of 66 percent by 2012 (Stuart). Japan provides an example of how the government is able to take an effective role in reducing national food waste. The UK has become another example of a country dedicated to reducing its national food waste. Campaigns such as Love Food, Hate Waste (LFHW) have demonstrated success in aiding individuals to reduce their food waste (www.lovefoodhatewaste.com/). The LFHW
Bridgette Kelly Environmental Sciences Reducing food waste campaign was created to raise awareness about the issue of food waste and reduce the amount of household food waste. The Charter Institute of Waste Management (CIWM) reported the two year LFHW campaign resulted in a significant increase in the number of Manchester residents taking action to reduce their food waste by 48.5 percent as well as a 509 percent increase in traffic to the LFHW website (CIWM, 2011). The website contains helpful information regarding how to store food so it lasts longer, ways to creatively use last night’s leftovers, and tips for saving money on food bills. The amount of food wasted in America would decrease if more of its citizens adopted these simple behaviors. What would motivate Americans to take this sort of action? MOTIVATION Almost every model for green behavior, those which benefit the environment, includes an element of motivation. Stern (2000) developed the Value-Belief-Norm theory of environmentalism (VBN) in order to explain how one’s motivations affect environmentally significant behaviors. Environmentally significant behaviors can be defined as actions with the intention of benefitting the environment. VBN suggests that values and beliefs are important in determining behavior. For example, if a person values the environment, and believes food waste harms the environment, then the individual will be more motivated to change his behavior around food waste. Furthermore, VBN suggests one’s personal and social norms have a significant effect on motivation. Similarly, the theory of planned behavior identifies intention as the central element used to predict behavior (Azjen, 1985). Motivational factors drive intention and determine the extent to which someone is willing to act. Clayton and Brook (2005) have proposed a model for conservation psychology that suggests personal motives are an important element in addressing environmental problems. Since personal motives are one of the drivers of behavior, environmental issues are framed to reflect relevance to an individual’s personal motives in hopes of increasing proenvironmental behaviors. Understanding which motivations are the most influential on behaviors allows policy makers, government organizations, and individuals to promote pro-environmental information to the public in a way that will elicit increased compliance. What would motivate the American public to reduce food waste? According to Bloom (2010), there are three important reasons why food waste should be decreased: environment, economy, and social justice. However, do these reasons motivate people to reduce the amount of food they waste? Past research examining motivation to conserve energy confirms people do consider these three reasons (environment, economy, and social justice) to be motivating. Nolan, Schultz, Cialdini, Goldstein, and Griskevicius (2008) asked participants to rate how important it was that using less energy protected the environment, saved money, benefited society, and mirrored many other people trying to conserve on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 4 (extremely important). Participants rated environmental protection highest among the four reasons to conserve energy followed by benefitting society and saving money. Interestingly these highest three rated reasons for energy conservation align with the reasons for why people should care about food waste. The findings from this study demonstrate an experimental framework that can be used to address the issue of food waste. While the environment, finances, and social responsibility may be motivating for some, research in social psychology has identified a more powerful motivator for green behaviors: the social norm. Social norms are the stated or implied rules society has for acceptable behaviors (Aronson, Wilson, Akert, 2010). If green behaviors are seen as acceptable or encouraged by society, then people are more likely to perform the behavior. Assessing one’s own behaviors based on the behaviors of others is a form of social proofing. The Principle of Social Proof states people look at what others around them believe and do in order to decide what they should believe or do and has been noted as a main factor for influencing behaviors among individuals (Cialdini, 2009). In fact, in the Nolan et al. study (2008), while participants rated “a lot of other people conserving” (p.915) as the least influential motive out of the four, a follow-up analysis determined individuals’ conservation behaviors showed the strongest correlation with their beliefs regarding their neighbors’ conservation efforts. These findings suggest that beliefs about the standards performed 49
Page 1 and 2: DR. RONALD E. MCNAIR Ronald E. McNa
Page 3 and 4: ABSTRACT The purpose of the present
Page 5 and 6: Oluwademilade Adediran Psychology M
Page 21 and 22: ABSTRACT Early childhood education
Page 23 and 24: Kesha Berg Public Policy Enhancing
Page 43 and 44: ABSTRACT Human immunodeficiency vir
Page 45 and 46: Mondraya Howard Pharmacy HIV-1 Resi
Page 47 and 48: Mondraya Howard Pharmacy HIV-1 Resi
Page 49: ABSTRACT Food waste in the United S
Page 53 and 54: Bridgette Kelly Environmental Scien
Page 63 and 64: ABSTRACT This research discusses he
Page 65 and 66: Chia Lee Public Health Health care
Page 75 and 76: Mai-Eng Lee Social Work Teachers’
Page 83 and 84: APPENDIX B INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Back

dr. ronald e. mcnair acknowledgements - University of St. Thomas

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?