688321

research-article2017
JTRXXX10.1177/0047287516688321Journal of Travel ResearchJuvan et al.

Empirical Research Articles

Journal of Travel Research

Biting Off More Than They Can Chew:

1­–11
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Food Waste at Hotel Breakfast Buffets sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047287516688321
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287516688321
journals.sagepub.com/home/jtr

Emil Juvan1, Bettina Grün2, and Sara Dolnicar3

Abstract
Tourists bite off more than they can chew at hotel breakfast buffets. Food waste from hotel buffets means unnecessary
food cost for hotels as well as an unnecessary burden on the environment. The present study measured food waste at a
hotel breakfast buffet and identified the following guest and breakfast characteristics as being significantly associated with
higher plate waste: more children in the guest mix, more Russians and less Austrians or Germans, fewer hotel guests in the
breakfast buffet area as well as more buffet stations being set up. These insights contribute to knowledge on environmental
sustainability in tourism, pointing to interesting market segments for targeting in high demand periods as well as promising
target segments for interventions (e.g., families) and indicate that simple measures such as rearrangements of the breakfast
room may reduce food waste.

Keywords
environmental impact of tourism, plate waste, hotels, key drivers, market segments, food waste

Introduction emissions and leads to a depletion of 2.9 tons of natural

resources (e.g., species extinction, loss of biodiversity).
The tourism industry is interested in both long-term survival Food that is not consumed typically ends up in landfill
and short-term profits. Long-term survival is closely linked to where it uses land and creates methane, a gas that is 25 times
the protection of the natural resources that make a destination more harmful than CO2 (EPA 2016).
attractive to tourists. Short-term profits are driven by both the In terms of the financial dimension, the value of food
ability to charge a high price and by keeping the operating waste generated by the UK hospitality sector is estimated at
cost low. The tourism industry frequently finds itself in the 2.5 billion pounds per annum (WRAP 2013). Sodexo (2011),
position that actions required to ensure long-term survival one of the largest catering companies in the world, reports
stand in direct opposition to those required to maximize that, by reducing food waste by 47%, Sodexo lowered over-
short-term profits (Moeller, Dolnicar, and Leisch 2011). For all food costs by 53% or by nearly 5% per meal. A survey of
example, capacity restrictions reduce the environmental bur- members of the Sustainable Restaurant Association (2010)
den of tourism, but are not welcomed by the tourism industry suggests that, by reducing food waste, a restaurant turning
because they have an immediate negative effect on profit. over 10,000 pounds a week could save more than 2000
In other areas, however, tourism businesses can take pounds annually.
actions that achieve both goals simultaneously. Best known In light of food waste being a major driver of the tourism
is the example of towel reuse in hotels. If guests use their industry’s negative environmental impacts (Gössling et al.
towels more than once, they reduce their environmental 2011) and given the lack of research into food waste in tour-
footprint and, at the same time, reduce the hotel’s operating ism (Gössling and Peeters 2015), the present study makes
cost. A second such case, which stands at the center of the two key contributions: (1) it is the first to test differences in
present study, is the reduction of food wasted at breakfast
buffets in hotels.
1
Food waste has negative environmental and financial  niversity of Primorska, Faculty of Tourism Studies Turistica, Portoroz,
U
Slovenia
consequences. Food consumption and production are con- 2
Department of Applied Statistics, Johannes Kepler University, Linz,
sidered “key issues for climate change mitigation” (Gössling Austria
et al. 2011, 535). Food waste is also significantly associated 3
The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
with the use of natural resources, such as water and land
Corresponding Author:
(Gössling and Peeters 2015). BIO Intelligence Services Emil Juvan, University of Primorska, Faculty of Tourism Studies Turistica,
(2010) estimates that, on average, one kilo of food waste Obala 11a, Portoroz 6320, Slovenia.
produces almost two kilos of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) Email: [email protected]
2 Journal of Travel Research 

food waste generated by different types of tourists. All 2016). Scandinavian hotels produce about 120 grams of food
current statistics about food waste in tourism are available waste per meal (Marthinsen et al. 2012), which can be com-
only at a highly aggregate level. The present study adds pared to the food waste in restaurants and bars not located in
insights by identifying key characteristics of the guest mix hotels ranging between 1 and 500 grams per meal. Of course,
that are associated with higher or lower food waste. This the hospitality sector does not only cater to tourists, although
is new knowledge that is primarily of academic interest. “tourists provide a significant proportion of the market for
(2) The longer-term value of pinpointing which guests leave restaurants and cafes around the world” (Mitchell and Hall
particularly much uneaten food behind lies in being able to 2003, 62).
develop measures that can target specific segments among Tourists consume more food than at home and eat more
hotel guests; segments with the highest potential of reducing imported food than at home (Gössling 2015), thus increasing
food waste. This second aim is primarily of practical value as the tourism-related environmental impact on the destinations
it forms the basis for the development and testing of food (Hunter and Shaw 2007). Given that food consumption is a
waste reduction measures for hotel buffets. key tourist experience (Mitchel and Hall 2003), it is likely
that tourists try different kinds of food and do not like some
of them. This leads to more food being wasted than at home.
Literature Review
It is currently not known, however, which fraction of the
Food waste is unconsumed food. Food waste occurs at all hospitality-generated food waste is caused by tourism. One
stages, from food production to consumption. At the con- reason for this information not being available is that tourism
sumption stage, the term plate waste is used to describe food related food consumption and its environmental implications
served but not eaten (Kuo and Shih 2016). Plate waste con- have not been extensively researched to date (Gössling and
sists of three categories: edible, inedible, possibly edible Peeters 2015).
food (Stenmarck et al. 2016). Edible food waste—which Buffets are a form of meal service where guests typically
represents a significant portion of the total food waste pick and self-serve food in an all-you-can-eat manner.
(Marthinsen et al. 2012)—could have been eaten but was Buffet-style meal serving is a very popular method of serv-
not (Cox and Downing 2007; WRAP 2013). Possible rea- ing food in the hospitality industry and an important part
sons include poor quality, personal preferences, and overes- of the service quality in hotels (Wilkins, Merrilees, and
timation of the amount of food one will consume (Cox and Herington 2007). Buffets typically contain one or several
Downing 2007; BIO Intelligence Services 2010; Lam 2010; stations with a variety of dishes completing a full meal
Kuo and Shih 2016). Inedible food waste consists of parts of course; typically starters, main courses, deserts, salads,
food that cannot be consumed (e.g., peels, bones, egg shells); cheeses, and fruits. Buffet-style meals increase hotel per-
possibly edible food consists of food parts that some people formance directly through guests’ spending (Tanford and
eat and others do not (e.g., potato skins, cartilage, chicken Suh 2011) and indirectly through higher guest satisfaction
feet). and reduced service staff costs. Buffets allow easier and
The exact amount of food waste generated in tourism and quicker meal service and offer guests choices (Cohen and
hospitality is unknown, but it is estimated that hotels, restau- Avieli 2004). Such self-controlled serving influences
rants, and the catering sector are responsible for about 14% guests’ expectations (Yen-Soon, Bergman, and Raab 2010)
(BIO Intelligence Services 2010) of the total food waste gen- and leads to higher levels of satisfaction (Wilkins, Merrilees,
erated in the European Union. In absolute numbers, the 14% and Herington 2007) with the hotel service.
translate to about 12 million tons of food waste per annum, However, buffets can also increase food service cost
or between 12 and 28 kilograms of food waste per capita per because more food is consumed (Kuo and Shih 2016) and
annum for the 27 member states of the European Union. The more food is taken, but not eaten (Wansink and Ittersum
food service industry produces more food waste than the 2013). At buffets, people tend to overload their plates due to
wholesale, retail, and production sectors, respectively (BSR the wide variety and abundance of displayed food available
2012; Stenmarck et al. 2016). Food waste represents 46% of to them, at no extra costs (Kuo and Shih 2016). In tourism,
the total waste produced in US hotels (Alexander 2002). overloading plates leads to more food waste because tourists
A more recent estimate is that restaurants generate 33% of tend to experiment with unknown dishes (Quan and Wang
the total food waste in the United States (BSR 2012). A waste 2004), which they may not enjoy once they try them.
study in a hotel in Bangkok demonstrates an astonishing 1.3 Higher demand for food and increased plate waste
tons of edible food waste in one single week (Lephilibert negatively impact the environment. More food needs to be
2016). produced, transported, stored, and processed. Producing
Food waste from the hospitality sector in the European 1 kilo of vegetables, for example, causes between 0.036
Union ranges from six kilos per person per annum in Slovenia (carrots) and 28.5 (tomatoes) kilos of CO2e. Transportation
to 50 kilos in the UK (BIO Intelligence Services 2010). The adds between 0.015 (tomatoes) and 0.725 (grapes) kilos of
food service industry in the European Union produces 21 CO2e (Gössling et al. 2011). These figures increase as food is
kilos of food waste per person per annum (Stenmarck et al. prepared and then disposed into landfill, where food waste
Juvan et al. 3

releases various greenhouse gases, including methane, which higher levels of education, but negatively associated with
is 25 times more harmful than CO2 (EPA 2016) and “one of age. A study among nearly 2,000 UK residents concludes
the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions from the that food waste was higher among people under 45, from a
waste sector” (UNEP 2013). Other environmental impacts of low social class, employed full time, and young families with
food demand in tourism include water and land use. Negative children under 16 years of age (Cox and Downing 2007).
social impacts of providing buffet-style meal service include Overall, this study also finds that preparing too much food
food obesity (Duerksen et al. 2007; Wansink and Payne and dissatisfaction with the taste of the food, especially
2008) and overconsumption (Kuo and Shih 2016). among children, are the key drivers of food waste at home.
It can be concluded that buffets, as a style of food service, The authors also suggest that very few people make efforts
are concerning for at least two reasons: buffets increase food to reduce their food waste. No association exists between
consumption and consequently food production, and buffets gender and food waste behavior in the home environment
increase food waste. Both, greater production and more food according to Wansink and Johnson (2015).
waste cause environmental problems. Food waste is a major A number of other personal characteristics potentially
contributor to the overall environmental impacts of tourism associated with food waste emerge from studies into food
(Gössling et al. 2011). waste in the home context. But the results of these studies do
not allow drawing clear conclusions because of incompara-
Sociodemographic Characteristics and Food ble study designs and contradictory results.
Although the body of work on plate waste does not agree
Waste on the associations of all sociodemographic characteristics
The UK hospitality and food service sector produced nearly with plate waste, one finding emerges consistently: the key
three million tons of food waste in 2011, of which 34% role children play. We formulate two hypotheses based on
is plate waste (WRAP 2013)—food that is served but not this body of work:
eaten by a customer. Similar estimates are provided by the
UK-based Sustainable Restaurant Association (2010) stating Hypothesis 1: Children generate more food waste than
that about one third of food waste comes from customers’ adults.
plates. In academic studies, findings about plate waste per
person vary substantially. Wansink and Payne (2008) esti- People eat because they are hungry (metabolic reason) and
mate that 6% of the food served on the plate is not eaten, because they enjoy food (hedonic reason) (Burgess et al.
Gunders (2012) reports 17%, Freedman and Brochado 2014; Mitchel and Hall 2003). Hedonic eating is positively
(2010) 20%, and Just and Wansink (2011) 37%. Students eat- associated with food intake, body weight, and food waste
ing in university dining areas waste 30% of all the food they (Wansink and Payne 2008). When hungry, people overserve
take from the buffet for a single meal (Lam 2010). Children their plates, leading to more plate waste. The first breakfast
emerge as the worst culprits, leaving about 40% of the food at a hotel may be affected by both hedonic and metabolic
they are served uneaten (Wansink and Johnson 2015). reasons, both increasing plate waste. For example, guests
A number of other personal characteristics potentially who arrive late at night may not have an opportunity to eat
associated with food waste emerge from studies into food before breakfast, thus arriving at the buffet very hungry.
waste in the home context. Koivupuro et al. (2012) investi- Also, when visiting the buffet for the first time, guests—
gated the influence of individual characteristics of household driven by hedonic motives—may wish to explore a wide
members on the amount of food waste. Results of the survey spectrum of dishes on offer, only to find what they like and
among 380 Finnish households show that single-women what they do not like; the not-liked food is left uneaten. The
households produce more food waste per person than the second time guests come to the same buffet, they already
single-men households, households with children younger know to avoid the items they did not like, becoming more
than 18 years, and households with two or more children focused in their food choice.
older than 17 years. Moreover, households with women pri-
marily responsible for shopping also produce more food Hypothesis 2: Hotel guests generate more food waste at
waste than families where men are in charge of shopping. the first breakfast after arrival.
Households affected heavily by price in their food purchase
decision waste significantly less food. Surprisingly, house-
Country of Residence and Food Waste
holds stating that the amount of food waste is in their control
generated more food waste. Environmental beliefs have been theoretically postulated
Shopping at supermarkets, shopping less frequently, and (Stern 2000) and empirically demonstrated (Bamberg and
spending more than 100 Euros per shopping occasion is Möser 2007; Klöckner 2013) to be associated with environ-
associated with more food waste (Marangon et al. 2014). In mentally sustainable behavior in general and food waste–
addition, food waste per person was found to be positively related behaviors in specific (BIO Intelligence Services
associated with more people living in the household and 2010; Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2015). Different countries are
4 Journal of Travel Research 

known to vary both in terms of infrastructure provided to Weather and Food Waste
residents, enabling them to engage in environmentally sus-
tainable behavior, and pro-environmental beliefs held by Weather affects different aspects of human behavior,
residents. Empirical evidence for this fact has been provided including what and how much people eat. Little has been
in numerous studies that have shown differences in environ- published in the academic literature on this topic, but reports
mental beliefs, environmental knowledge, or behaviors with of associations between weather and eating are abundant on
environmental consequences between Asian and Western food- and health-related webpages. Aubrey, one of the many
countries (Aoyagi-Usui, Vinken and Kuribayashi 2003) and online bloggers about healthy life, says that “it seems like
between students from different countries (McKercher, Pang the minute the weather turns colder, we crave more to eat”
and Prideaux 2011). (2011). An online forum on diet and nutrition (Sparkpeople
Aoyagi-Usui, Vinken, and Kuribayashi (2003) demon- 2010) also offers a few interesting statements: “when it’s
strate that in Western-countries, environmental values are oppressively hot in the summer, all I can handle is salads
linked to altruistic but not to traditional values. In Asian and fresh fruit. In the fall and winter, I want warm, filling
countries, however, environmental values are linked to both foods, so I go for soups, stews, and comfort foods”; “cold
traditional and altruistic values. In Japan, postmaterialist, weather makes me really crave hot, fatty foods. Stuff like
biospheric and altruistic values, household income, educa- beef stew, meatloaf & mashed potatoes, and wing dip
tion, age, and gender are associated with energy-saving straight out of the crockpot!”; “The weather is getting cooler
behavior, pro-environmental political behavior, and green now and I am finding myself desiring more food.”
consumer behavior. In Japan, women are more positive Although scientific explanations about the correlation
about energy saving and green consumer behavior than men. between weather conditions and eating behavior are scarce,
In Western countries (e.g., the Netherlands), people with suggestions are that the lack of sunlight, typical for winter
more traditional values do not practice pro-environmental and rainy days, makes people seek more food and eat faster.
political behavior but engage in energy saving and green It seems that less light “prompts us to seek food and eat it
consumer behavior. Dutch women are more positive about faster” (Aubrey 2011). Another explanation could be sea-
energy-saving behavior than men, but share similar views as sonal affective disorder, typical for winter and rainy days.
men about green consumer behavior. Short and rainy days make people depressed and they often
Asian students have the strongest pro-environmental seek comfort in food (NHS 2015). De Castro (1991) inves-
beliefs and express most concerns about the potential impacts tigated eating behavior of 315 individuals over a six-year
of climate change. British and Irish students emerge as the period revealing strong seasonal variations in eating behav-
least concerned about the environment. Students from the ior. More specifically, nutrition intake is 14% higher in
United States were the least concerned about climate change fall than in other seasons of the year. On average, per day,
(McKercher et al. 2011). people eat 222 calories more in fall than in spring. In addi-
A recent survey study in Europe (European Commission tion, people eat larger meals in fall than in other seasons.
2014) confirms these differences. For example, while 96% of People also report to be significantly less hungry after a
respondents from Malta, Ireland, and Netherlands believe meal during summer than winter.
they can help to protect the environment, only 70% of Czechs, Weather also affects tourist behavior. Some tourists select
Hungarians, Finnish, Estonians, and Austrians feel the same vacation activities to suit weather conditions (de Freitas 2003)
way. Recycling is being practiced by around 90% of respon- or even change vacation plans before departure and during
dents from Slovenia, Luxemburg, Sweden, Ireland, and their trip (Lohmann and Hübner 2013; Becken and Wilson
France, but only by a quarter of respondents from Bulgaria, 2013; McKercher et al. 2015). Because people perceive actual
Romania, Latvia, and Croatia. Similar differences are being weather conditions differently, the perceptions of weather
reported also for energy- and water-saving behavior as well as may be more important than the actual weather in affecting
for reducing waste and choosing environmentally sustainable behavior (McKercher et al. 2015). Differences in perceptions
ways of traveling. Although these studies were conducted in can be due to different climate conditions in the country of
the home context, the differences across people from different origin or due to tourists’ travel motivations (Lohmann and
countries may well also manifest in the tourism context. Note, Hübner 2013).
however, that the available statistics are at aggregate level The effect of weather on tourist behavior also depends
only; it is possible that a segment of the population travels for on the type of destination visited. Activities offered at dif-
which the environmental behavior is not typical of their home ferent destinations are not equally dependent on weather
nation. Irrespective of such effects occurring, based on differ- conditions. For example, weather conditions have little
ences in aggregate statistics, it is plausible to formulate a effect on tourist behavior in Hong Kong (McKercher et al.
hypothesis about country of origin. 2015) whereas the weather strongly influences tourist behav-
ior on the Caribbean island of La Martinique (Lohmann and
Hypothesis 3: Hotel guests from different countries of Hübner 2013) and in New Zealand (Becken and Wilson
origin differ in the amount of food waste they generate. 2013).
Juvan et al. 5

Associations between weather and tourists’ eating behav- pro-environmental behavior. Social norms are beliefs about
ior have not been studied yet. However, based on prior work appropriate behavior of referent others. Being exposed to
on the effect of weather on tourists’ engagement in vacation referent others who support a certain behavior will therefore
activities as well as the effect of weather on eating, it can be motivate people to behave in a similar way. A number of
assumed that the weather at a seaside hotel will affect tourist studies have successfully harvested this effect in experimen-
behavior at the breakfast buffet. Expecting tourists to stay at tal interventions aiming at reducing towel use in hotels (e.g.,
breakfast buffets longer when the weather is bad, we hypoth- Goldstein, Cialdini, and Griskevicius 2008; Shultz, Khazian,
esize as follows: and Zaleski 2008; Baca-Motes et al. 2013).
An experimental study conducted specifically in the
Hypothesis 4: Bad weather causes more food waste at context of food waste was conducted by Kallbekken and
breakfast buffets. Sælen (2013). Before any intervention the 52 Finnish hotels
where the study was conducted produced between 34 and
38 kilograms of food waste per day. The authors tested the
Perceived Abundance of Food and Food Waste
effectiveness of two interventions: the use of smaller plates
A number of studies demonstrate that larger plates lead to and the use of a table sign encouraging hotel guests with the
more food waste (Freedman and Brochado 2010; Wansink following word: “Welcome back! Again! And again! Visit
and van Ittersum 2013; Kallbekken and Sælen 2013). our buffet many times. That’s better than taking a lot once.”
Freedman and Brochado (2010) suggest reducing portion The aim of this sign is to prevent people from feeling embar-
sizes to reduce plate waste. They prove the effectiveness of rassed by serving themselves multiple times. The intervention
this strategy in an experiment where they reduce the portion uses social norms and tries to make it socially acceptable
size for French fries at a university self-serving buffet-style to go back to the buffet many times. The results show that
restaurant. Interestingly, regardless of the plate size, people reducing plate size reduces food waste by nearly 20%. The
did not eat about 20% of what was on the plate originally. social norms intervention reduces food waste by 21%.
Because of the smaller serving, 20% of that smaller serving Findings also show that none of the treatments have a nega-
is effectively less absolute food waste. tive effect on guest satisfaction.
In the hotel context, Kallbekken and Sælen (2013) If kept in anonymity, thus not being exposed to referent
demonstrate that decreasing plate size reduces food waste: others, people will keep practicing their typical food waste
reducing the plate size by 3 cm reduces plate waste by 22%; behavior. The level of anonymity in a hotel setting varies,
1cm smaller plates reduce the waste by 7%. In another study, especially because of the number of guests staying in a hotel
guests using smaller plates (24 cm) on average produced and with the average length of stay. Both factors influence
5.2 grams less food waste compared to guests using standard whether people will have the opportunity and time to get
27cm plates (Hansen, Jespersen, and Skov 2015). Wansink acquainted to other guests and serving staff. Having become
and van Ittersum (2013) demonstrate that people eat 45% acquainted with other guests and staff, it is very likely that
more food and waste 135% more food at buffets with large guests will change their food behavior to be less wasteful.
plates than at buffets with smaller plates. An explanation is A study by Bucciol, Montinari, and Piovesan (2014) dem-
offered by van Ittersum and Wansink (2012): the Delbeouf onstrates that in case of increased anonymity, when more
illusion suggests that people tend to overserve on larger than two households share the same waste bin, the volume of
plates and underserve on smaller plates because people per- unsorted waste is significantly higher than when one or two
ceive the same portions on larger plate as not enough while households use the waste bin. Because a larger number of
perceiving it as too much on smaller plates. In addition, people being in the breakfast area at the same time is likely
people using larger plates believe they have eaten less than to lead to increased perceived anonymity, we hypothesize as
people using smaller plates. External factors such as ease of follows:
food accessibility and food visibility have a stronger impact
on higher food serving than internal cues (Benton 2015). Hypothesis 6: Hotel guests generate more food waste if
Because more buffets in the breakfast area increase the visi- there are more people in the breakfast area.
bility, availability, and accessibility of food being offered to
hotel guests, we hypothesize as follows:
Methodology
Hypothesis 5: More food waste is generated when more Data were collected at a four star–rated hotel at the Slovenian
buffets are set up. coast between June 11 and September 11, 2015. The hotel is
part of a larger hotel resort located on the Slovenian coast
and consisting of three hotels in total, each with a separate
Perceived Anonymity and Food Waste in-house dining area. The hotel offers 516 hotel rooms and
Theoretical (Stern 2000) and empirical evidence (Klöckner accommodates up to 1,200 guests. The guest mix contains all
2013) suggests that social norms are a good predictor of demographic groups who mainly visit the resort to enjoy
6 Journal of Travel Research 

typical sun–sea–sand holidays. About 75% of hotel guests categories: 0-5, 6-14, 15-20, 21-30, 31-60, 61-80, 81-100.
are international, mainly from neighboring countries (such as Age information was not available at the level of the
Italy and Austria) but also from distant countries (such as guest, so it was not possible to identify individual guests.
Russia and the United States). The hotel offers a private A descriptive analysis of age group distribution per day
beach, an indoor swimming pool area, a wellness center, shows that the guest composition by age on a specific day
and a number of other tourist activities, for example, bike falls into one of two age segments where one segment has
renting, boat renting, music, and cultural entertainment ani- a higher proportion of younger and the second one a higher
mation. Breakfast is included in the room rate. proportion of older guests. We use these groups instead of
The following information was collected for a period of the original age group distributions to minimize problems
92 days. that may arise from multicollinearity in the data.
Number of buffets set up: Depending on the number of
Food waste per person per day: The weight of food guests, the hotel sets up two or three buffet areas in the
guests took from the buffet but did not eat served as the breakfast room.
key dependent variable in the study. More specifically, Weather: Two weather parameters were collected every
this study measures edible food waste, which is self- day: the outside air temperature and whether or not it was
served food that can be eaten, but was left on the plate. raining. Data were obtained from the National Weather
For example, salami, cheese, egg omelets, bread, pan- Agency.
cakes, cereals, and similar eatable parts of food. The food
waste measure excludes inedible food waste (e.g., bones, Data collection was approved by The University of
fruit peels or watermelon or orange skin, eggshells, and Queensland Ethics Committee under approval number
similar items). A trained research assistant measured edi- 2015001101.
ble food waste every day after the breakfast buffet closed Data were first analyzed using descriptive statistics to
and all food leftovers were brought from the tables in the gain insight into the distribution of the variables based on
dining room. The food waste measure included all food mean and standard deviation as well as the minimum and
waste collected from tables (not food waste from the buf- maximum values, the 25th percentile, the median, and the
fet), but excluded inedible food waste and general waste 75th percentile to account for skewness and the bounded
(e.g., serviettes, food wrappers). Note that the focus of nature of the support of some variables. Next, a linear regres-
this study is on food waste; we do not study the potential sion model with waste per person and day in grams as depen-
benefits of not eating everything that’s on the plate in dent variable was fitted. Buffet size, temperature, rainfall
view of overeating. One measurement is available for (yes or no), percentage of country origin of guests, number
each day during the data collection period. The total food of guests (in hundreds), percentage of guests who arrived the
waste is divided by the number of people who had break- day before and who are departing on this day, and age group
fast on any given day to derive the food waste per person served as explanatory variables in the regression model.
per day measure. These measurements allow to link the Variable selection was performed with a backward stepwise
daily food waste to the characteristics of the guest distri- procedure using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) as
bution in the hotel as well as to external factors for a given performance criterion starting with the full model. For the
day, but not to associate the food waste of individuals final model, regression coefficient estimates along with stan-
with their characteristics. While individual data would be dard errors are determined. In addition, standardized regres-
preferable because it contains more detailed information, sion coefficients and variance inflation factors (VIF) to give
the available data on the aggregate level is sufficient to insights into multicollinearity are provided. t tests are per-
detect differences in food waste in dependence of the formed to check the significance of the regression coeffi-
overall guest composition. cients ignoring that the same data were already used to select
Country of origin: The nationality of guests staying at the a suitable model.
hotel at any given day was accessible through the hotel
database. Note that this information was not available at
the level of the guest, so it was not possible to identify Results
individual guests, only the mix of nationalities per day Sample Characteristics
was available. Nationalities included Austrian, Slovenian,
Italian, German, Hungarian, Belgian, Slovakian, Russian, Sample characteristics are provided in Table 1. As can be
Czech, and other. This information allows determining for seen in the first row of the table, the average food waste per
each day the proportion of guests from the different nation- person per day caused by food taken from the buffet but not
alities, that is, the proportion of Slovenians among all eaten is 15.2 grams. The third row labeled “Austria” indi-
guests staying in the hotel on a given day. cates that on average 25.4% of guests in the hotel are
Guest age: For every given day, it is known which per- Austrians. The following rows provide information on the
centage of guests fell into each of the following age distribution of the percentage of guests from the other
Juvan et al. 7

Table 1. Sample Characteristics.

Mean SD Min. 25th perc. Median 75th perc. Max.

Waste per person per day, g 15.2 5.4 5.0 10.0 15.7 19.7 25.2
Country, %
Austria 25.4 10.7 7.9 16.7 24.0 34.0 52.6
Slovenia 21.8 6.6 11.6 16.8 20.6 24.8 44.9
Italy 10.7 8.4 1.3 4.9 7.0 14.8 36.0
Germany 7.3 3.8 0.7 5.1 7.5 8.9 26.1
Hungary 4.6 3.6 0.0 0.9 4.4 6.8 15.3
Belgium 3.5 3.0 0.0 0.7 3.1 6.0 9.7
Slovakia 2.8 3.1 0.0 0.5 1.8 3.5 14.1
Russia 3.4 1.6 0.0 2.7 3.6 4.4 6.7
Czech Republic 3.1 2.2 0.0 1.4 3.0 4.3 13.3
Other 17.5 6.9 2.8 12.1 17.2 21.2 37.6
Age, years, %
0–5 4.9 2.1 1.0 2.9 5.3 6.8 8.4
6–14 9.5 6.6 0.3 1.8 13.2 15.4 18.3
15–20 3.5 2.0 0.0 1.6 4.0 4.9 9.1
21–30 7.5 3.6 0.6 5.8 6.9 8.5 23.3
31–60 48.2 7.4 23.4 45.1 51.3 53.0 62.5
61–80 24.5 14.9 5.9 11.9 18.2 34.7 64.0
81–100 2.0 1.6 0.1 0.5 1.5 2.8 6.9
Temperature, °C 22.0 4.3 14.8 17.5 22.8 25.6 29.0
Number of guests 861.2 298.4 174 632.5 958.0 1120.5 1198
Arrivals 28.3 12.4 5.1 17.8 27.6 33.0 61.7
Departures 28.8 15.0 7.3 17.2 25.9 34.1 77.8

Note: Mean, standard deviation (SD), minimum (Min.), 25th percentile (perc.), median, 75th percentile and maximum (Max.) for waste per person per day
(g), percentage of guests from a certain country per day (e.g., Austria), percentage of guests from a certain age group per day (e.g., age 0-5), temperature
in degrees Celsius per day, number of guests per day, and percentage of guests arriving (Arrivals) or departing (Departures) per day.

countries. Then information on the age distribution of guests In terms of weather, the average temperature at the
is provided. destination during the time of data collection was 22°C; it
Across the 92-day data collection period, the average rained on 25 days and did not rain on 67 days.
number of guests in the hotel was 861. As a consequence of
the fluctuation of the number of guests with a minimum of
Testing of Hypotheses
only 174 and a maximum of 1,198, the smaller buffet size
was set up on 40 days and the larger buffet size on 52 days. Table 2 provides the coefficients of the regression analysis as
Of the guests staying at the hotel during those 92 days, well as their standard errors, the standardized coefficients,
about a quarter came from Austria; 22% from Slovenia; 11% the p values of the two-sided t-tests if the coefficient is equal
from Italy; 7% from Germany; 5% from Hungary; 4% from to zero, and the variance inflation factors (VIFs). The coef-
Belgium; 3% each from Russia, the Czech Republic, and ficient estimates given in Table 2 can be interpreted in the
Slovakia; and 18% from all other countries that are not sepa- following ways. The coefficient estimate for “3 Buffets,” for
rately entered in the hotel database. example, indicates that the observed average food waste
Most hotel guests (48%) were, on average across the (grams) is 5.954 g higher if three instead of two buffets are
92 days, between 31 and 60 years old, followed by a quarter set up while all other variables are kept at the same level. The
of the guests aged between 61 and 80. Fifteen percent of coefficient for “Austria” indicates that if the percentage of
guests were children under 15. During data collection, 28 Austrians staying at the hotel is 1 percentage point higher,
guests arrived in the hotel per day on average and 29 departed. the average food waste observed is 0.1 g lower. The estimate
This discrepancy between the average number of guests for “Younger guests” indicates that on days when the guest
arriving and departing is due to the fact that the observation mix includes more young guests, the average food waste is
period started during a period where the hotel was fully 3.4 g higher compared with days when the share of older
booked and ended on a day when it was not fully occupied. guests is higher. The standardized coefficients in Table 2
Therefore, during the observation period, fewer guests indicate that the importance of the coefficients for vari-
arrived than departed. ables measured in percentage is in fact higher than their
8 Journal of Travel Research 

Table 2. Regression Coefficients (Backward Variable Selection Using AIC).

Coef. Std. Error Std. Coef. p Value VIF

Intercept 14.496 1.833 <0.001
3 Buffets 5.954 1.218 0.545 <0.001 6.151
Austria –0.100 0.032 –0.197 0.003 2.006
Germany –0.119 0.069 –0.083 0.087 1.122
Russia 0.774 0.273 0.231 0.006 3.301
Number of guests (in hundreds) –0.444 0.222 –0.243 0.049 7.353
Younger guests 3.403 1.077 0.311 0.002 4.805

Note: AIC = Akaike information criterion; Coef. = coefficient; Std. Error = standard error; Std. Coef. = standardized coefficient; VIF = variance inflation
factor.

unstandardized coefficients would suggest. Furthermore, the

dependence between the number of buffets set up and the
number of guests staying at the hotel as well as the age dis-
tribution of guests changing with the occupancy level in the
hotel leads to higher VIF values for these variables. Figure 1
illustrates the relative association of each of the predictor
variables on the dependent variable (food waste). For each
predictor variable selected by the stepwise procedure, a bar
is added where the length is proportional to its size and they
are ordered by absolute value. The direction of the bar
depends on its sign. For each bar the standard errors of the
estimated coefficients are indicated by the lines. The gray
bars indicate that the t-tests have a p value smaller than 0.05,
indicating a significant effect, while white bars are used
otherwise.
Table 2 is the basis for hypothesis testing. As can be seen,
hypothesis 1, which postulates that children generate more Figure 1. Ordered regression coefficients.
food waste than adults, is supported by the regression analy-
sis results. On days with more young guests staying at the of a one percentage point increase in Russians in the guest
hotel, especially children under the age of 14, significantly mix on food waste would be quite substantial, as can be seen
more food waste is generated than on days when more adults in Figure 1.
are staying at the hotel. The proposition that bad weather increases food waste as
Hypothesis 2 postulates that hotel guests generate more a consequence of tourists changing their behavior from
food waste at the first breakfast after arrival. The reason for undertaking activities to spending more time at the breakfast
this hypothesis is that people who come to the buffet the first buffet is not supported by the data. Hypothesis 4, therefore,
time may try a few different food items but find that they do is not confirmed.
not like some of them. The unwanted items are left behind. Hypotheses 5 and 6 cannot be tested separately because
The next day, the guests already know which items not to put an increase in the number of people in the breakfast area over
on the plate, thus avoiding the plate waste of the first day. a certain threshold always implies automatically that the
Hypothesis 2 is not confirmed by the analysis. As can be seen hotel sets up a third buffet station. This third buffet station
in Table 2, the variable capturing arrival has been eliminated has the same food items but increases the overall amount of
during the backward stepwise selection procedure using the food in the breakfast area and reduces the distances guests
AIC as criterion. need to walk to get to the buffet. Hypothesis 5 postulates that
A significant country of origin effect is detected in the perceived abundance of food as a consequence of the third
data. This means that hypothesis 3 (which states that hotel buffet leads to more food waste. Hypothesis 6 postulates that
guests from different countries of origin differ in the amount the increased anonymity caused by more people being pres-
of plate waste they generate) is supported. More specifically, ent in the room reduces the effects of social norms and thus
among all the countries of origin included in the data set, increases plate waste. The regression analysis results support
Austrian guests are found to produce significantly less food these two hypotheses. The number of buffets set up is highly
waste than guests of other nationalities. Russian guests pro- associated with more food waste. The third buffet is set up as
duce significantly more food waste. In particular, the effect soon as there are 800 guests in the hotel. In fact, as can be
Juvan et al. 9

seen in Figure 1, increasing from two to three buffet stations factors, based on findings from this study, are likely to reduce
in the breakfast restaurant area has a substantial effect on plate waste.
food waste. Within the same number of buffets, however, the The study also provides insights into which market seg-
number of guests is associated with decreased food waste. If, ments of hotel guests are the most promising groups to aim
for example, two buffets are set up and the number of guests measures at. For example, children emerge as the obvious
using these two buffets increases, the perception of food market segment with high plate waste reduction potential.
abundance decreases (less food per person at the buffet) and, The present study has a number of limitations: data was
with it, food waste. Once the third buffet is set up, the avail- not collected at individual level for two reasons: (1) it is
able amount of food per person suddenly increases rapidly, practically not possible to collect plate waste per hotel guest,
giving the impression of significant food abundance. In that and (2) human ethics approval could not be obtained for such
situation, food waste increases quite dramatically. a procedure. The analysis was based on aggregate data, not
on individual level guests data from the hotel data base.
Using aggregate data reduces statistical power, but the vari-
Conclusion ability in the aggregate guest mix was sufficient to identify
Plate waste is a problem. It causes restaurants, hotels, and significant associations between guest characteristics and
catering businesses unnecessary cost in food purchasing and food waste. The aggregate approach had the advantage that
production. It also harms the environment because both food the identity of the guests staying at the hotel is not revealed
production and disposal of uneaten food cause substantial to the researchers at any point. Optimally, this study would
greenhouse emissions and are associated with greater use of have been conducted across a range of hotels, further increas-
land and water resources. ing the variability of the guest mix and the buffet character-
The present study identifies a number of factors that are istics. Such a design was not affordable because of the high
associated with higher food waste at hotel breakfast buffets: labor cost associated with daily manual weighting of plate
children pile more on their breakfast plates than they eat, waste, but would be a valuable extension of this present
guests from different counties of origin have different food study. The hypothesis of abundance and anonymity could not
waste habits, with some countries of origin wasting signifi- be separated in the present analysis because setting up a third
cantly less food than others, and the combination of more breakfast station is a procedural consequence of more guests.
food being available in the breakfast area and more people This is an important area of future work. If the perception of
being in attendance increases food waste. Because these lat- abundance drives plate waste, a third buffet should never
ter two factors are inseparable in the analysis given that the be set up, irrespective of the number of guests. Finally, this
hotel sets up a third breakfast island as soon as a certain study does not develop a theory or framework of plate waste.
threshold of guests is reached, it cannot be concluded with Rather, it serves as an initial exploratory study into factors
certainty from this study whether it is the perceived abun- that are significantly associated with plate waste. More
dance of food or whether it is the increased anonymity that exploratory work is required to inform a framework or the-
causes this effect. ory of plate waste in future. Such a framework or theory
These insights contribute to knowledge because, to date, would represent the best possible basis for the development
drivers of plate waste in tourism have not been explored. of measures aimed specifically at reducing plate waste.
Rather, prior research offers only aggregate estimates of
plate waste, which do not lend themselves as a basis for Declaration of Conflicting Interests
hypothesis generation, and ultimately the development of a The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
framework of theory that aims at offering a comprehensive to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
explanation of plate waste. The present study is the first step
in this direction, uncovering a number of key associations. Funding
These key associations can be used to develop and test The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
measures to reduce plate waste. For example, parents could for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
be asked to serve their children or tasting plates could be We thank the Australian Research Council for financial support of
this project under grant DP110101347. We thank Hoteli Bernardin
offered at the buffet, allowing everyone—but most critically
d.d. for allowing us to run this field study on their premises and
children—to taste small portions of food items because serv- our research assistants Vanda Kunst, Robin Ulaga, Gašper Čuk,
ing larger portions untested on the plate leads to more plate Katarina Morato and Jurij Blaslov for helping to collect food waste
waste. Another simple measure would be to modify the setup measures.
of the buffet room. For example, decorative screens could be
put up in a way that would deliberately make the breakfast References
areas look smaller and would only make one of the buffet Alexander, S. 2002. “Green Hotels: Opportunities and Resources
stations visible to guests. Such a simple measure may achieve for Success.” http://docplayer.net/14204743-Green-hotels-
two things: reduce perceived anonymity of guests as well as opportunities-and-resources-for-success.html (accessed May
reduce perceived food abundance. Both or one of those 24, 2016).
10 Journal of Travel Research 

Aoyagi-Usui, M., H. Vinken, and A. Kuribayashi. 2003. “Pro- Freedman, M. R., and C. Brochado. 2010. “Reducing Portion
environmental Attitudes and Behaviors: An International Size Reduces Food Intake and Plate Waste.” Obesity 18 (9):
Comparison.” Human Ecology Review 10 (1): 23–31. 1864–66.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., I. de Hooge, P. Amani, T. Bech-Larsen, and Goldstein, N. J., R. B. Cialdini, and V. Griskevicius. 2008.
M. Oostindjer. 2015. “Consumer-Related Food Waste: Causes “Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate
and Potential for Action.” Sustainability 7 (6): 6457–77. Environmental Conservation in Hotels.” Journal of Consumer
Aubrey, A. 2011. “Winter Munchies: Do We Want More in Colder Research 35 (3): 472–82.
Months?” http://www.npr.org/2011/12/19/143938954/winter- Gössling, S. 2015. “New Performance Indicators for Water
munchies-do-we-eat-more-in-colder-months (accessed May 5, Management in Tourism.” Tourism Management 46:233–44.
2016). Gössling, S., B. Garrod, C. Aall, J. Hille, and P. Peeters. 2011.
Baca-Motes, K., A. Brown, A. Gneezy, E. A. Keenan, and “Food Management in Tourism: Reducing Tourism’s Carbon
D. N. Leif. 2013. “Commitment and Behavior Change: ‘Foodprint.’” Tourism Management 32 (3): 534–43.
Evidence from the Field.” Journal of Consumer Research 39 Gössling, S., and P. Peeters. 2015 “Assessing Tourism’s Global
(5): 1071–84. Environmental Impact 1900–2050.” Journal of Sustainable
Bamberg, G., and G. Möser. 2007. “Twenty Years after Hines, Tourism 23 (5): 639–59.
Hungerford, and Tomera: A New Meta-analysis of Psycho- Gunders, D. 2012. “Wasted: How America Is Losing up to 40
social Determinants of Pro-environmental Behaviour.” Journal Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill.” https://
of Environmental Psychology 27 (1): 14–25. www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf (accessed
Becken, S., and J. Wilson. 2013. “The Impacts of Weather on May 5, 2016).
Tourist Travel.” Tourism Geographies 15 (4): 620–39. Hansen, P. G., A. M. Jespersen, and L. R. Skov. 2015. “Size Matter!
Benton, D. 2015. “Portion Size: What We Know and What We Need A Choice Architectural Field Experiment in Reducing Food
to Know.” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition Waste.” Journal of Food and Hospitality Research 4:11–15.
55:988–1004. Hunter, S., and J. Shaw. 2007. “The Ecological Footprint as a Key
BIO Intelligence Services 2010. “Preparatory Study on Food Waste Indicator of Sustainable Tourism.” Tourism Management 28
across EU 27.” http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/ (1): 46–57.
bio_foodwaste_report.pdf (accessed May 5, 2016). Just, D. R., and B. Wansink. 2011. “The Flat-Rate Pricing Paradox:
BSR 2012. “Food Waste Study—Tier 1 Assessment.” http://www. Conflicting Effects of “All-You-Can-Eat” Buffet Pricing.”
foodwastealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FWRA_ Review of Economics and Statistics 93 (1): 193–200.
BSR_Tier1_FINAL.pdf (accessed May 25, 2016). Kallbekken, S., and H. Sælen. 2013. “Nudging’ Hotel Guests to
Bucciol, A., N. Montinari, and M. Piovesan. 2014. “It Wasn’t Me! Reduce Food Waste as a Win-Win Environmental Measure.”
Visibility and Free Riding in Waste Sorting.” http://dx.doi. Economics Letters 119 (3): 325–27.
org/10.2139/ssrn.2440753 (accessed May 5, 2016). Klöckner, C. 2013. “A Comprehensive Model of the Psychology
Burgess, E. E., B. Turan, K. L. Lokken, A. Morse, and M. M. of Environmental Behaviour—A Meta-analysis.” Global
Boggiano. 2014. “Profiling Motives behind Hedonic Eating. Environmental Change 23 (5): 1028–38.
Preliminary Validation of the Palatable Eating Motives Scale.” Koivupuro, H.-K., H. Hartikainen, K. Silvennoinen, J. M.
Appetite 72 (1): 66–72. Katajajuuri, N. Heikintalo, A. Reinikainen, and L. Jalkanen.
Cohen, E., and N. Avieli. 2004. “Food in Tourism: Attraction and 2012. “Influence of Socio-demographical, Behavioural and
Impediment.” Annals of Tourism Research 31 (4): 755–78. Attitudinal Factors on the Amount of Avoidable Food Waste
Cox, J., and Downing, P. 2007. “Food Behaviour Consumer Generated in Finnish Households.” International Journal of
Research: Quantitative Phase.” http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/ Consumer Studies 36 (2): 183–91.
files/wrap/Food%20behaviour%20consumer%20research%20 Kuo, C., and Y. Shih. 2016. “Gender Differences in the Effects of
quantitative%20jun%202007.pdf (accessed May 25, 2016). Education and Coercion on Reducing Buffet Plate Waste.”
de Castro, J. M. 1991. “Seasonal Rhythms of Human Nutrient Intake Journal of Foodservice Business Research 19 (3): 223–35.
and Meal Pattern.” Physiology & Behavior 50 (1): 243–48. Lam, Y. 2010. “Why Do UC Berkeley Students Waste Food
de Freitas, C. R. 2003. “Tourism Climatology: Evaluating at Dining Halls?” http://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/
Environmental Information for Decision Making and Business projects/2010final/LamY_2010.pdf (accessed October 25,
Planning in the Recreation and Tourism Sector.” International 2016).
Journal of Biometeorology 48 (1): 45–54. Lephilibert, B. 2016. “Food Waste the Elephant in the Room for
Duerksen, S. C., J. P. Elder, E. M. Arredondo, G. X. Ayala, the Hospitality Industry.” http://www.sustainablebrands.
D. J. Slymen, N. R. Campbell, and B. Baquero. 2007. “Family com/news_and_views/waste_not/benjamin_lephilibert/food_
Restaurant Choices Are Associated with Child and Adult waste_elephant_room_hospitality_industry (accessed May
Overweight Status in Mexican-American Families.” Journal 25, 2016).
of the American dietetic association 107 (5): 849–53. Lohmann, M., and A. C. Hübner. 2013. “Tourist Behavior and
EPA 2016. “Overview of Greenhouse Gases.” https://www3.epa. Weather: Understanding the Role of Preferences, Expectations
gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html (accessed and in-situ Adaptation.” Mondes du Tourisme 8:44–59.
May 5, 2016). Marangon, F., T. Tempesta, S. Troiano, and D. Vecchiato. 2014.
European Commission 2014. “Attitudes of European Citizens “Food Waste, Consumer Attitudes and Behaviour. A Study in
towards the Environment.” http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion./ the North-eastern Part of Italy.” Rivista di Economia Agraria
archives/ebs/ebs_416_en.pdf (accessed May 5, 2016). 69 (2-3): 201–9.
Juvan et al. 11

Marthinsen, J., P. Sundt, O. Kaysen, and K. Kirkevaag. 2012. “How Tanford, S., and E. Suh. 2011. “The Impact of Dining by Restaurant
to Increase Prevention of Food Waste in Restaurants, Hotels, Type on Gaming Volumes of Casino Worth Segments”
Canteens and Catering: Report Prepared for the Nordic Council (July 27, 2011). International CHRIE Conference-Refereed
of Ministers.” http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf? Track. Paper 3 http://scholarworks.umass.edu/refereed/
pid=diva2%3A701203&dswid=-7274 (accessed May 5, 2016). ICHRIE_2011/Wednesday/3 (accessed October 24, 2016).
McKercher, B., S. F. H. Pang, and B. Prideaux. 2011. “Do Gender UNEP. 2013. “Food Waste Harms Climate, Water, Land and
and Nationality Affect Attitudes towards Tourism and the Biodiversity—New FAO Report.” http://www.unep.org/news-
Environment?” International Journal of Tourism Research 13 centre/Default.aspx?DocumentID=2726&ArticleID=9611
(3): 266–300. (accessed October 25, 2016).
McKercher, B., N. Shoval, E. Park, and A. Kahani. 2015. “The Van Ittersum, K., and B. Wansink. 2012. “Plate Size and Color
[Limited] Impact of Weather on Tourist Behavior in an Urban Suggestibility: The Delboeuf Illusion’s Bias on Serving and
Destination.” Journal of Travel Research 54 (4): 442–55. Eating Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (2):
Mitchell, R., and C. M. Hall. 2003. “Consuming Tourists: Food 215–28.
Tourism Consumer Behaviour.” In Food Tourism around Wansink, B., and K. A. Johnson. 2015. “The Clean Plate Club:
the World: Development, Management and Markets, edited About 92% of Self-Served Food Is Eaten.” International
by C. M. Hall, L. Sharples, R. Mitchell, N. Macionis, and B. Journal of Obesity 39:371–74.
Combourne, 60–80. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Wansink, B., and C. R. Payne. 2008. “Eating Behavior and Obesity
Moeller, T., S. Dolnicar, and Leisch, F. 2011. “The sustainability– at Chinese Buffets.” Obesity 16 (8): 1957–60.
profitability trade-off in tourism: can it be overcome?” Journal Wansink, B., and K. van Ittersum. 2013. “Portion Size Me: Plate-
of sustainable tourism 19 (2): 155–169. Size Induced Consumption Norms and Win-Win Solutions for
NHS 2015. “Seasonal affective disorder (SAD).” http://www.nhs. Reducing Food Intake and Waste.” Journal of Experimental
uk/conditions/seasonal-affective-disorder/Pages/Introduction. Psychology: Applied 19:320–32.
aspx (accessed May 5, 2016). Wilkins, H., B. Merrilees, and C. Herington. 2007. “Towards an
Quan, S., and N. Wang. 2004. “Towards a Structural Model of the Understanding of Total Service Quality in Hotels.” Hospitality
Tourist Experience: An Illustration from Food Experiences in Management 26 (4): 840–53.
Tourism.” Tourism Management 25 (3): 297–305. WRAP. 2013. “Overview of Waste in the Hospitality and Food
Shultz, P. W., Khazian, A. M., and Zaleski, A. C. 2008. “Using Service Sector.” http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/
Normative Social Influence to Promote Conservation among Overview%20of%20Waste%20in%20the%20UK%20
Hotel Guests.” Social Influence 3 (1): 4–23. Hospitality%20and%20Food%20Service%20Sector%20
Sodexo. 2011. “The Better Tomorrow Plan Case Study.” https:// FINAL.pdf (accessed May 5, 2016).
www.unglobalcompact.org/system/attachments/16665/ Yen-Soon, K., C. Bergman, and C. Raab. 2010. “Factors That
original/Case_Study_Stop_Wasting_Food.pdf?1342716234 Impact Mature Customer Dining Choices in Las Vegas.”
(accessed May 5, 2016). Journal of Foodservice Business Research 13 (3): 178–92.
Sparkpeople. 2010. “Does a Change in Weather Affect Ones Eating
Habits.” http://www.sparkpeople.com/ma/Does-a-change-in- Author Biographies
weather-affect-ones-eating-habits/7/1/21622454 (accessed Emil Juvan is an assistant professor at the University of Primorska,
May 5, 2016). Faculty of Tourism Studies Turistica, Slovenia. His research inter-
Stenmarck, Å., C. Jensen, T. Quested, and G. Moates. 2016. ests are environmentally sustainable tourist behaviour and destina-
“Estimates of European Food Waste Levels.” http://www.eu- tion management.
fusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/Estimates%20of%20
Bettina Grün is an associate professor of Applied Statistics at the
European%20food%20waste%20levels.pdf (accessed October
Johannes Kepler University Linz. Her research interests include
24, 2016).
mixture models, statistical computing with R and quantitative
Stern, P. C. 2000. “Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally
marketing.
Significant Behavior.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 407–24.
Sustainable Restaurant Association. 2010. “Too Good to Waste: Sara Dolnicar is a research professor of Tourism at The University
Restaurant Food Waste Survey Report 2010.” http://www. of Queensland. Sara’s key areas of expertise are market segmenta-
thesra.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/SRA002-SRA-Food- tion and marketing measurement. Much of her work contributes to
Waste-Survey-Full-Report.pdf (accessed May 5, 2016). the areas of sustainable tourism and tourism marketing.