human centered approach for reducing household food waste
TRANSCRIPT
Human Centered Approach for Reducing
Household Food Waste by Tracking Fridge
Inventory and the Use of Mobile Application
Mänskligt centrerat tillvägagångssätt för att minska hushållens matavfall
genom att spåra kylinventariet och användningen av mobilapplikation
Marko Radenkovic
Marcel Laska
Faculty of Technology and Society
Computer Science
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science 180 hp
VT 2020
Supervisor: Reza Malekian
Examiner: Mia Persson
Final Seminar 4/6 2020
Abstract
Increasing amounts of food waste is becoming a problem in developed countries.
This research project is about how to reduce food waste by tracking fridge
inventory and the best-before date of fridge stored food by a smartphone
application. Food waste occurs in several different ways. It can be found in the
household, retail stores and in the catering and events sector. Food waste can also
be classified as avoidable waste, possibly avoidable waste and unavoidable waste.
This project focuses on the household sector and the use of a mobile application to
track fridge inventory and best-before date. The purpose of the application is to try
to reduce household food waste. There is previous research about reducing
household food waste using mobile applications and they all take different
approaches. This study focuses on building upon these previous approaches
together with data gathered from our own questionnaire with Sweden as primary
focus. The combined data results in our own mobile application solution that has
been tested by users in Swedish households. The study’s research question is
addressed by the use of the application during a period of one-week observation.
Our data collection consists of the participants being interviewed at the end of the
observation period. The interviews gathered information related to whether the
users successfully reduced food wastage in their households.
1
Contents
1. Introduction 4
1.1 Scope and Goals 5
1.2 Limitations 5
2. Background 6
2.1 Household Food Waste 6
2.1.1 Avoidable Waste 7
2.1.2 Possibly Avoidable Waste 8
2.1.3 Unavoidable Waste 8
2.2 Change of Behaviour 8
3. Previous Research 9
3.1 Fridge Inventory 9
3.2 Best-Before Date 9
3.3 Grocery Shopping Tracking 10
4. Method 11
4.1 Mixed Method 11
4.2 Study Content 11
4.2.1 User Usability 11
4.2.2 Questionnaire 12
4.2.3 Application Development 13
5. Questionnaire Result and Analysis 14
5.1 Respondents 14
5.1.1 Age and Gender 14
5.1.2 Smartphone Usage 15
5.1.3 Household Situation 15
5.2 Household Food Waste 15
5.2.1 Food Waste 15
5.2.2 Food Waste Frequency 16
5.2.3 Reasons for Food Waste 16
5.2.4 Reasons Why “Best-before-date has expired” 17
5.3 Fridge Inventory 18
5.3.1 Fridge Inventory Tracking 18
5.3.2 Grocery Shopping Tracking 18
5.3.3 Grocery Shopping Problems 19
5.4 Willingness to use Mobile Application 20
5.4.1 Use Mobile Application to Track Fridge Inventory 20
5.4.2 Willingness to Take Photo of Receipt After Grocery Shopping 20
2
5.4.3 Household’s Grocery List in the Application 20
5.5 Conclusion of Analysis 21
6. Mobile Application Solution 22
6.1 Functionality 22
6.2 Scanning of Receipts 22
6.2.1 OCR 23
6.2.2 Shelf Life of Refrigerated Foods 24
6.3 Best-Before-Date Notifications 27
6.3.1 Status Bar and Notification Drawer Notification 27
6.3.2 Heads Up Notification 28
6.3.3 Locked Screen Notification 29
6.4 Joint Grocery Shopping List 29
6.4.1 Firebase Realtime Database 30
6.5 General Data Protection Regulation 31
7. Results 32
7.1 Interview 32
7.2 Household Situation, Usage and User Experience 32
7.2.1 Household Situation 32
7.2.2 Usage of Application 33
7.2.3 User Experience 34
7.3 Impact on Fridge Inventory and Grocery Shopping Tracking 35
7.3.1 Impact on Fridge Inventory Tracking 35
7.3.2 Impact on Grocery Shopping Tracking 36
7.4 Change of Behaviour 37
7.4.1 Noticable Change of Behaviour 37
7.4.2 Reasons Behind Change of Behaviour 38
8. Discussion 39
9. Conclusion 43
9.1 Future Work 43
10. References 45
11. Appendices 48
A. Questionnaire 48
B. Interviews 50
3
1. Introduction
Approximately one third of all globally produced food is wasted or thrown away
every year. It occurs at all stages of the Food Supply Chains (FSC) and the scale of
it depends on factors such as wealth of the certain area, closeness and access to
agriculture, culture and most importantly, supply and demand [1]. In Sweden, the
National Food Agency collaborated with both the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Board of Agriculture and developed a plan called “More To Do More”. The
goal is to reduce waste of food in all of the supply chains through clear
arrangements and actions in all parts, from the farm until it reaches the customer.
The plan is supposed to help Sweden achieve their part of the
global-sustainable-development goal of Agenda 2030, which is that by 2030 we
should have halved the global food waste per capita at the retail and consumer
levels. However, there are some problems. Swedes waste, on average, 97kg of
eatable food and drinks per person per year whereat food waste in households
accounts for approximately 70% of the total food wasted, [2]. Therefore it is clear
that the households are the part that can be affected and addressed the most.
Furthermore, the problem goes beyond only being about food waste as the
environment is also affected. To produce the food that is being wasted causes 2
billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to be emitted. That is almost 3% of Sweden’s total
carbon dioxide emission [3].
The Swedish National Food Agency (NFA), has reviewed the food waste problem by
studying consumption patterns, behaviour and attitudes [4]. Their conclusions
resulted in that the high pace of society with ever-increasing expectations of
material standards means that households today often suffer from a lack of time to
become more involved in cooking than necessary. This means an increased risk of
wastage by neglecting the planning of purchases and over-purchasing which leads
to the fact that food can become too old, best before the day is misinterpreted and
that all parts of the raw materials or residues are not utilized [4]. It is clear that in
order to reduce the waste of food we have to look at the highest level of the food
waste hierarchy, namely the prevention of food waste.
In addition, more than 90% of Sweden’s population has access to and uses a
smartphone on a daily basis, a number that keeps growing every year [5].
Therefore, by creating an application to help people reduce the amount of food
being wasted we will be able to reach the highest level of the food waste hierarchy
but, in theory, also reach almost the entire population of Sweden.
This leads to the research questions of this paper:
● How to track grocery inventory in the fridge and the best-before-date?
● How to avoid food waste by tracking what exists in the fridge and when it
expires?
4
1.1 Scope and Goals
The main task of this paper is to evaluate how to approach the waste of food within
households with the help of an mobile application whereas the main challenge lies
within to change the approach of Swedes concerning planning of grocery purchases
and over-purchasing.
Due to the limited scope of the thesis the implementation will intentionally focus
on food with an “best-before date” that must be stored in the refrigerator.
Furthermore, other aspects of the food waste problem, such as the health and
economic aspects are not included. However, both these aspects are possible
subjects for further studies since they might be in relation to how they affect the
food waste problem in households. The ultimate main goal is to reduce the waste of
fridge-stored food within households. In order to achieve the main goal following
sub-goals must be achieved:
● Raise concerns about food waste within households.
1.2 Limitations
The following limitations were made:
● The application was only developed for the Android mobile operating system
● Due to the short time frame the study focused only on fridge-stored food
with a best-before-date
● Due to the short time-frame the users tested the application for only one
week
5
2. Background
It is estimated that more than 820 million people are hungry globally, a number
that is up from 811 million the previous year and totally it is the third increase in a
row, making the reduction of food waste even more important [6]. The topics and
objects introduced in this section will cover two of the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals, namely goal 2 - “Zero Hunger” and goal 12 - “Responsible
Consumption and Production” [7].
Goal 2, “Zero Hunger” is stating that a profound change of both the food and
agriculture system is needed in order to nourish the 820 million hungry people and
also have in mind the additional 2 billion increase of the world's population that is
expected by 2050. The ultimate goal is to end hunger, achieve food security and
have sustainable agriculture [7].
Goal 12, “Responsible Consumption and Production” is about promoting resource
and energy efficiency and sustainable infrastructure. About one third of all globally
produced food ends up either rotting in the bins of consumers and retailers or is
spilled out due to poor harvesting practices or transportation. The targets of this
goal is to halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels by
2030 and substantially reduce food waste generation through prevention and
reduction [7].
The ultimate goal is that this paper can have an impact on both these goals, for
their logos see Figure 1.
Figure 1: Logos for UN’s sustainable development goal 2, “Zero Hunger” and goal
12. “Responsible Consumption and Production” [7]
The following sections will describe food waste in Sweden, both in general and in
households and the three categories of food waste.
2.1 Household Food Waste
In Sweden it is the households that are responsible for the majority of the food
being wasted, almost a total of 917,000 tonnes which corresponds to 70% of the
total yearly waste. Out of the total waste, 384,000 tonnes were not sorted and
ended in the residual waste, most commonly known as the garbage bag under the
sink. However, 217,000 tonnes were sorted for biological treatment such as
6
digestion and composting including home composting and smaller quantities via
disposers. The remaining, approximately 224,000 tonnes of food and drink are
poured into the sewage [8].
Almost 28%, corresponding to about 18kg per person per year, of households’ sorted
food waste is unnecessary. The same applies for the approximately 2% per person
and year of food that ends up in the compost [9]. For the distribution of food groups
in residual waste see Figure 2.
Figure 2: Distribution of household food waste in food groups by residual waste [9].
Another part of the household's food waste is that which is being poured into the
drain. It is estimated that Swedes, per person, throw away 26kg food that ends up
in the drain, where all of it counts as avoidable waste [9]. Food wasted in the drain
constitutes a quarter of the total household food waste. Almost 40% of the
quantities poured consisted of coffee and tea, 25 percent of dairy products and 10
percent of other beverages such as juice, carbonated or alcoholic beverages. Then
came solid food waste such as rice, pasta and cereals [10].
Food waste is categorized into three different categories, avoidable waste, possibly
avoidable waste and unavoidable waste.
2.1.1 Avoidable Waste
Avoidable waste is the food and drinks that we were able to eat at some point but
chose not to. Example of avoidable waste is a slice of bread, an apple, meatballs or
orange juice. Avoidable waste is the food waste category that can be affected and
reduced the most [11].
7
2.1.2 Possibly Avoidable Waste
Possibly avoidable waste is the food and drinks that some people eat and some
people do not. This depends on the preferences, taste, allergies and intolerances of
the consumer but also if the food can be eaten prepared in one way but not in
another. Examples of possibly avoidable waste is bread crusts, potato skin or pulp
in orange juice [11].
2.1.3 Unavoidable Waste
Unavoidable waste is the food and drinks arising from food preparation that is and
has not been edible for us humans under normal circumstances. Example of
unavoidable waste are meat bones, shell of a coconut or the skin of oranges [11].
2.2 Change of Behaviour
Habits and emotions of food wasting consumers need to be changed in order to
reduce or prevent waste of food. However, it needs to be done carefully, as people
aware and guilty of food waste let their feelings have a negative affect on their
habits meaning that they tend to waste even more food compared to people who are
not aware of the effects of their actions [12]. This leads to the fact that the
application cannot initiate negative feelings regarding throwing away food and
waste in general but instead focuses on giving both positive feedback as well as
creating a positive image about the change of behaviour of the consumer.
8
3. Previous Research
There are a number of mobile applications available on the market with the
purpose of reducing food waste in various settings. This thesis focuses on reducing
household food waste by tracking the grocery inventory in the fridge and when it
expires. In addition, focus has to be on tracking grocery shopping. If grocery
shopping is tracked it can help prevent over-purchasing and thus lead to less food
being wasted because of the best-before date.
3.1 Fridge Inventory
There exists several prototype mobile applications developed as a result of prior
research. The prototypes have their own limitations but what they all have in
common is that they want to promote behaviour change in order to reduce
household food waste. The way the application keeps track of food and waste will
determine how easy the application is to use. Several options have been explored
for managing fridge inventory but they differ in the difficulty level to implement
because of various technical aspects [13].
The optimal solution for managing fridge inventory is to retrieve purchases directly
from any given grocery store. The user would afterwards log in and track the
specific groceries bought. There is an alternative where the user would have to
invest in buying a smart fridge in order to keep track of the groceries. This would
not make the application very accessible because of the cost and scare off most
potential users [13]. The aforementioned options are both difficult to realistically
implement. A simpler solution to implement would be to scan barcodes from
groceries. This gives the user full control of what to scan, and what not to.
However, this option introduces a larger workload for the user and it is also not
possible to implement if the grocery stores do not grant the necessary access to
their databases [14]. Ultimately, scanning the receipt after each grocery purchase
could be possible. But this option comes with the technical problem of maybe not
successfully retrieving all the necessary information [13].
3.2 Best-Before Date
Prior research has proven that there is no good way with the user in mind to
retrieve the best-before date of groceries. There exists a manual data entry barrier
that is hard to overcome. The food infrastructure in many countries does not allow
information about groceries to be easily codified at the point of sale [14]. In some
countries, such as the U.S., certain information can be retrieved through scanning
grocery barcodes. When the barcode of a grocery is scanned, the data retrieved can
be linked to corresponding databases which include information about the grocery
such as the food’s name and best-before date [14]. This is not possible today in
Sweden due to the limitations of the food infrastructure. This makes it challenging
and unnecessarily user-intensive to retrieve the best-before date. A user-intensive
process to add best-before dates may have a negative consequence such as reduced
engagement to the mobile application. This will in turn affect the goal of reducing
household food waste.
9
3.3 Grocery Shopping Tracking
Food wastage can be greatly reduced through planning. If the consumer plans the
shopping well it can help reduce throwing a chunkful of food products because of
the best-before date. Good planning can also give the consumer a better shopping
experience since they would not have to go back to the store in case they forgot to
buy something. There are several applications available that focus on tracking
grocery shopping. Fridge Pal is an example of an application targeting individual
consumers [15]. It provides a range of features aimed at helping the users with
managing their groceries. Some of Fridge Pal’s defining features includes creating
and managing shopping lists which can later also be used to add food items to the
application’s inventory [15].
10
4. Method
Following section will describe the method used to conduct the research. Further, a
motivation for the use of chosen method is presented along with a discussion of how
the method was implemented.
4.1 Mixed Method
In order to achieve a strong understanding of the problem an explanatory mixed
method [16] was used during this study. Mixed methods are the collections of both
quantitative, namely close-ended, and qualitative, open-ended, data. It uses
established methods for the collection, analysis and interpretation of both types of
data meaning that both are integrated in the analysis [16].
The main reasons why the mixed method approach is a good research methodology
are [17]:
● Minimizes limitations of both qualitative and quantitative approaches
● Explains quantitative results with the qualitative analysis and collection of
data
● Complements the questionnaire by integrating individuals perspectives
The aim of the study and mentioned above reasons align making the mixed
methods approach suitable to use in the study. Figure 3 below describes the mixed
method.
Figure 3: The mixed method approach used in this study.
4.2 Study Content
The different parts involved in this study are presented, discussed and motivated
here.
4.2.1 User Usability
In order to get the Swedish population to use the app we have to understand their
point of view, what their main problem regarding food waste is, the functionality of
the application and how user friendly it should be. These mentioned topics are all
part of a broader concept called usability. Good usability of a product or service is
crucial in order to achieve success, in this case to reach out to the Swedish
population and get them to use the application in their everyday life. International
Organization for Standardization’s definition of usability contains three main areas
[18] :
11
● Effectiveness - Users achieve goals through completeness and accuracy.
● Efficiency - Provided resources have been used in relation to completeness
and accuracy through which the user has achieved the goals.
● Satisfaction - Positive attitude towards continued use of the product.
The purpose of the questionnaire is to get a deeper understanding of both the food
waste problem within households but also the aspects and goals that the
application had to meet in order to be used.
4.2.2 Questionnaire
The questions used in the questionnaire were kept simple, straight to the point and
formed after recommendation [19]. The questionnaire consisted of 14 questions
divided into four parts:
● Background of the participants
● Food waste in their households
● Fridge inventory and grocery shopping tracking in their households
● Willingness to use mobile application to track fridge inventory and grocery
shopping
First part of the questionnaire generated quantitative data. The respondents
answered questions regarding their age and gender, smartphone usage, household
situation and if they are wasting food in their households. By understanding how
often it occured we could get a sense of how big of a problem this actually is. The
second part generated qualitative data. Respondents got to answer the reasons why
they are wasting food in households. They answered multiple-choice questions with
the most common reasons why food is being wasted but also got the chance to write
their own explanations behind it. This gave evidence to the quantitative data from
the previous part as well as insight into why the problem occurs. Furthermore, it
led to new opportunities regarding functionality of the application. Third part
generated both quantitative and qualitative data. The respondents answered if
they had the problem regarding keeping track of their fridge inventory and got to
either describe the problem and why or when it occurs or how they solve it. Then
they proceeded to answer the following questions regarding keeping track of what
to buy during grocery shopping and the occuring problems in the same way. In the
fourth and last part of the questionnaire the respondents answered how willing
they are to use a mobile application to keep track of fridge inventory in order to
prevent food waste but also about functionality of the application itself. It
generated quantitative data.
Twenty three participants in ages between 16-52 were involved in answering the
questionnaire. All of them have a smartphone that they use on a daily basis and
none has a background in environmental, or equivalent, studies or any knowledge
about food waste, both in general and in households. However, their household
situation differed.
12
4.2.3 Application Development
After summary and analysis of the questionnaire an Android mobile application
was developed with the goal of reducing and preventing waste of fridge stored food
within households. Its functionality is based on the needs and problems of
consumers that emerged from the questionnaire. The study’s research question is
addressed by the use of the application during a period of one-week observation.
Our data collection consisted of the participants being interviewed at the end of the
observation period. The interviews gathered information related to whether the
users successfully reduced food wastage in their households. The result of the
observation periods is analyzed based on the research questions and will
additionally give insights into what needs to be improved on and what topics future
research could be based on.
13
5. Questionnaire Result and Analysis
This section presents the results of the questionnaire.
5.1 Respondents
This section presents the background information about the respondents
participating in the study.
5.1.1 Age and Gender
The majority of the respondents were in the age span 18-30. Three were 30 years
old or older and two respondents were younger than 18. Fifteen of the respondents
were men and eight were women. See Figure 4 for age distribution and Figure 5 for
gender distribution of the participants.
Figure 4: Age distribution of the participants
Figure 5: Gender distribution of the participants
14
5.1.2 Smartphone Usage
Respondents were asked if they own a smartphone and if so then how often they
use it and how comfortable they are using it. This is important information as in
order to use the application user has to have a smartphone as well as the
obviousness of using the mobile phone for various purposes in their everyday life.
Twenty one of the respondents use their smartphone several times a day to access
other services such as BankID. The remaining two participants own a smartphone
and are familiar with it however they only use it for simpler tasks such as texting
and calling. Nevertheless, all respondents are owners and frequent users of
smartphones.
5.1.3 Household Situation
Respondents were asked about their household situation. Fifteen lived together
with at least two other people, mostly parents and/or siblings, five lived together
with their partner or room mate and three lived alone.
The household situation is an important factor since it results in how much food is
both purchased and wasted along with the fact that a person living alone is alone
responsible for both what is in the fridge and all the waste compared with a
household with several members where everyone contributes. See Figure 6 for the
household situation of the respondents.
Figure 6: Household situation of the respondents
5.2 Household Food Waste
This section presents the food waste in the households of the respondents.
5.2.1 Food Waste
Respondents were asked if they are wasting food in their household. The majority,
18 of the participants (78%) responded that they are wasting food in their
household and 5 (22%) responded that was not the case.
15
5.2.2 Food Waste Frequency
Respondents were asked about how often they waste food in their households. Six
(33.3%) answered that they waste food at least once every day and eight (44.4%)
that it happens one to three times a week. Four to six times a week was answered
by two (11.1%), one to three times a month and four to six times a month got both
answered by one (5.6%) respondent each.
It is clear that food waste in Swedish households is a major problem but also that
people recognize it and are aware of their own behaviour. It is crucial that this
self-awareness exists as it becomes easier to change the habits and behaviours
regarding waste of food. See Figure 7 for food waste frequency of the respondents in
their households.
Figure 7: Frequency of respondents food waste in their households
5.2.3 Reasons for Food Waste
Respondents were asked to answer the reasons behind the waste of food in their
households. Seven (42.2%) of them answered that the reason was “Too big portion”, thirteen (68.5%) answared “Best-before-date has expired” and three (15.8%) stated
that “Did not like the food”. It must be noted that similar answers, such as “Too big
portion” and “Did not finish in time” or “Best-before-date has expired” and “Food
smelled / tasted bad” got categorized together.
These answers gave us that the main reason behind food being wasted in
households is the fact that the best-before-date has expired. Since we expected it
from previous research we could continue asking to find out why through the next
follow-up question. Then followed the fact that respondents simply overestimated
either their hunger or ability to eat up whatever was on their plate leading to food
being wasted by throwing it away in the trash. Here, too, the respondents'
self-awareness is good and they are able to answer reasons behind why the food is
being wasted.
16
This kind of food waste is categorized as “Avoidable Waste” since the behaviour can
be changed and the waste be avoided. See Figure 8 for the respondents' reasons for
food waste in their households.
Figure 8: Reasons behind food waste in respondents households
5.2.4 Reasons Why “Best-before-date has expired”
Previous research has already shown that “Best-before-date has expired” is one of
the most common answers to why food is being wasted. Therefore, respondents who
stated that as their reason got to answer a follow-up question, namely “why did the
best-before-date expire?”. Seven (53.8%) stated that they did not know how to use
the food, two (15.4%) answered that they did have more of the same food at home
that they used or ate instead, one (7.7%) answered that they did not like the food
and the remaining three (23.1%) stated that they did not have the time to eat it
yet.
More than half of the respondents’ who stated “Best-before-date has expired” as the
reason behind their food waste did so because they did not know how to use the
food or products while cooking. This is also “Avoidable Waste” since it can be
prevented by changing behaviour. See Figure 9 for reasons why respondents
answered “Best-before-date has expired”.
17
Figure 9: Reasons why the “Best-before-date has expired” answer was given by the
respondents.
5.3 Fridge Inventory
This section presents the fridge inventory and grocery shopping tracking of the
respondents.
5.3.1 Fridge Inventory Tracking
Respondents were asked if they know and track what food they have in their fridge
and if so then how do they keep track of it. Seventeen (73.9%) answered that they
know their fridge inventory and 6 (26.1%) answered that they are not sure what’s
inside their fridge.
Out of the seventeen, ten (58.8%) answered that they keep track of the inventory
by remembering what they bought while grocery shopping, five (29.4%) answered
that they keep track of it because then open it several times everyday and use or
eat some of the food and the remaining two (11.8%) stated that they know it
because they have a grocery shopping list on the fridge.
5.3.2 Grocery Shopping Tracking
Respondents were asked to answer how they keep track of what needs to be bought
when they are grocery shopping. Figure 10 below shows their answers. Seven
(30.4%) stated that they rely on their memory, seven (30.4%) that they write a list
on paper and bring with them and nine (39.1%) that they write down a list on their
smartphone.
18
Figure 10: Tracking of grocery shopping
5.3.3 Grocery Shopping Problems
Respondents were asked to answer what problems occur when they are grocery
shopping. Five (21.7%) answered that they buy too much of something or
something they already have at home, fourteen (60.9%) answered that they forgot
to buy something and four (17.4%) had both of these above mentioned problems.
Figure 11 below shows how they answered.
There is a clear problem, namely that the majority of the respondents forgets to
buy something while grocery shopping even though 69.5% of them write their
grocery shopping list down. Since 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 directly affect each other,
since you most often buy food you’ve run out of, there seems to be a big difference
between how respondents experience and believe that they know their fridge
inventory and thus know what they need to buy and the reality and fact that the
majority forgets to buy something or buys too much of a product.
Figure 11: Respondents problems during grocery shopping
19
5.4 Willingness to use Mobile Application
This section presents the participants willingness to use a mobile application to
help them keep track of fridge inventory and with grocery shopping.
5.4.1 Use Mobile Application to Track Fridge Inventory
The respondents were asked if they would use a mobile application in order to keep
track of their fridge inventory. Sixteen (69.6%) answered that they would and
seven (30.4%) answered that they would not.
5.4.2 Willingness to Take Photo of Receipt After Grocery Shopping
The respondents were asked if they would be willing to take a photo of the receipt
after grocery shopping. Fifteen (62.5%) answered that they would and eight (34.8%)
answered that they would not be willing to do it.
5.4.3 Household’s Grocery List in the Application
The respondents were asked about their thoughts and opinions on having a joint
grocery shopping list with everyone in their households. Seventeen (73.9%)
answered that they would be interested in having one or at least trying it out, two
(8.7%) answered that they live alone and therefore don’t have the need for it and
four (17.4) of the respondents answered that they would not use or even try it.
Figure 12 shows the respondent answers regarding having a joint grocery shopping
list for households.
Respondents were positive to the use of a mobile application in order to track their
fridge inventory and thereby reduce or prevent food waste. The majority were also
willing to use the app when grocery shopping and have a shared grocery list for
households, although 26.1% were not interested in using or trying it.
Figure 12: Thoughts and opinions on joint grocery shopping list for households
20
5.5 Conclusion of Analysis
Swedes are used to using their smartphones and various applications to different
tasks in their everyday life and the participants confirmed this since the vast
majority were willing to use the application described by us. The conclusions from
previous research regarding both how often food is wasted in households and the
main reasons behind it were confirmed. It shows what we anticipated, namely that
almost all of the food wasted in households is categorized as “Avoidable Waste”
meaning that by changing the behaviour of the consumers we can reduce or even
prevent food being wasted.
The main reason behind why fridge stored food is being wasted is that the
best-before-date has expired. More than half of the participants stated that the
reason why it expired was that they did not know how to use the food while cooking
which was surprising since one can assume that you buy food that you know you
will consume, however that seems not to be the case. Moreover, 38.5% of the
respondents who wasted their fridge stored food because of the expiry of
best-before-date did so because of overconsumption while grocery shopping or lack
of time. This might relate to the fact that they were not aware of when the
best-before-date was expiring however it could also be a result of eating at
restaurants or take-aways instead of home.
In addition, we noticed the connection between 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 where not
tracking food inventory, in a more methodical way than just relying on memory,
results in consumers either forgetting to buy something or buying too much of
something. It seems like consumers believe that they have better tracking of their
food inventory than they in fact have.
In summary, in order to reduce or prevent waste of fridge stored food in households
we have to change the behaviour of the consumers. By the use of our application we
have to make them aware of what’s inside their fridge and most importantly when
it expires, since this is the main reason why food is being wasted. Through this we
can both reduce or maybe even prevent the avoidable waste of fridge stored food
within households and raise concern about the topic.
21
6. Mobile Application Solution
The mobile application is developed for the Android operating system. Android is a
free open source software that is preliminary designed for touchscreen devices
where the main focus lies on its interface that is based on direct manipulation and
thus it is very easy user friendly. Since it is free and open source we can implement
and use several external extensions, called libraries, to develop the application
based on the results of the questionnaire [20]. The application is developed using
the Android Software Development Kit, coded in Java and will be accessible for all
Android smartphone devices running at least the 6th released version of the
operating system called “Marshmallow” [21]. Through this we will make the
application accessible for people with an old and outdated Android smartphone as
well as people with the latest one, in other words, we will reach the largest possible
part of the population’s Android users [22].
6.1 Functionality
The functionality of the application is based and developed after the results and
analysis of the questionnaire. The core functionality of the application means that
the user can:
● Scan the receipt by use of mobile camera and register what’s in the fridge
● Get a notification when a product is about to expire
● Have a joint grocery shopping list with other members of the household
The three core functions and the techniques behind them are described in the
following sections.
6.2 Scanning of Receipts
Users are able to scan the receipt received for the groceries they bought by the use
of the mobile camera from within the application. This will be done with the help of
Optical Character Recognition (OCR). The items will be added to the fridge
inventory-list and users will easily be able to see and track their fridge inventory.
However there is a problem, namely that the “best-before-date” is not listed on the
receipt. This has been solved by setting an approximate average time that is left
until the food becomes bad based on recommended calculations from the Food
Marketing Institute [23]. Users are also able to set the “best-before-date” manually
to match exactly what is stated on the packing of the product.
22
Figure 13: Scanning of receipt Figure 14: Fridge inventory list
6.2.1 OCR
The use of mobile devices for text detection and recognition in natural images are
slowly becoming relevant due to the increasing amount of OCR applications and
advancement in mobile technology [24]. The digitization of textual content involves
several steps and OCR deals with the transformation of a digital image, for
example an image of a book page in JPG format, into a digital document whose text
can be processed by a computer [25]. See Figure 15 for OCRs following three logical
components:
● Image scanner
● OCR software and hardware
● Output interface
The purpose of the image scanner component is to optically capture text images to
be recognized. The text images are then processed with OCR software and
hardware [26]. The process involves document analysis, recognizing the images and
contextual processing. The output interface component allows the results to be
electronically transferred into the domain that uses the results [26].
23
Figure 15: The structure of an OCR system [26].
There are two different approaches that we can use to implement OCR in our
mobile application. The first approach would be to use an open source OCR engine.
There are different types of OCR engines available and their purpose is to make it
easier for developers to implement an OCR system in a mobile application. One of
the most important factors that an OCR engine should hold is accuracy [27]. In
order for the OCR engine to have good performance and high accuracy the engine
has to be trained correctly [28]. Due to the short time-frame of the project we
decided against using an OCR engine. The second approach would be to use an
internet service. We decided to use TAGGUN API, which is an internet service
specialized to transcribe a receipt and return relevant information [29]. This is
used to parse the receipt and get hold of which groceries were bought.
6.2.2 Shelf Life of Refrigerated Foods
Previous research has shown that it is difficult to overcome the barrier of manual
entry which is very user-intensive. The mobile application developed as part of this
study has the functionality to manually enter the best-before date for food items.
The application also uses an approximate average time for the best-before date of
groceries in order to make the application less user-intensive. The approximate
average time is based on calculations from the Food Marketing Institute.
24
Table 1: Showing the shelf life of meat and seafood [23].
Meat and Seafood Shelf Life
Bacon 7 days
Chicken or turkey 1-2 days
Chops (pork, veal, lamb) 3-5 days
Fish and shellfish 1-2 days uncooked, 3-5 days cooked
Ground meats 1-2 days
Ham, canned 6-9 months unopened, 3-5 days opened
Ham, fully cooked, half 3-5 days
Ham, fully cooked, slices 3-4 days
Ham, fully cooked, whole 7 days
Hot dogs 2 weeks unopened, 1 week opened
Lunch Meat 2 weeks unopened, 3-5 days opened
Organ meats 1-2 days
Roast 3-5 days
Sausage, hard (ex: pepperoni) 2-3 weeks
Sausage, smoked 7 days
Table 2: Showing the shelf life of dairy products.
Dairy Shelf Life
Butter 1-3 months
Buttermilk 2 weeks
Cheese, hard 6 months unopened, 3-4 weeks opened
Cheese, processed slices 1-2 months
Cheese, soft 1 week
Coffee cream 10 days
Egg Substitute 10 days unopened, 3 days opened
Eggs 3-5 weeks in the shell, 2-4 days out of shell
25
Heavy cream 10 days
Milk 1 week
Sour cream 1-3 weeks
Whipped cream (can) 3 months
Yogurt 1-2 weeks
Table 3: Showing the shelf life of condiment products [23].
Condiments Shelf Life
Chili sauce 6 months
Chutney 1-2 months
Cocktail sauce 6 months
Horseradish 3-4 months
Jams, Jellies 6 months after opening
Ketchup 6 months
Mayonnaise 2 months
Mustard 1 year
Olives 2 weeks
Pickles 2 weeks
Table 4: Showing the shelf life of most common leftovers [23].
Leftovers Shelf Life
Meat or poultry 3-4 days
Broth 2 days
Casseroles 3-4 days
Egg dishes 3-4 days
Fish 3-4 days
Gravy 3-4 days
Hard-boiled eggs 1 week
26
Milk, condensed 4-5 days
Milk, evaporated 4-5 days
Pasta 1-2 days
Pizza 3-4 days
Salads (egg, chicken, macaroni, etc. 3-5 days
Soups and stews 3-4 days
6.3 Best-Before-Date Notifications
Users will receive a notification when a product’s “best-before-date” is about to
expire. A notification is a simple message that Android displays outside of the
applications user interface to show the user some information, in our case, a
reminder that a fridge stored product is about to expire [30]. The application will
display the notifications in three different ways as listed and presented below.
6.3.1 Status Bar and Notification Drawer Notification
When the notification is issued it first appears as an icon the status bar of the
phone. The user is able to swipe down on the status bar and thereby open the
notification drawer which allows them to both read more details and also take
actions, such as delete the notification. The notification remains visible in the
notification drawer until it is dismissed by either the application or the user [30].
Figure 16: Notification in status bar
27
Figure 17: Notification in notification drawer
6.3.2 Heads Up Notification
If the device is in the unlocked state the notification will appear on the top of the
screen in a floating window. It appears when the application issues the notification
and disappears after a couple of seconds but still remains visible in the notification
drawer as usual [30].
Figure 18: Heads up notification
28
6.3.3 Locked Screen Notification
If the smartphone is in the locked screen mode the notification will appear on the
locked screen. The detail level of the notification is set by the application. Users
can also decide whether the application should show the notifications in the locked
screen at all [30].
Figure 19: Locked Screen Notification
6.4 Joint Grocery Shopping List
Users will be able to create a joint grocery shopping list with other members of
their households. They will be able to add, edit and remove items together with
other users from the same household. This function requires the application to be
connected to the internet and to a database. To achieve this the Firebase platform
will be used with the Realtime Database, a cloud-hosted database, in particular.
29
Figure 20: Joint grocery shopping list
6.4.1 Firebase Realtime Database
The Realtime Database is a cloud-hosted NoSQL database provided on the
web-based Firebase platform [31]. The data is stored as JSON and synchronized in
realtime to every connected client, meaning that they all automatically receive
updates with the newest data within milliseconds after the data has changed. This
requires the client to be connected to the internet, however with the use of the
Realtime Database the application will remain responsive even offline because the
data is persisted to the disk. Once internet connection is reestablished it will
synchronize itself with the current state of the server, thus also the database [31].
The Realtime Database lets us build an application with secure access to the
database. Since the data is persisted locally, meaning that even when a user is
currently offline, events continue to fire in realtime giving the user the best
possible responsive experience. Furthermore, it is flexible regarding the security
aspect giving us, the developers, total control over who has access to what data,
how they can access it and how they can interact with it. Additionally, it is a
NoSQL database meaning that it is only allowing operations that can be executed
very quickly [31]. In summary, all of the above mentioned reasons lead to the
conclusion that the use of Firebase Realtime Database is a great choice for our
application and will make the user experience as smooth as possible which is
crucial in order for the users to use the application.
30
6.5 General Data Protection Regulation
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a recent update to the data
protection laws of the European Union and it significantly changed the landscape
of the processing of personal data [32]. It introduced stricter requirements for the
stakeholders and strengthened the rights of the individuals to whom the data are
related [32]. The mobile application developed as part of this study has been tested
in Sweden and since Sweden is a member of the European Union we have to take
GDPR in consideration when handling the user data. When processing data there
are seven principles that need to be followed [33].
1. Lawfulness, fairness and transparency — Processing must be lawful,
fair, and transparent to the data subject [33].
2. Purpose limitation — You must process data for the legitimate purposes
specified explicitly to the data subject when you collected it [33].
3. Data minimization — You should collect and process only as much data as
absolutely necessary for the purposes specified [33].
4. Accuracy — You must keep personal data accurate and up to date [33].
5. Storage limitation — You may only store personally identifying data for
as long as necessary for the specified purpose [33].
6. Integrity and confidentiality — Processing must be done in such a way
as to ensure appropriate security, integrity, and confidentiality (e.g. by
using encryption) [33].
7. Accountability — The data controller is responsible for being able to
demonstrate GDPR compliance with all of these principles [33].
The mobile application was developed with these seven principles in mind. The
application was built and designed in a way that every household only has one
shared account. The account is created with a single email and password. The
email and password is necessary for identifying and securing every user account
since the household food data needs to be stored in the Firebase Realtime
Database. This application design ensures that the GDPR data protection
principles are followed.
31
7. Results
This section presents the results of the participants' use of the mobile application
during a one week period.
7.1 Interview
The interviews are based on the same approach as the questionnaire, namely that
they are formed after recommendation and the questions asked were kept short
and simple and asking about one specific topic at a time [19]. The interview
consisted of 7 questions divided into three parts:
● Household situation, usage and user experience
● Impact on fridge inventory and grocery shopping tracking
● Change of behaviour
First part of the interviews generated both quantitative and qualitative data. The
respondents answered questions regarding both their household situation and how
much they were using the application as well as how they experienced their
interaction with it. Questions were answered both using a scale ranging from 1-5
and freely. Second part of the interview was about the application's impact on
tracking food and grocery shopping. Respondents answered several questions that
generated both qualitative and quantitative data. The third and last part
generated qualitative data. Respondents were asked questions about their
behaviour and noticeable changes in their households regarding the food waste
problem.
Twelve participants in ages between 20-52 were interviewed. Seven of them were
men and five were women. All of them have been using the mobile application for
at least one week. None of them has a background in any environmental or
equivalent studies or any knowledge about food waste or fridge and grocery
shopping tracking. The major difference was their household situation.
7.2 Household Situation, Usage and User Experience
This section presents the household situation of the respondents as well as their
user experience and usage of the application.
7.2.1 Household Situation
Respondents were asked about their household situation. Six lived together with at
least two other people, mostly parents and/or siblings, three lived together with
their partner or room mate and three lived alone. As the questionnaire showed, the
household situation has a major influence on food waste since it can be directly
translated into how much food is being purchased, consumed and wasted. But also
the fact that a person living alone is the only one responsible for both what’s inside
the fridge and what and how much food is being purchased which corresponds to
the total food waste of the household.
32
7.2.2 Usage of Application
Respondents were asked both how often they use the application and which
function they used or liked the most. Seven of the respondents used the application
once a day, two several times a day and the remaining three used it 1-4 times a
week. As for the most used or liked feature, eight of the respondents answered the
joint grocery shopping list, two answered the tracking of the fridge inventory and
two answered the receipt scanning. See Figure 21 for the respondents usage
frequency and Figure 22 for the most used feature.
Figure 21: Respondents frequency of usage of application
Figure 22: Respondents mostly used or liked functions
33
7.2.3 User Experience
Respondents were asked about their user experience of the application. They
answered both by saying a number on a scale from 1-5 where 1 was “very bad user
experience”, 3 was “normal / neutral user experience” and 5 was “very good user
experience” and by adding comments explaining why they answered as they did.
The majority of the respondent, more precisely seven (58.3%) answered that they
had a normal or neutral user experience, two (16.7%) answered that they had a
good user experience, one (8.3%) that they had a very bad user experience, one
(8.3%) that they had a bad user experience and one (8.3%) that they had a very
good user experience. In summary, ten (83.3%) of the respondents had a neutral,
good or very good user experience while using the application. See Figure 23 for the
respondents answers regarding their user experience. Regarding the comments and
further explanations about why the respondents answered as they did, this are
some of the comments that were said:
● “The application does not look complete from a design perspective but it
works really well”
● “Works flawlessly. Did not crash or interrupted once”
● “Very smooth application but it could be more polished”
● “It is a good and easy-understandable application”
Most of the comments and explanations are about the design and aesthetics of the
application and although it is not directly related to the functionality it has a
crucial impact regarding whether users actually return voluntarily to the
application or not. Given the short time on developing the application the design
was not in focus and only the standard-look of the Android components was used. It
is important to notice these comments as they have a major impact in previously
stated return of users. However the most important part is that ten out of twelve
participants had at least a neutral and normal user experience.
This makes the application a good starting point regarding designing and
developing an improved version as the core functionality is sought after and offers
the users a value.
Figure 23: Respondents user experience
34
7.3 Impact on Fridge Inventory and Grocery Shopping
Tracking
This section presents the impact that the application had on reducing the food
waste in the households of the respondents.
7.3.1 Impact on Fridge Inventory Tracking
Respondents were asked about the impact that the application had on their
household food waste by tracking their fridge inventory. They answered both by
saying a number on a scale from 1-5 where 1 was “Resulted in more food waste”, 3
was “Neutral / Did not notice” and 5 was “Reduced food being wasted”. Five (41.7%)
aswared 4, that it had a positive impact, that is, less food was being wasted, four
(33.3%) answered 3 namely that it didn’t see a difference or it did not have an
impact on the food waste, two (16.7%) answered 5, that it helped them reduce the
food waste and one (8.3%) stated that it had a negative impact and resulted in
more food being wasted. Some of explanations were as follows:
● “It helped me realize that I need to check the best-before-dates while shopping
more often”
● “Notifications are very helpful because I don’t check my fridge that often”
● “It helped us consume way more of the food we are buying rather than
throwing it in the bin”
● “I realized how monotonous and dull my diet is and how I buy food I don’t
even like”
In summary, the tracking of fridge inventory had at least a neutral or positive
impact on the vast majority of the respondents which correlates to elven (91.7%) of
them. The comments also indicate that the fridge inventory tracking is a good
functionality that helps reduce the food waste within households.
Moreover, there is a direct connection between the use of inventory tracking and
the joint grocery shopping list, as the comments suggest. This shows the
importance of the interaction of these two functions and strengthens the claim that
the application has a positive impact on the household food waste problem.
Figure 24: Fridge inventory trackings impact on respondents household food waste
35
7.3.2 Impact on Grocery Shopping Tracking
Respondents were asked about the impact that the application had on their
household food waste by tracking their grocery shopping. They answered both by
saying a number on a scale from 1-5 where 1 was “Resulted in more food waste”, 3
was “Neutral / Did not notice” and 5 was “Reduced food being wasted”. Six (50.0%)
of them responded that they did not notice a difference, four (33.3%) that it had a
positive impact and two (16.7%) that it helped them reduce the amount of food that
was being wasted. For the impact see Figure 25 down below.
Some of the comments and explanations from the respondents were:
● “Joint grocery shopping list is very helpful. Could be a standalone
application”
● “This and fridge tracking help both remember what to buy and reduce food
waste by not overconsuming “
● “I did not notice a difference in food waste but it is very helpful and easy to
use”
● “Helped me only buy what is really necessary and not buy too much of food
that I already have in the fridge”
Half of the respondents stated that grocery shopping tracking had a positive
impact on the food waste in their household, along with the fact that no one of the
respondents answered that it had a negative impact on the food waste. As stated in
7.3.1, the cooperation between the fridge tracking and grocery shopping tracking is
received very well by the users. This reinforces the motivation that a future
improved version of the app should contain both features, as they work and have a
positive impact on the reduction of food waste both individually and when
cooperating.
Figure 25: Grocery shopping trackings impact on respondents household food waste
36
7.4 Change of Behaviour
This section presents the impact the application had on the change of behaviour of
the respondents regarding their household food waste.
7.4.1 Noticable Change of Behaviour
Respondents were asked about the impact that the application had on their
behaviour regarding household food waste and if they noticed any changes or
differences compared to when not using the application and answered freely. The
first question asked was “Did you notice a change in your behaviour regarding the
food waste in your household while or after the one week period?”. Nine (75%) of the
respondents stated that they did notice a positive change of behaviour and three
(25%) that they did not notice a change of behaviour. None answered that they
noticed a negative change of behaviour. See Figure 26 for respondents answers.
Further follows some comments and explanations regarding the impact of the
application on the change of behaviour:
● “It made me think twice about what I need to buy while grocery shopping”
● “Application showed me how much food (and money) my household is
unnecessarily wasting”
● “I did not know that I spend so much on food I don’t even consume”
● “This made me realize that I don’t have to buy lunch in restaurant since I
have too much food at home that I am wasting”
● “Grocery shopping became much easier and convenient. Don’t have to call or
text my partner since he can just check the application directly”
Although all comments were not pointing directly to the reduction of the food waste
problem they made it clear that the use of the application had an impact on the
change of the respondents behaviours. A more detailed and in-depth analysis will
be found in the following main heading.
Figure 26: Respondents answers regarding noticable change of behaviour
37
7.4.2 Reasons Behind Change of Behaviour
The second question the respondents were asked was “When did you notice the
change of behaviour?”. This question was only asked to the nine respondents who
answered that they noticed a change of behaviour in the previous question. Five
(55.6%) responded that it was during or after the use of the grocery
shopping-functionality, two (22.2%) that it was during or after the use of the fridge
inventory tracking and two (22.2%) that it was while throwing away food in their
household. See Figure 27 below for the reasons when respondents noticed the
change of behaviour. The most common explanations and comments were:
● “While grocery shopping I realized that I did not know if I had several
products at home or not so by checking my fridge inventory-list I could
quickly see what needed to be bought and what I already have”
● “I was throwing away food and it hit me that it could easily have been
prevented if I just used and checked the application more frequently”
● “Was buying groceries and while checking the list I could see that a new item
has been added by my wife so I could instantly go and add it to the basket
and buy it”
It is clear that the majority of the respondents realized a change in their behaviour
during or after using the grocery shopping tracking function. It seems that this
function is the one that is affecting people the most. A more detailed and in-depth
analysis will be found in the following main heading.
Figure 27: Respondents answers regarding when they noticed the change of
behaviour
38
8. Discussion
This thesis has considered several different aspects regarding food waste within
households and evaluated multiple possible solutions to reduce or solve it, in the
form of several functionalities of the Android application. In this section, the scope
and goals will be evaluated, regarding to which extent they are answered followed
by general discussion regarding the results.
It is obvious that food waste within Swedish households occurs several days a
week, if not almost every single day with expiry of the food and throwing away
leftovers being the two main reasons why it occurs. Thereby it is concluded that the
main reason behind it is simply stocking up on food. They are buying more food
than they can consume and the respondents answers regarding “Why did the
best-before-date expire?” indicate that they simply are not affected morally,
financially or in any other way, by wasting food. However, although this is a
different topic and research area it is an important and interesting one as it adds
additional factors, such as economy and prosperity, into the research. It must also
be stated that the respondents financial status or wealth was not asked about or
questioned meaning that all respondents could all be either very wealthy, poor or
anything in between. The same applies to their ethical and moral position
regarding food waste since it cannot be excluded and ignored in future studies and
evaluations.
What emerges clearly from both the questionnaire and the interviews is that all of
the respondents' food waste falls under the Avoidable Waste-category. This is also
in line with what previous research has concluded [11]. It is positive as it allows,
theoretically, to reduce the food waste problem within households by, first and
foremost, changing behaviour and secondly raising concerns about food waste and
the impact it has, both locally and globally. During and after the interviews a
pattern emerged, namely that the waste majority of the respondents noticed a
positive change in their behaviour and it was mostly because of the economic
aspect of food waste, that is they realized how much money they are wasting by
stocking up on food and throwing away food. This leads to the assumption that
humans are able to and most of them will change their behaviour if they notice
that by doing so they benefit from it personally, in this case it being economically.
Although this does in fact have a positive effect and helps reduce the household
food waste problem it does not directly inform or raise concerns about the
household food waste topic in a, according to us, long-term and sustainable way.
There is also another aspect to this that has to be closely looked upon, namely
gender, as during this study no greater importance was attached to the gender of
the respondents. This is something that can be further researched although it is
closer to psychology and behavioral science rather than environmental or computer
science. This paper is content with the knowledge that the Android application had
a positive impact on reduction of food waste within households by changing the
behaviour of the users, however it is important to point out the above mentioned
points.
39
The household situation is another factor with a major impact on the food waste of
a household. People living alone have a significantly higher chance of succeeding
with reduction of their food waste, since they are the only one responsible for it, in
comparison with people living with at least another person, as it doubles the
needed effort. Although this paper does not dive deeper into the subject it is clear
to see the patterns and differences between households consisting of one, two or
more than two members. This is an area that should be further researched.
However this highlights the importance of our application and the functionality of
it as it makes it easier for household members to keep track of the fridge inventory,
when it expires and helps with the grocery shopping as well, as it reduces or even
prevents overconsumption of food of a household.
As for the application itself, usage of it and the user experience, the overall
conclusion is a positive and good one. The vast majority of the respondents used the
application at least once a day which sounds both credible and normal in relation to
everyday life. They had a neutral or good user experience with it, although there
were some comments about the esthetics of the application. This was expected as
the application was not conceived to satisfy the user from a design perspective but
only focuses on the core functionality. It is clear that the joint grocery shopping list
was the most used and favourite functionality as it solved the respondents two
problems regarding grocery shopping, either forgetting to buy something or buying
too much of a product. It seems, as already stated in the analysis of the
questionnaire, that although respondents had a grocery shopping list, either
written on paper or in “notes” on their smartphone, these two problems remained.
Respondents simply think that by writing a list they keep track of what and how
much they have at home but that is not the reality. Therefore it is understandable
that the joint grocery shopping list is the favourite functionality of the majority of
respondents. The question regarding this is also a bit unclear as it is asking “what
feature do you used or liked the most?” and it could potentially be that they used a
different feature more than the joint grocery shopping list but they liked it more, or
vice versa. Thus, this leaves room for clarification and improvements during
further research. One could also argue that the three features are closely connected
as in order to get food into the “fridge list” users have to scan the receipt, meaning
that you cannot use one without the other. This is something that is not included in
our conclusions, we see it as three separate features, but needs to be pointed out.
Almost half of the respondents noticed a positive change and reduction in food
being wasted by tracking fridge inventory by the application. One third of the
respondents did not notice a change and gladly, only two noticed that it had a
negative impact on their household food waste. This results in the feature having a
neutral of positive impact on more than 90% of the respondents. That is a high
percentage but it’s not a surprising one, as both previous studies and our
questionnaire show that the main reason behind food being wasted is because the
best-before-date has expired. Basically, people are not aware of how long the food
they are buying will last. By the implementation of our notification-system this
problem was solved, as people got updated once a day during the three last days of
a product's validity, that it is about to expire. Thereby a lot less food was wasted, as
people became aware of when products are about to expire and took action by
eating it instead of wasting it. The comments regarding this function indicate that
40
this resulted in them being more aware and notice the best-before-date of food
while grocery shopping, which is positive, since it means that people are changing
their behaviour to a more positive and sustainable one that results in less food
being wasted.
The fridge inventory tracking and notifications-features working together is a very
good implementation and shows that by short daily remainders people tend to
notice and change their behaviour to, in this study, a more positive and sustainable
one. Here too, however, the connection to personal benefits must be made as by not
throwing away food people benefit economically, which is a realization that might
be the reason behind their change of behaviour. This is, as stated before, something
to be looked further upon in future research.
The downside, although not necessarily noticeable in this study, of the fridge
inventory tracking is the scanning of receipts. The scanning itself works very well
however the fact that the best-before-dates are not printed on the receipts makes it
impossible to set the dates accurately only by scanning. This means that users
have to manually insert the exact best-before-date, a solution that is very
user-intensive and reduces the user experience significantly. Although the
approximate average time-solution works and was well received it is not a solution
that should be used for the large mass. The problem, however, lies in how the
Swedish grocery stores have designed their receipts. As long as they do not include
the best-before-date of food and products on their receipts there is no way around
it. This is obviously a problem at a higher level but that needs to be brought to
light as the whole scanning of receipts-functionality works well and together with
fridge inventory tracking helps reduce food waste within households.
Food waste in Swedish households is a major problem, something that this paper
emphasizes and clarifies even more, in regard to previous research and studies.
The use of a smartphone application seems to be a good step in the right direction
to both help reduce food waste, pay further attention to the problem and spread the
message about how and what changes in personal behaviour can mean to both the
problem itself as well as the environment in both the short and long run.
Additionally, it can affect the individuals themselves, for example their finances, as
reducing or preventing food waste leads to less money being spent. Sweden is a
relatively small country in terms of population, and with more than 90% of it
having a smartphone and using it on a daily basis, development of an application to
help reduce or even prevent the problem is the obvious choice, as we reach almost
the entire population of the country. The core functionality of the application that
is developed, presented and used in this paper, namely joint grocery shopping list,
fridge inventory tracking, notification-system and receipt scanning is a good and
solid foundation for what should be included. It covers and solves a lot of the
problems, both stated in previous research as well as our hypotheses, and helps
achieve the sub-goal of this thesis, namely to raise concerns about food waste
within households. Therefore it leads to the main goal of the paper which is to
reduce the waste of fridge-stored food within households, something that for the
majority of the respondents was achieved.
41
There are still several factors, as mentioned in previous parts of the discussion,
that were excluded during the research and writing of this paper. It is most likely
that several of them can affect and design both the functionality of the application
as well as the results of using it. A few more detailed suggestions for further
studies can be found in the next section and heading.
42
9. Conclusion
Food waste within Swedish households is a major issue, and although the majority
of the population are aware of its existence, why it occurs and consequences of it,
only a few are actually trying to take any action whatsoever in order to reduce or
prevent it. In order to turn this around and get more people to care and actively
make actions that lead to positive results, namely reduced food waste, one must
elucidate how they can benefit from it on a personal level. The study clearly shows
that many people noticed that they changed their behaviour by realizing how much
money they wasted on food being thrown and wasted. Thus, one should continue to
pay attention to and emphasize what personal benefits they will gain or get if they
reduce food waste in their households. Since almost all of the food waste at
households is labeled as avoidable waste it is room for a lot to be done to counteract
the problem. If one manages to change the behaviour of consumers, there are good
opportunities to achieve the goal and really reduce or completely remove the food
waste in Swedish households.
The presented application and its functionality is a very good use and combination
of different technologies and strategies to achieve the goal. The different functions
of the application work very well together and complement each other as well as it
both highlights and tackles the problem from different perspectives. The results
also reinforce the importance of having these functions together. A smartphone
application is a very good approach, partly because one reaches the vast majority of
the population in Sweden but also because one does not change their everyday life
or add time consuming or energy-intensive moments. This paper shows that if one
makes the use of the mobile application a habit, while grocery shopping and fridge
inventory tracking, it will lead to reduced food waste in their household and thus
helping to reduce the problem, both on an individual level but also on a global, as it
will help the global sustainable development goals of the United Nations.
9.1 Future Work
Below are a couple of factors that got noticed, as previously mentioned, but were
excluded during the research, development of the application and writing of this
paper. The possibility that these may affect the results, the development process or
how the research should be carried out cannot be ruled out, thus, they are
presented so that future research on the subject can investigate or delineate the
significance of these.
Demographic Characteristics and Household Situation
This paper neither elaborated nor focused on factors such as gender, age, personal
wealth and finances and household situation of the respondents. It is clear that the
household situation affects the results as well as they show that the chances of the
other factors also doing so are very high.
43
Location for Conducting Research
The study and research of this paper was carried out in Swedish households. The
country or location where the study is conducted has a major impact on both the
approach and results, since factors such as the country's economy and populations’
access to and habits of smartphone use can affect these.
Politics, Moral and Ethics
This study is free from opinions and thoughts such as politics, morals and ethics.
There is plenty of room for future research on people with similar opinions and
views or designing surveys and interviews so that it applies to one or more of them
as it may lead to other results.
44
10. References
[1] Schanes K, Dobernig K, Gözet B, “Food waste matters - A systematic review of
household food waste practices and their policy implications”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, 2018.
[2] Naturvårdsverket, “Fakta om matavfall” [Online] Available:
https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Sa-mar-miljon/Mark/Avfall/Matavfall/ [Accessed:
20-Apr-2020]
[3] Statistikmyndigheten SBC, “Totala utsläpp och upptag av växthusgaser efter
växthusgas och sektor. År 1990 - 2018” [Online] Available:
http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__MI__MI0107/TotaltUts
lappN/?loadedQueryId=80074&timeType=from&timeValue=1990 [Accessed:
20-Apr-2020]
[4] Livsmedelsverket, “Tips för att minska ditt matsvinn” [Online] Available:
https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/matvanor-halsa--miljo/miljo/ta-hand-om-maten-mi
nska-svinnet/tips-minska-matsvinnet [Accessed: 20-Apr-2020]
[5] Internetstifelsen, “Svenskarna och internet” [Online] Available:
https://internetstiftelsen.se/docs/Svenskarna_och_internet_2018.pdf [Accessed:
20-Apr-2020]
[6] World Health Organization, “World hunger is still not going down after three
years and obesity is still growing – UN report” [Online] Available:
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/15-07-2019-world-hunger-is-still-not-going-d
own-after-three-years-and-obesity-is-still-growing-un-report [Accessed:
20-Apr-2020]
[7] United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2018. New York:
United Nations; 2018.
[8] Konsumentföreningen Stockholm, “Matsvinn i siffror” [Online] Available:
https://www.kfstockholm.se/i-fokus/slang-inte-maten/matsvinn-i-siffror/matsvinn-i-
siffror/
[Accessed: 20-Apr-2020]
[9] Stålhandske S, Andersson T, Hwargård L, “PM – Resultat oundviklig och
onödigt matavfall, opublicerad rapport för Naturvårdsverket”, Naturvårdsverket,
2019.
[10] M. A. Martin, M. Brandao, “Evaluating the environmental consequences of
Swedish food consumption and dietary choices”, Vol. 9, no. 12, article ID 2227,
Sustainability, 2017.
45
[11] Shaw P, Smith M, Williams D, “On the Prevention of Avoidable Food Waste
from Domestic Households”, Centre for Environmental Science, University of
Southampton, 2017.
[12] Russella SV, Younga CW, Unswortha KL, Robinson C, “Bringing habits and
emotions into food waste behaviour”, Resources, Conservation & Recycling,
Vol.125, pp. 107-114, 2017.
[13] P. Skopal, “Private Household Food Waste & How to Reduce It”, Lunds
University, 2019.
[14] G. Farr-Wharton, M. Foth, J. H. Choi, “EatChaFood: challenging technology
design to slice food waste production”, Adjunct: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM
conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing (UbiComp '13), pp. 559-562,
September 2013.
[15] G. Farr-Wharton, J. H. Choi, M. Foth, “Food talks back: exploring the role of
mobile applications in reducing domestic food wastage”, Proceedings of the 26th
Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures: the
Future of Design (OzCHI '14), pp. 352-361, December 2014.
[16] Creswell JW, Creswell JD, “Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and
Mixed Methods Approaches”, SAGE Publications; 4th edition, 2017.
[17] Creswell JW, Plano ClarkV L, “Designing and conducting mixed methods
research“, SAGE Publications, Inc; Second edition, 2010.
[18] IErgonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs)
- Part 11: Guidance on usability. Organisation Internationale de Normalisation
(ISO), 1998.
[19] Ejlertsson G, “Enkäten i praktiken - En handbok i enkätmetodik”, Lund, 2005.
[20] Android, “Android 7.0 Nougat Documentation” [Online] Available:
https://www.android.com/versions/nougat-7-0/ [Accessed: 20-Apr-2020]
[21] Moreira T.A, “Design and implementation of an Android application to
anonymously analyse locations of the citizens in Barcelona”, University of
Engineering and Telecommunication of Barcelona, 2015.
[22] Statista, “Mobile Android operating system market share by version worldwide
from January 2018 to January 2020” [Online] Available:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/921152/mobile-android-version-share-worldwide
[Accessed: 20-Apr-2020]
[23] Food Marketing Institute, “The Shelf Life of Refrigerated Foods” [Online]
Available:
https://www.thespruceeats.com/the-shelf-life-of-refrigerated-foods-1389306
[Accessed: 20-Apr-2020]
46
[24] Chang L.Z, ZhiYing S, “Robust pre-processing techniques for OCR applications
on mobile devices”, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Mobile
Technology, Application & Systems (Mobility '09), pp. 1-4, September 2009.
[25] Carrasco R, “An open-source OCR evaluation tool”, Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Digital Access to Textual Cultural Heritage (DATeCH
'14), pp. 179-184, May 2014.
[26] Srihari S, Shekhawat A, Lam S, “Optical character recognition (OCR)”,
Encyclopedia of Computer Science, 2013.
[27] CVision, “Best OCR Engine” [Online] Available:
http://www.cvisiontech.com/library/ocr/best-ocr/best-ocr-engine.html [Accessed:
20-Apr-2020]
[28] Feng S, Manmatha R, “A hierarchical, HMM-based automatic evaluation of
OCR accuracy for a digital library of books”, 6th ACM/IEEE-CS joint Conference on
Digital Libraries, 2016.
[29] TAGGUN, “TAGGUN offers receipt OCR API with real-time receipt
processing” [Online] Available: https://www.taggun.io/product [Accessed:
20-Apr-2020]
[30] Android, “Notifications overview” [Online] Available:
https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/ui/notifiers/notifications [Accessed:
20-Apr-2020]
[31] Firebase, “Firebase Realtime Database” [Online] Available:
https://firebase.google.com/docs/database [Accessed: 20-Apr-2020]
[32] Bartolini C, Calabrò A, Marchetti E, “GDPR and business processes: an
effective solution”, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Applications
of Intelligent Systems (APPIS '19), pp. 1-5, January 2019.
[33] GDPR, “What is GDPR, the EU’s new data protection law?” [Online] Available:
https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/ [Accessed: 20-Apr-2020]
47
11. Appendices
A. Questionnaire
This section presents the questionnaire that was sent out to the respondents to
collect data.
Household Food Waste - Questionnaire
The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect data about food waste in a Swedish
household in order to get a deeper understanding of their behaviour and the
problem itself so that a solution reducing or even preventing food waste can be
made and developed. All your answers and information will only be stored and
used during the writing of the thesis and will be destroyed afterwards. You are
anonymous and no answers will be able to lead back to you.
Part I - Background
1. What is your age and gender?
1) Insert age here
2) Insert gender here
2. Do you own a smartphone?
1) Yes
2) No
2.1 How often are you using it?
1) Several times a day (10+)
2) A couple times a day (1-5)
3) Once every day
4) Once every two-three days
2.2 How comfortable are you using your smartphone?
1) Very comfortable
2) Comfortable
3) Enough to be able to do simpler tasks
4) Not comfortable
3. How many people are you living with in your household? Feel free to
add if it is a partner, room-mate or family members you are living with if
you are not living alone.
A) Live alone
B) 1
C) 2
D) 3 or more
48
Part II - Household Food Waste
4. Are you wasting food in your household?
1) Yes
2) No
5. How often are you wasting food in your household?
1) At least once a day
2) 1-3 times a week
3) 4-6 times a week
4) 1-3 times a month
5) 4-6 times a month
6. Reasons why you are wasting food?
1) Best-before-date has expired
2) Too big portion
3) Did not like the food
and / or
4) Write answer here
7. Reasons why “Best-before-date” has expired?
1) Did not know how to use / eat the food
2) Had more of the same food / product
3) Did not like the food
and / or
4) Write answer here
Part III - Fridge Inventory & Grocery Shopping Tracking
8. Do you track your fridge inventory and know what is inside and if so -
how do you track it?
1) Yes
2) No
A) Write how you track it here
9. How do you keep track of what needs to be bought while grocery
shopping?
1) Remember it / rely on memory
2) Write list on paper
3) Write list on smartphone
10. Do you have any problems that occur while grocery shopping?
1) Write answer here
49
Part IIII - Willingness to use Mobile Application
11. Would you be willing to use a mobile application to track fridge
inventory?
1) Yes
2) No
12. Would you be willing to take a photo of your receipt after grocery
shopping?
1) Yes
2) No
13. Would you be willing to have a joint grocery shopping list for your
household in your smartphone?
1) Yes
2) No
14. Thoughts and opinions on the last three questions and the described
and proposed functionality?
1) Write your thoughts and opinions here
Thank you for your time and participation.
B. Interviews
This section presents the questions asked during the interviews with participants
who used and tested the application during an, at least, one week period.
The purpose of this interview is to collect data about your experience while testing
the smartphone application so that a solution reducing or even preventing food
waste can be evaluated, made and / or further developed. All your answers and
information will only be stored and used during the writing of the thesis and will
be destroyed afterwards. You are anonymous and no answers will be able to lead
back to you.
Part I - Household Situation, Usage and User Experience
1. How many people are you living with in your household? Feel free to
add if it is a partner, room-mate or family members you are living with if
you are not living alone.
1) Live alone
2) 1
3) 2
4) 3 or more
2. How often did you use the application? Was it approximately :
1) Several times a day
2) Once a day
3) 1-4 times a week
4) Your own answer
50
2.1 What functionality did you use or liked the most?
1) Fridge inventory tracking
2) Joint grocery shopping list
3) Receipt scanning
3. How was your user experience while using the application? Please
explain and add comments.
1) 1 - Very bad user experience
2) 2 - Bad user experience
3) 3 - Normal / Neutral user experience
4) 4 - Good user experience
5) 5 - Very good user experience
Part II - Impact on Fridge Inventory and Grocery Shopping Tracking
4. What impact did the application have on your household food waste?
1) 1 - Resulted in more food waste
2) 2 - Negative but did not result in more food waste
3) 3 - Neutral / Did not notice
4) 4 - Positive but did not result in less food being wasted
5) 5 - Reduced food being wasted
5. What impact did the application have on your food waste by tracking
the grocery shopping?
1) - Resulted in more food waste
2) 2 - Negative but did not result in more food waste
3) 3 - Neutral / Did not notice
4) 4 - Positive but did not result in less food being wasted
5) 5 - Reduced food being wasted
Part III - Change of Behaviour
6. Did you notice a change in your behaviour regarding the food waste in
your household while or after the one week period? Please explain and
add comments.
1) Did notice a positive change of behaviour
2) Did notice a negative change of behaviour
3) Did not notice a change of behaviour
7. When did you notice the change of behaviour? Please explain and add
comments.
1) During grocery shopping / use of joint grocery shopping list
2) During use of fridge inventory tracking
3) During use of scanning of receipt
Thank you for your time and participation.
51