Food waste prevention: lessons from the Love Food, Hate Waste campaign in the UK

Abstract

This paper identifies and critically evaluates common characteristics of Love Food
Hate Waste (LFHW) campaigns’ local activities through analysis of their case study reports. The paper also describes the processes required to build up this campaign in order to facilitate application of successful outcomes of the LFHW campaign in the UK to other countries. We showed through analysis of case studies that the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) examined several methods in the early stage of the LFHW campaign and chose “Local Intensive Campaign”, “Roadshow”, “Cookery Course” and “Cascade Training” as effective methods. These were often adopted in the later casestudies. Two case studies of local intensive campaigns showed a reduction of around 15% in avoidable household food waste. In relatively large-scale campaigns, radio, local newspaper and bus adverts were often used for publicising the campaign messages. In small-scale campaigns, unique local and outdoor adverts were adopted, often in cooperation with various partners, instead of mass media and transit adverts. Almost all local intensive campaigns included roadshows as a face-to-face approach. A cost per household of about £0.3 was reported in three cases. The unit cost was reduced by conducting wide-area campaigns in collaboration with multiple local authorities. Partnership campaigns with major retailers and local authorities enable direct face-to-face communications with a large number of people.

Full text

Proceedings Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium/ 2 - 6 October 2017
S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy / © 2017 by CISA Publisher, Italy
FOOD WASTE PREVENTION: LESSONS
FROM THE LOVE FOOD, HATE WASTE
CAMPAIGN IN THE UK
H. YAMAKAWA*, I. WILLIAMS**, P. SHAW**, K. WATANABE***
* Graduate School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Kyoto Prefectural University, via
Shimogamohangi-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 6068522, Japan
** International Centre for Environmental Science, Faculty of Engineering & the
Environment, University of Southampton, via Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, U.K.
*** Faculty of Liberal Arts, Teikyo University, 359 Otsuka Hachioji 1920395 Japan
SUMMARY: This paper identifies and critically evaluates common characteristics of Love Food
Hate Waste (LFHW) campaigns’ local activities through analysis of their case study reports. The
paper also describes the processes required to build up this campaign in order to facilitate
application of successful outcomes of the LFHW campaign in the UK to other countries. We
showed through analysis of case studies that the Waste and Resources Action Programme
(WRAP) examined several methods in the early stage of the LFHW campaign and chose “Local
Intensive Campaign”, “Roadshow”, “Cookery Course” and “Cascade Training” as effective
methods. These were often adopted in the later case studies. Two case studies of local
intensive campaigns showed a reduction of around 15% in avoidable household food waste. In
relatively large-scale campaigns, radio, local newspaper and bus adverts were often used for
publicising the campaign messages. In small-scale campaigns, unique local and outdoor
adverts were adopted, often in cooperation with various partners, instead of mass media and
transit adverts. Almost all local intensive campaigns included roadshows as a face-to-face
approach. A cost per household of about £0.3 was reported in three cases. The unit cost was
reduced by conducting wide-area campaigns in collaboration with multiple local authorities.
Partnership campaigns with major retailers and local authorities enable direct face-to-face
communications with a large number of people.
1. INTRODUCTION
We waste astonishing quantities of food. The FAO have estimated that of the 4 billion metric
tonnes of food produced for human consumption globally every year we lose or waste one-third
via poor practices in harvesting, storage, transportation, and market and consumer wastage
(FAO, 2011). In addition, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (2013) has pointed out that
substantial amounts of land, energy, water and fertilisers are lost in the creation of foodstuffs
that end up as waste. Among countries that struggle to prevent food waste, it has been reported
that the UK succeeded in preventing 21% of avoidable household food and drink waste between
2007 and 2012 (WRAP, 2013b). These savings were considered to be at least partly the result
of the Love Food Hate Waste (LFHW) campaign and related activities launched by the Waste
and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) in 2007.
WRAP and its members published many reports about their various LFHW campaigns.
Quested et al. (2011) reported an outline of their research and the results utilised for preparing

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
the LHFW campaign as well as some examples of these activities and their impact. Quested et
al. (2013) explained further the strategy of the LFHW campaign and its related activities with
retailers and manufacturers. They added more research results related to food waste
behaviours. Goodwin and Barthel (2013) described the process of building up and developing
the LFHW campaign. The OECD published a case study report about food waste prevention in
Japan and UK (Parry et al., 2015). This report outlined the LFHW campaign and related
activities with retailers and manufacturers, their impact as well as an outline of UK policies and
actual situations about food waste. The OECD report also suggested that following following
four factors are important for successfully reducing food waste; 1) An evidence-based strategy,
2) An integrated approach such as integration of large scale awareness raising campaigns,
local / community engagement to influence behaviours and changes of the retail environment,
3) A framework for action with collective targets of businesses and 4) Monitoring and reporting.
WRAP provided a resource list of household food and drink waste that included the above
reports (WRAP, 2016a). It also listed case studies evaluating local activities under this
campaign. However, none of this literature reviewed the evidence across these case studies.
Some literature reviews about waste prevention have mentioned LFHW campaigns. Cox et al.
(2010) reviewed the evidence about household waste prevention and introduced the LFHW
campaign as an example of a way to increase self efficacy by providing tips on how to perform
an activity and an example of raising the visibility of prevention by identifying specific behaviours.
Sharp et al. (2010a) reviewed household waste prevention intervention campaigns at the local
level and mentioned the LFHW campaign and the Love Food Champions which was one of the
programmes under the LFHW campaign. Sharpet al. (2010b) examined how to measure waste
prevention through literature review and also mentioned the Love Food Champions case. But
there was no detailed analysis of the types of and outcomes from LFHW campaigns in these
reviews.
In order to apply the successful outcomes of a LFHW campaign to other countries, it is
necessary to find common characteristics of the local campaigns undertaken. This paper
identifies and critically evaluates common characteristics of LFHW local activities through
analysis of their case study reports. It also describes the processes required to build up
campaigns of this nature.
2. METHOD & MATERIALS
2.1 Literature review and investigation of WRAP website and its archives
In order to describe the process of building up the overall LFHW campaign, we reviewed
papers and reports relating to a range of LFHW campaigns. We collected information and
reports from WRAP’s present website and its archive sites. We utilised the UK Government
Web Archive (National Archives, n.d.) and the Wayback Machine (Internet Archive, n.d.).
2.2 Comparative study of case study reports
WRAP has published a number of reports and materials about food waste. The major reports
are listed in the Household Food and Drink Waste Resource Listing (WRAP, 2016a) This
includes some case study reports as well as a web page of local authority communications case
studies (WRAP, n.d. a). WRAP provides further reports and materials to partners through its
resource library web site (WRAP, n.d. b). In this study, we chose case studies related to the
LFHW local activities from the first two listings and the WRAP web site. However, we have
excluded food bank activities case studies because they are characterised as reuse services
and require different consumer behaviors from the food waste prevention behaviours that the

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
LFHW is promoting. We have also excluded case study reports that do not mention the year in
which intervention started because we analysed the process of the LFHW local activities’
development and the associated trends chronologically, from the year an intervention began.
The case studies we examined in this paper are listed in Table 1.
WRAP has supported various local campaign activities. However not all local activities were
reported and published. We examined what types of cases have been reported and what kinds
of activities were adopted in the later cases on the basis of the cases WRAP reported.
We conducted categorisation and comparative analysis of the case studies to explore both
common and different characteristics among them. Interventions in LFHW local campaigns were
classified into two major categories. One is “Campaign” and the other is “Face-to-face
approach”. We define “Campaign” as activities that aim to appeal to many people with various
media, and define “Face-to-face approach” as activities that aim to communicate directly with
someone either individually or in a small group. We have divided interventions into these two
categories because they are expected to have different functions. A main goal of a campaign is
to raise people’s awareness, while a main goal of the face-to-face approach is to promote
behavioural changes. We categorized interventions in case studies into more groups and
compared them with each other in order to characterise them.
3. PROCESS TO BUILD UP THE LOVE FOOD HATE WASTE CAMPAIGN
3.1 Outline of WRAP
WRAP is a not!for!profit company limited by guarantee, launched in 2000 (WRAP, 2001). It
has been a registered charity since 2014 (WRAP, 2016b). WRAP aims for a world in which
resources are used sustainably. It works with governments, businesses and communities to
deliver practical solutions to improve resource efficiency (WRAP, n.d. c). Its activities range from
research and collecting evidence to collaboration through voluntary agreements, campaigns,
grant-making and investment, and evaluation of impact. Its activities are focused on food and
drink, clothing and textiles, and electricals and electronics under its 5-year plan from 2015 to
2020 (WRAP, 2016b). The average number of full-time equivalent staff was 172 in FY2016. The
total income for 2015/16 was £26.8m, of which £24.0m was from central government and
devolved administrations (WRAP, 2016c).
WRAP was established in response to Waste Strategy 2000 for England and Wales (DETR,
2000), which called for a dedicated new body, the Waste and Resources Action Programme, to
be set up to promote more sustainable waste management, especially to overcome market
barriers to promoting reuse and recycling. The government required that WRAP have such
functions as market facilitation, including consumer awareness, promoting investment in
reprocessing, research management, information management, advice, guidance and technical
support. WRAP was clearly expected to promote action and collaboration as well as to conduct
research, from the begining of its establishment.
3.2 Until the Beginning of Discussions about Food Waste Reduction
Characteristics of WRAP’s activities at the first stage were shown by the OECD Environmental
Performance Reviews in 2002 (OECD, 2002). WRAP’s objectives were to create stable and
efficient markets for recovered materials and products, and to remove barriers to waste

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
Table 1. WRAP’s Love Food Hate Waste local campaign case study reports. * the year an
intervention began.
N o.
Year*
C aseN am e
(A rea,P artner,
C am paignetc.)
R eportC ategory R eportT itle T ypes URL
1 2007
Kent
LocalAuthority
com m unicationscasestudy:
K entC ountyC ouncil
LoveFoodH ate
W asteCam paign
Localintensivecam paign,
Roadshow
https://partners.wrap.org.uk/asse
ts/3599/
2 2008
H erefordshire
and
W orcestershire
LocalAuthorityw aste
preventioncasestudy:
H erefordshireand
W orcestershireCouncils
LoveFoodH ate
W astecam paign
Localintensivecam paign,
D oortodoorengagem ent,
Roadshow
http://w w w .w rap.org.uk/sites/file
s/w rap/W R AP _herefordshire_worc
estershire_LFH W _v31.pdf
3 2008
C um bria
LocalAuthority
com m unicationscasestudy:
C um bria
PodcastsforLove
FoodH ateW aste
C um briaC ounty
C ouncil
Singlem ethod,Roadshow
https://partners.wrap.org.uk/asse
ts/3597/
4 2008
Y orkandN orth
Yorkshire
LocalAuthority
com m unicationscasestudy:
Y orkandN orthY orkshire
W astePartnership
R educingfoodw aste
byprovidingtraining
forLocalC om m unities
Foodw astereduction
challenge,Roadshow
https://partners.wrap.org.uk/asse
ts/3603/
5 2008
W em en's
Institute
LoveFoodC ham pions
C ookerycources,
W orkshop,C ascadetraining
http://w w w .w rap.org.uk/sites/file
s/w rap/L FC %20draft%20FIN A L%20
report%20171008-FIN A L.pdf
6 2009
SouthW est
LA w astepreventioncase
study:SouthW estW aste&
RecyclingPartnership
Localauthority
partnershipw aste
preventioncam paign
basedonLoveFood
H ateW aste
Localintensivecam paign,
Roadshow
https://partners.wrap.org.uk/asse
ts/3602/
7 2009
G rater
M anchester
(Launchevent)
LocalAuthorityw aste
preventioncasestudy:
G reaterM anchester
LoveFoodH ate
W astecam paign
launch
G reaterM anchester
W astePartnership
Singlem ethod
http://w w w .w rap.org.uk/sites/file
s/w rap/W R AP _great_m an_lfhw_v4_
hr1.pdf
8 2009
G rater
M anchester
(S tudentM aster
C hef)
C asestudy:G reater
M anchester
LoveFoodH ate
W aste‘Student
M asterC hef’
C ookerycourses
https://partners.wrap.org.uk/asse
ts/3600/
9 2011
W orcestershire
LoveFoodH ateW astecase
study:W orcestershire
C ountyC ouncilandthe
U niversityofW orcester
R educingfoodw aste
throughcom m unity
focussedinitiatives
Localintensivecam paign,
R oadshow ,C ookery
courses
http://w w w .w rap.org.uk/sites/file
s/w rap/2011.11_W orcestershire_C
C _L FH W _2011_case_study.3e14035
c.11397.pdf
10 2011
Retailersand
brands
activities
W hatretailersand
brandsaredoingto
helpyoureducefood
w aste.
Retailer'sactivity
https://partners.wrap.org.uk/asse
ts/3596/
11 2011
W em en's
Institute
T heW I’s‘L et’sC ook
Local’N ational
C ookeryC ourses
C ookerycources,C ascade
training
https://partners.w rap.org.uk/asse
ts/4095/
12 2012
W estLondon
W estLondonFood
W astePrevention
C am paignE valuation
Report
Localintensivecam paign,
R oadshow ,C ookery
courses,C ascadetraining
http://w w w .w rap.org.uk/sites/file
s/w rap/W est%20L ondon%20Food%
20W aste%20C am paign%20Evaluati
on%20Report_1.pdf
13 2012
D erbyshire
LoveFoodH ateW astecase
study:D erbyshireC ounty
C ouncil
D erbyshireC ounty
C ouncil’sL oveFood
H ateW asteC hristm as
C am paign
Localintensivecam paign
https://partners.w rap.org.uk/asse
ts/4086/
14 2012
O xford-shire
LoveFoodH ateW astecase
study:O xfordshireW aste
Partnership/Com m unity
A ctionG roup
P roject.D ecem ber2013
O xfordshire‟s„
D innerTim e‟P roject
C ookerycources,C ascade
training
https://partners.w rap.org.uk/asse
ts/4090/
15 2014
10C ities
cam paign
LoveFoodH ate
W aste
10C ities:7retailers!
July-S eptem ber2014
andbeyond
Retailer'sactivity,
R oadshow ,C ascade
training
http://w w w .w rap.org.uk/sites/file
s/w rap/L FH W %2010%20cities%20l
aunches%202014%20Jul-Sept%20-
%20Retailer%20case%20studies.pdf
16 2014
SaveM ore
activities
LoveFoodH ateW aste–
SaveM ore
H elpingpeopletosave
m oneybyreducing
foodw astein
Edinburgh
W orkshop,C ascadetraining
17 2014
SaveM ore
activities
LoveFoodH ateW aste–
SaveM ore
H elpingpeopletosave
m oneybyreducing
foodw astein
S w ansea
W orkshop,C ascadetraining
18 2014
SaveM ore
activities
LoveFoodH ateW aste–
SaveM ore
H elpingpeopletosave
m oneybyreducing
foodw astein
D erbyshire
W orkshop,C ascadetraining

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
minimisation, reuse and recycling. Behind substantial government funding (over £40m for 2001–
2003), WRAP comprised seven major programmes. Four of them dealt with specific material
streams, that is, paper, glass, plastic and wood, with the other being financial mechanisms,
procurement, and standards and specifications. WRAP provided funding to companies and
academia for research & development and capital investment projects, market research and
studies, training programmes, seminars and other forms of information provision and awareness
raising. Although WRAP’s objectives included waste minimisation and reuse even at that time,
all targets were related to recycling (WRAP, 2003). At the end of FY2001, 40 people in total
were working for WRAP (WRAP, 2002). At this stage, there was no major project on food waste
reduction.
In 2002, a new governmental waste strategy in England “Waste not, Want not” (Strategy Unit,
2002) was released. This strategy required that WRAP should initiate new waste awareness
and waste minimisation programmes, as well as recycling programmes addressing kerbside
best practise and organic market development. One waste minimisation programme WRAP was
requested to develop was an initiative for retailers to reduce packaging and food waste
generated by households. This was the first food waste reduction programme we found relating
to WRAP.
WRAP published a new 2004-2006 business plan in response to “Waste not, Want not”
(WRAP, 2004). In this business plan there was no specific description of household food waste
reduction programs. However, internal discussions on food waste were started in early 2004
(Goodwin and Barthel, 2013). In 2005, WRAP launched the Courtauld Commitment, a voluntary
agreement aimed at improving resource efficiency and reducing waste within the UK grocery
sector (WRAP, n.d. d). This is the programme that WRAP was requested to develop in “Waste
not, Want not”. However, at this stage, the agreement went only so far as to say that food waste
was an issue worth investigating further and one on which the grocery sector could work with
WRAP (Goodwin and Barthel, 2013). A WRAP report said, “Good information on the types and
quantities of food waste, along with reasons why the waste is produced, is crucial in working
with the food industry on reducing household food waste and for the development and targeting
of the consumer-facing Love Food Hate Waste campaign which was launched in November
2007” (Exodus Market Research, 2008).
Then, in its 2006-2008 business plan (WRAP, 2006), WRAP set as its target the reduction of
household food waste by 100,000 tonnes. To meet this target, WRAP needed to find out what
consumers were throwing away and why. Working closely with the retail sector, WRAP wanted
to address the way food was packaged and sold, and the behaviour of consumers that leads to
food waste. It also said, “We need to undertake some carefully designed consumer research to
identify appropriate and persuasive messages and to identify exactly what practical actions
consumers should be taking to reduce food waste”.
3.3 Developing Evidence towards Food Waste Reduction
WRAP launched a major research programme in 2005 to reveal the nature, scale, origin and
causes of post-consumer food waste (Exodus Market Research, 2008) and published the
research summary “Understanding Food Waste” in March 2007 (Goodwin and Barthel, 2013;
WRAP, 2007). This report immediately attracted a positive response from mass media and the
public (Goodwin and Barthel, 2013). The response led to further investment of time and effort in
the issue and it evolved into a report called “The Food We Waste” (Goodwin and Barthel, 2013;
Exodus Market Research, 2008).
“Understanding Food Waste” listed some studies that were conducted to find out more about
what food we waste, why we waste it and what can be done to change consumer attitudes and
behaviour. As the initial research activity, 10 focus group interviews were conducted in 2006 to

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
investigate attitudes to food purchasing and disposal as well as storage and consumption (Ipsos
MORI, 2007). Then, building on the above qualitative work, surveys were carried out in 2006 to
investigate consumer attitudes and behaviours relating to food and food waste, and what might
motivate consumers to throw away less food. Interviews with 1,862 GB households aged 16 and
over were conducted for this survey. The results of the work fed directly into the development of
the LFHW campaign (Brook Lyndhurst, 2007). In addition, consumer research was conducted to
examine perceptions of self-dispensing systems. Packaging solutions with the potential to cut
food waste was examined by a market survey of packaging formats and technologies. Some of
IT resources in helping consumers waste less food was developed and tested (WRAP, 2007).
These research results were summarised in the “Understanding Food Waste” report.
Besides these research efforts, WRAP carried out a major study between 2006 and 2008 to
estimate in detail the nature, scale and origin of food waste through a compositional analysis
technique combined with survey work on household attitudes, claimed behaviour and socio-
demographics. For this purpose, 2,939 householders were surveyed. A food waste diary
research was also conducted. A total of 284 diaries were returned and used to provisionally
quantify the amounts and types being thrown away and also to link the reasons for disposal with
the types of food disposed. These studies resulted in the report “The food we waste” (Exodus
Market Research, 2008).
Through these research projects, WRAP developed an evidence base of food waste and
launched the LFHW campaign based on the findings. Even after launching the campaign,
WRAP continued to study major food waste in detail, to investigate potential reduction of food
waste by improvement of packaging and sales promotion, and to carry out case studies of local
campaigns and community engagement. Among these initiatives, we reviewed and examined
case study reports of local campaigns and community engagements, and have described them
in section 4.
3.4 Outline of Love Food Hate Waste Campaign
In June 2007, WRAP launched the LFHW campaign, with a launch event at London’s
Borough Market, where a celebrity chef demonstrated food waste-saving recipes and tips
(Goodwin and Barthel, 2013). The aims were to raise awareness of the need to reduce the
amount of food that we throw away, and how doing this will benefit both the environment and us
as consumers (WRAP, n.d. e). The campaign communicated directly with consumers and also
through a wide range of partner organisations – grocery retailers, food manufacturers, local
authorities and community groups.
Activities used in the campaign included extensive media coverage of food waste that
highlighted the scale of the issue and provided general tips and advice, and guidance related to
specific themes, for example, catering for large numbers, homemade lunches and leftovers at
Christmas (Quested et al., 2013). Tools, hints, tips, recipes and ideas to help people waste less
were also made available via numerous channels (e.g. websites and recipe cards in
supermarkets). Partners’ activities were also a part of this campaign. For example, grocery
retailers asked customers to support food waste reduction (WRAP, n.d. f), and local authorities’
LFHW initiatives helped local residents through local public relations, road shows and cookery
demonstrations (Quested et al., 2011, 2013) (as shown in a later section). Opportunities to
break bad habits picked up during times such as following retirement and during university
studies have also been utilised in the campaign (Quested et al., 2013). WRAP reported in its
FY2008 annual review that the national campaign was complemented by WRAP-supported
LFHW activity to 114 local authorities in 16 partnerships (WRAP, 2009a). Quested et al. (2011)
showed as an example of its activities that more than 300 local authorities run LFHW initiatives
that help local residents.

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
Community-level engagement with face-to-face communication is an important component of
the LFHW campaign. WRAP has developed partnerships with a number of organizations, such
as the Women’s Institute, and deliver workshops and programmes to help consumers build
confidence around food, and realise the benefits of wasting less (Quested et al., 2011).
Community-level engagement with face-to-face communication can be very effective. However,
the challenge is influencing sufficient numbers of people to make a sizeable difference (Quested
et al., 2013). To address this challenge, WRAP used “cascade training” approaches, where they
(WRAP) train a group of people who each train further people.
Alongside these campaign activities, WRAP has also been working with partner companies
and organizations to make technical changes to the retail environment, such as in the way food
is packaged, labelled and sold and its shelf-life (Quested et al., 2013; WRAP, 2017b). This
consists mainly of three areas: (1) buying the right amount (e.g. 25% off an item rather than
giving volume offers such as “buy 3 for the price of 2”), (2) keeping what people buy at its best
(e.g. selling a pack of cheese that can be reclosed) and (3) helping people use what they buy
(e.g. improving freezing guidance such as moving away from“freeze on day of purchase” to
“freeze up to the date”). One positive outcome was the revision of date-marking guidance in
response to consumer confusion over date labels (WRAP, 2010). This concerted twin-track
approach has meant that it is easier for people to waste less food, whilst at the same time
building momentum around the issue (Quested et al., 2013).
3.5 Outcomes and their Evaluation
WRAP has been evaluating the impact of these activities in various ways. According to
WRAP’s research (WRAP, 2013b), there was a 15% reduction of 1.3 million tonnes of
household food and drink waste between 2007 and 2012, from 8.3 million tonnes to 7.0 million
tonnes, despite an increase of 4% in the number of households in the UK. Avoidable waste, that
is, food and drink that could have been eaten but was not, there was a 21% reduction of 1.1
million tonnes, from 5.3 million tonnes in 2007 to 4.2 million tonnes in 2012. When expressed
per household, the amount of avoidable food and drink waste decreased by nearly a quarter
(24%), from 210 kg to 160 kg per year. This equates to a reduction of 1 kg per week for the
average household. This large reduction in avoidable food and drink waste was concentrated in
five categories, each with reductions of more than 100,000 tonnes: homemade and pre-
prepared meals, bakery, drink, fresh fruit, and dairy and eggs (WRAP, 2013b).
A major research project was conducted for this evaluation. They used estimates in a report
published in 2009 (WRAP, 2009c) as figures in 2007. Figures in 2012 were estimated with
similar methods (WRAP, 2013c). An outline of the research used for the estimation is outlined
below. For food and drink waste collected by local authorities, data from waste composition
studies carried out by local authorities were collated and analysed alongside the most recent
available weight data of waste statistics (WRAP, 2013c; Resource Futures and WRAP, 2013).
The detailed information by food type came from major detailed waste compositional analysis,
with quantifying the weight and types of food and drink waste from 2,138 households in 2007
(Exodus Market Research, 2008; WRAP 2017b) and from approximately 1,800 households in
2012 (WRAP, 2013c). The estimates of food and drink disposed of down the kitchen sink were
both based on the report “Down the Drain” (WRAP, 2009b, 2013c). This research consisted of
diaries being kept for a week by household occupants to record disposal of any food and drink
via the sink, toilet or any other household inlet of the sewer system. In total, 355 respondents
were recruited across England, Scotland and Wales in 2008, and 319 diaries were kept for the
full research period. The amount of food waste fed to animals and composted at home was
estimated based on the results of one-week diary-based research, recording food and drink
waste disposed of by all routes (WRAP, 2009c, 2013c). Estimates in 2007 were based on the

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
diaries of 286 households (WRAP, 2009c). Figures in 2012 were estimated from the results of
948 households (WRAP, 2013c).
In 2017, WRAP published a report that estimated the total amount of food waste and its
reduction in 2015 (WRAP, 2017a). The estimated amount of household food waste in the UK for
2015 was 7.3 million tonnes, compared to 7.0 million tonnes in 2012, an apparent increase of
4.4%. On a per person basis, the apparent increase was 2.2%. Neither of these increases was
statistically significant. WRAP considered that the scale, targeting and effectiveness of
interventions between 2012 and 2015 were not sufficient to deliver a significant reduction in
household food waste against a backdrop of easing economic pressures and an increasing
population, although some of these interventions have undoubtedly helped groups of people to
reduce their food waste. The method to estimate the amount of household food waste collected
by local authorities and the amount of sewer waste was the same as for the 2012 estimates.
The amount of home composting and food fed to animals were estimated under the assumption
that the amount of these per person per year in 2015 was the same as in 2012. As for avoidable
food waste, there was no recent data on the proportion of avoidable household food waste.
Therefore we do not describe it in this paper although WRAP estimated it in an approximate
fashion.
4. INTERVENTIONS IN THE LOCAL CAMPAIGN CASE STUDIES
4.1 Categorisation and Characterisation of Local Activities
Table 2 shows the results of the categorisation chronologically. Campaigns were devided into
three groups and face-to-face approaches were categorised into six groups, based on the
characteristics of cases and interventions.
Campaigns contain both local authority campaigns and business campaigns. Among them,
we categorised business campaigns into “Retailer’s Activities” since these were mainly retailer
campaigns. We divided local authority campaigns into “Single Method” and “Local Intensive
Campaign”. Reports of a “Single Method” campaign focused on an evaluation of one measure
used in the campaign such as podcast and a launch event. A “Local Intensive Campaign” uses
many types of media and activities simultaniously. Reports of a “Local Intensive Campaign” tend
to evaluate the overall effects of a cross-media approach with intensive media use.
The face-to-face approach includes ”Door-to-Door Engagement”, ”Food Waste Reduction
Challenge”, “Roadshow”, “Cookery Course”, “Workshop” and “Cascade Training”. In ”Door-to-
Door Engagement” activities, Food Champions speak to residents on their doorsteps about the
issues of food waste and offer them hints and tips to help them waste less food, tailored to each
conversation (WRAP, n.d. g). ”Food Waste Reduction Challenge” consists of three fortnightly
challenges to reduce and compost food waste, supported with information packs and equipment
(WRAP, n.d. h). “Roadshow” refers to small events taking place in different places to talk to
people about issues of food waste and give information in the form of leaflets, banners, etc.
(WRAP, n.d. g, n.d. i). Staff at a “Roadshow” sometimes ask people to fill in a questionnaire or
to participate in a case study. ”Cookery Course” is lessons in cooking to provide practical
cookery skills and information that enable people to make the most of the food that they buy
(e.g. how to prepare tasty meals from leftovers) (WRAP and Women's Institute, 2008; WRAP,
n.d. j). A “Workshop” includes group work training sessions or group discussions to experience
practical food waste prevention skills, to discuss issues related to food waste prevention, or to
share experiences and tips about food waste and its prevention (except such activities as

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
Table 2 Types and effects of interventions in Love Food Hate Waste local campaign’s case
studies
C am paign(largenum ber) Face-to-faceapproach(sm allnum ber)
Year
Started
LocalIntensive
C am paign
Single
M ethod
Retailer's
Activity
D oor-to-D oor
Engagem ent
FoodW aste
Reduction
C hallenge
Roadshow
C ookery
C ourses
W orkshop
C acade
Training
2007
◆Kent
*CFWR:
10%->20%
*T hosew hohaveseen
cam paign:O ver1/3
by5m onths
◆Kent
(seeL ocal
intensive
cam paign)
2008
◆H erefordshireand
W orcestershire
*CFWR
:13%->23%
*Recognitionofthe
LF H W brand
10%->21%
by5m onths
Bypre-postquest.
◆C um bria
(podcast)
*Approxim a
tely100
entriesfor
the
com petition.
◆H ereford-
shireand
W orcester-
shire
*8%
decreased
aftervisited
*Thepro-
portionof
CFWR
:sim ilar
Bypostquest.
26%of
respondents
visited
◆Yorkand
N orth
Yorkshire
*food waste
78%reduction
(m ightbe
including
com posting)
by6w eeks
Bypre-post
w asteaudit.
7households
◆H ereford-
shireand
W orcester-
shire
(seeL ocal
intensive
cam paign)
◆C um bria
(seeS ingle
m ethod)
◆Yorkand
N orth
Yorkshire
◆W em en's
Institute
(see
W orkshop)
◆W em en'sInstitute
*avoidable food
was te
53%reduction
4.7kg/hh/w
->2.2kg/hh/w
by4m onths
Bypre-post
estim ationusing
self-reported
volum e
*CFWR
:5%->29%
Bypre-postquest.
81households
◆W em en's
Institute
(see
W orkshop)
2009
◆SouthW est(35LA s)
*food waste
Estim ated7,900tonnes
forthelifetim e
im pactofthecam paign
B yfoodw astereduction
m etricbyW R AP
◆G reater
M anchester
(Launch
event)
◆SouthW est
(seeL ocal
intensive
cam paign)
◆G reater
M anchester
(S tudent
M asterC hef)
*46
requests
w ere
received
2010
2011
◆W orcestershire
*avoidable food waste
14.7%reduction
3.33kg/hh/2w
->2.84kg/hh/2w
by3m onths
Bypre/postcom position
analysis
◆Retailers
andB lands
activities
◆W orcester-
shire
(seeL ocal
intensive
cam paign)
◆W orces-
tershire
(seeL ocal
intensive
cam paign)
◆W em en's
Institute
◆W em en's
Institute
2012
◆W estLondon
*food waste
15%reduction(stat.sig.)
2.60kg/hh/w
->2.20kg/hh/w
*avoidable food waste
14%reduction
1.24kg/hh/w
->1.07kg/hh/w
by6m onths
Bypre/postcom position
analysis
◆D erbyshire
◆W est
London
(seeL ocal
intensive
cam paign)
◆W est
London
(seeL ocal
intensive
cam paign)
◆O xford-
shire
*O ver300kg
in1year
Bythe
C om m unity
Im pact
M odelling
Tool
◆W est
London
(seeL ocal
intensive
cam paign)
◆O xfordshire
(seeC ookery
cources)
2013
2014
◆10C ities
cam paign
*engaged
m orethan
12,000people
in10cities
*gainedover
2,500pledges
by3m onths
◆10C ities
cam paign
(seeR etailer's
activities)
◆SaveM ore
activities
(asaw hole)
*97%:w oulduse
som eofthe
inform ationathom e
*62%:w ouldhelp
them tow asteless
food
◆10C ities
cam paign
(seeR etailer's
activities)
◆SaveM ore
activities
(see
W orkshop)
cf. CFWR: Committed Food Waste Reducer: CFWR is an indicator of household food waste prevention
proposed by WRAP and it indicates the percentage of those who commit themselvs to reducing food
waste.

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
categorised above) (WRAP and Women's Institute, 2008). ”Cascade Training” is not a type of
intervention itself but a kind of approach to increase instructors or facilitators of face-to-face
activities. WRAP collaborates with partner organisations and trains a group of people who then
pass on messages about food waste and train further people (Quested et al., 2013).
4.2 Outcomes and their evaluation of face-to-face approaches
4.2.1 “Door-to-Door Engagement” and ”Roadshow”
Just after launching the LFHW campaign, WRAP conducted several case studies about
various types of face-to-face interventions in 2008. Among these interventions, roadshows and
cookery courses were used in local campaigns after 2008. We examined case study reports in
2008 and how each intervention was evaluated in these reports.
Herefordshire and Worcestershire County Councils led a local intensive LFHW campaign in
2008 that included ”Door-to-Door Engagement” and ”Roadshow”. This campaign succeeded in
raising the percentage of committed food waste reducers (CFWRs) 10% from 13% to 23% in 5
months (WRAP, n.d. g). CFWRs are an indicator of household food waste prevention, proposed
by WRAP at an early stage, which was made up of three questions relating to a self-reported
estimate of food waste generated, how bothered by food waste the respondent is, and how
much effort the respondent puts into minimising food waste.
This report concluded that ”Door-to-Door Engagement” is inefficient, matching the findings of
previous studies (e.g. Timlett & Williams, 2008). Eight food waste advisers spoke to a
representative sample of residents on their doorsteps. 26% of the respondents to the post-
campaign survey stated that they had been visited by an adviser. Of those, only 6% felt they
threw away slighly less food waste and a further 2% said they threw away much less since the
adviser’s visit. The proportion of CFWRs in the post-campaign survey sample was very similar
for those visited and not visited by an adviser. These numbers are low and probably within
natural variation; they show that behaviour change campaigns tend to have little real impact
without associated changes to infrastructure and services (Timlett & Williams, 2011). The report
quoted a Herefordshire and Worcestershire food waste adviser’s comment that“Many people
we spoke to claimed not to waste food, perhaps because it is felt to be socially unacceptable,
whereas the WRAP research found that almost everyone throws some food away. Although
people were often happy to discuss food waste in general, they were reluctant to talk about their
own barriers to reducing food waste at the doorstep.” This comment coincided with an early
WRAP research result that many people thought they didn’t waste significant amounts of food
(Brook Lyndhurst, 2007). This Herefordshire and Worcestershire report suggested that door-to-
door engagement was not a key to the increase in CFWRs, although this method has been
used successfully in many areas to explain recycling services to residents. One of the reasons
could be the fact that people tend not to recognise how much food they waste. It is thought to be
necessary that people recognise the amount of food waste they actually throw away before
accepting some advice of skills and tips for food waste prevention. Therefore we thought that
this scheme could not work effectively at least for promoting food waste reducing behaviours.
Looking at other case studies reports, later case studies did not adopt ”Door-to-Door
Engagement”.
The campaign also included over 30 roadshows with pull-up banners and leaflets as a face-
to-face approach. Residents were asked to fill in a food waste questionnaire, and in return they
could take away a free prize such as a branded jute bag or recipe cards. In this case study
report (WRAP, n.d. g), ”Roadshow” was positively described as “residents referred frequently to
supermarket roadshows held by council staff as being positive and informative”.

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
As a result, this report concluded that a door-to-door engagement approach was less
effective than other engagement methods such as roadshows and the Women’s Institute Love
Food Champions project, which is described later in this paper.
4.2.2 “Food Waste Reduction Challenge”
The York and North Yorkshire Waste Partnership conducted a waste minimisation capacity
building project by focusing on preventing and composting food waste (WRAP, n.d. h). They
utilised WRAP’s LFHW campaign for the prevention, and commissioned Waste Watch to run the
project. This project included a ”Food Waste Reduction Challenge” named “What Not to Waste”.
Waste Watch had earlier conducted a “What Not to Waste” project on general waste, including
food waste, at least (Waste Watch, 2007). Eight households were recruited through various
means and set a series of three fortnightly challenges consisting of (1) using compost bin / food
waste digester, (2) reducing your food waste, (3) shopping smarter and cooking creative. Each
household was given information packs and equipment such as a compost bin, spaghetti
measures, recipe ideas, fridge thermometers etc. After the launch event, they started their
challenges for six weeks. The effects of this challenge project were monitored by two audits of
household waste which were carried out at the beginning and end of the challenge weeks.
The research results of 7 households showed that households reduced their food waste by
78.7%. Other positive results included a 93.5% decrease of bread waste. Although these
reductions appeared to be successful results, ”Food Waste Reduction Challenge” was not found
in later case studies. One of the possible reasons is the difficulty of finding a large enough pool
of participants. There were eight participants in this project and only 16 in “What Not to Waste”
in 2006. These numbers seem to be insufficient for an effort to disseminate food waste
prevention behaviours. There is also the possibility that the effects of prevention were not
significant, compared with the effects of composting, although no detailed data were available in
this report. Note that the study involved a small and possibly a self-selecting sample of
households who may have been more willing to make changes to their lifestyle to reduce food
waste than “typical” households.
4.2.3 “Cookery Course”, “Workshop” and “Cascade Training”
WRAP and the National Federation of Women’s Institutes (NFWI) collaborated to conduct the
“Love Food Champions” pilot project in 2008 (WRAP and Women's Institute, 2008). This project
contained “Workshop”, “Cookery Course” and “Cascade Training”. The objectives of this Love
Food Champions pilot project were to provide feedback and insights for the LFHW campaign,
and to test whether there was the potential for a broader roll-out of this method of passing on
knowledge and practical skills. This project had three steps: training volunteers – the
“Champions”, Love Food Group recruitment and meetings. A Love Food Group is a group that
each Love Food Champion was required to form and consisted of a Love Food Champion and
six to eight non-WI individuals in their community. At the third stage, the group members
discussed a range of topics to do with reducing food waste.
In the first stage, the project team held training days for the Love Food Champions to gain
the knowledge and skills necessary to recruit and facilitate Love Food Groups in their
communities. The training covered what was expected of the Love Food Champions in detail,
ideas for activities to use while running a Love Food Group meeting and how to recruit
individuals to their Love Food Group. Topics included the cost and environmental impact of food
waste, tips on where to find recruits and which existing community groups might be receptive to
this type of initiative, ideas about ice breakers, public speaking exercises and an action planning
sheet to help Champions prepare for recruiting and running the groups.
Then in the second stage, each Love Food Champion tried to form a Love Food Group. The

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
Love Food Champions targeted in particular women and men from households with school age
children and young working people, as these were two groups identified by WRAP to be high
food wasters. To help the recruitment of interested individuals, the NFWI and WRAP produced
press releases for each individual Champion that was sent to local and regional media as well
as a generic press release that was sent to national media at the launch of the project.
At the third stage, each Love Food Champion held a Love Food Group meeting once a
month for four months. The topics of each meeting were as follows: 1) introduction and food
shopping, 2) portion sizes and meal planning, 3) food storage and preparation and 4) leftovers
or “rechauffé” meals. A Workbook was developed and provided by NFWI to the Love Food
Champions. The book contained material to be covered at each meeting and offered hints and
tips, plus useful information such as an explanation of the date labels on packaging and a
selection of recipes to accompany the meetings. Groups were also invited to complete an
activity at each meeting, related to the topic being discussed. In the case of the fourth meeting,
a recipe for pizza with the addition of leftover cheese and cooked vegetables gave the groups
something to cook and enjoy eating. The meetings were very informal and that seems to have
been something that participants particularly enjoyed about them. For instance, a group had
participants bring leftovers and extras from their cupboards and fridges to each meeting and
worked as a group to figure out what meals they could create from them. They then made a
meal and discussed the topic of the meeting while enjoying the meal they had prepared together.
The pilot project set out to recruit 20 Love Food Champions from the Women’s Institutes (WI)
membership. Although there was interest from 25 WI members initially, 10 members completed
reports until its final stage. The total number of participants appeared to be 81 households
according to the report.
The weight of avoidable food waste produced in participants’ households was estimated by
using data of its volume that participants recorded for the first seven days and the last seven
days of the project. The results revealed that the reduction was more than 50%: from 4.7 kg per
household per week to 2.2 kg per household per week on average. Compared to a UK average
of 2.8 kg per household per week at that time, 4.7 kg was rather high. This was because they
recruited people from two socioeconomic groups identified as high food wasters. Participants
were also asked what they had enjoyed best about the meetings. The responses which came
across most strongly were recipe ideas. The level of satisfaction about leftovers or „rechauffé‟
meals was the highest among the four topics.
As seen above, the “Love Food Champions” project gained a significant reduction of
avoidable food waste from those who originally produced above average food waste on average.
Recipe ideas for leftover meals and sharing them with others were highly evaluated by
participants. The project intervened in 81 non-WI households, in spite of difficulties with
recruiting. It is thought that those results encouraged WRAP to utilise workshops, especially
cookery courses as face-to-face approach interventions and to adopt cascade training in
cooperation with partners to spread food waste prevention skills.
4.3 Outcomes and their evaluation of Campaigns
4.3.1 Single Method
There were two reports which were categorized into “Single Method”. One is a case study
report from Cumbria which used podcasts (WRAP, n.d. k). The project was based around a two-
week radio campaign featuring four live cooking MP3/podcasts recorded on location by chefs at
a local restaurant. The podcasts were made available for download in their entirety from the
LFHW website. As well as being encouraged to download the podcasts, residents were invited
to volunteer their own “Love Food Hate Waste” tips. Each one was entered into a prize draw to

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
win a £100 meal voucher at the restaurant where the podcasts were recorded. As a result, there
were approximately 100 entries for this competition. There were no data about accessing the
podcasts in this report. The council found that the podcasts suffered from poor production
values as chefs instead of actors were used and recordings were made in a working kitchen.
Podcast was not used in most of the later cases.
The other single method was Greater Manchester’s launch event report (WRAP, n.d. l). A
close partnership was developed with the Manchester Food and Drink Festival (MFDF), an
annual event in the region and many local media members and key local ambassadors for food
and drink were invited to the launch event by the MFDF using their established local contacts.
The launch event comprised key speeches and a live cookery demonstration of typical domestic
leftovers by a local chef, using the Food Lovers campaign artwork from WRAP. The event was
also used to launch the “food diary challenge” to the press. As a result, three radio interviews,
including BBC Radio Manchester, were broadcast and at least 13 articles appeared in the local
press. This report concluded that the launch event achieved a PR success, reaching the core
target audience through a variety of media, at very low cost. It was also used as a networking
opportunity for influential individuals and organisations. However, the launch event was not
written about in most of the later case study reports.
4.3.2 Evaluation of Local Intensive Campaigns
Most of the reported campaigns were “Local Intensive Campaigns” and they were reported
almost every year up to 2012. These campaigns utilised various media and most of them
evaluated their total effects. Between the Kent case study in 2007 and the South West region
case study in 2009, effects were measured by CFWRs. Both Kent (WRAP, n.d. i) and
Herefordshire and Worcestershire Councils (WRAP, n.d. g) reported a 10% increase in CFWRs,
estimated by pre- and post-campaign questionnaire surveys. South West Waste and Recycling
Forum (WRAP, n.d. m) reported that it was possible to estimate that the lifetime benefit of the
campaign would be a reduction in food waste of 7,900 tonnes. There was no description of the
method used to estimate the lifetime benefit in this report. However, it was supposed that this
figure was estimated for an assumed year-on-year CFWRs drop-off rate of 20% of the original
level, since Herefordshire and Worcestershire Councils case study report estimated the net
disposal saving over three years under this assumption (WRAP, n.d. g).
Concerning the CFWRs, WRAP pointed out that this metric started to show an anomalous
relation with levels of behaviours that reduce the amount of food waste in late 2009, and
proposed to use compositional analysis for its measurement (WRAP, n.d. n). Therefore in the
case studies of Worcestershire in 2011 and of West London in 2012, campaign effects were
evaluated using waste compositional analysis before and after the campaign activities.
Worcestershire reported that avoidable food waste per household per fortnight fell around 15%
from 3.33 kg to 2.84 kg through the intervention (WRAP, n.d. j). As for the West London case
study (WRAP, 2013a, n.d. o), the results showed a statistically significant reduction of 0.4 kg per
household per week, a 15% reduction in food waste, between the pre- and post-campaign
analyses. It also reported that avoidable food waste decreased by 14% during this time. Another
local intensive campaign conducted by Derbyshire County Council in 2012 was reported, but no
data about food waste reduction was available in this report (WRAP, n.d. p).
As shown above, measurement was different from one case to another. This means it is
difficult to analyse the relation between intervention and its effect quantitatively. Therefore we
analysed these campaigns qualitatively by comparing the media and interventions used among
the campaigns, examining common characteristics and differences and also examining the
chronological changes.

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
4.3.3 Media used in local intensive campaigns
Table 3 shows what kind of media and interventions each local intensive campaign used. Table
3 Details of selected WRAP local intensive campaigns
O rganization
KentW aste
Partnership
H erefordshire
and
W orcestershire
SouthW est
W asteand
RecyclingForum
W orcestershire W estLondon D erbyshire
Yearstarted 2007 2008 2009 2011 2012 2012
Periods 5m onths 5m onths 4w eeks 3m onths 6m onths 2m onths
H ouseholds 566,000 309,000 2,350,000 8,774 601,000 -
C ost £ 162,152 £ 90,000 £ 168,472
C ost/H ousehold £ 0.30 £ 0.29 £ 0.28
M edia TV new s
Radio ads ads interview ads ads
N ew spaper ads ads&articles ads ads ads
M agazine editorial articles ads ads
Internetads. ○
W ebsite ○ ○ ○
Socialm edia ○ ○
V ideoonN et ○
Transitads
Busbackads
Busstopads
M agneticVehicle
S ignsw iththe
LF H W logo
Busback/sides
ads
Bus-backads
Posteron
underground
sites
Busads
O theroutdoor
m edia
Signboards
Billboards
G iantL oveFood
H ateW aste
inflatable’s
Billboards
Adshelsat
superm arkets
Billboard
B igvinylL FH W
banners
R efuseLF H W
vehiclelivery
Sheet-ads
Billborad
O therpaper
m aterials
Leaflets
D oor-dropof
leaflets
Leaflets
Events Photo
opportunity ○ ○
O therm ethods
Postersin
com m unitysites,
greengrocers,
council
buildingsetc.
Postersin
com m unity
locations
D oortodoor
engagem enttrial
appearedinthe
nationalm edia
Extensive
engagem ent
w iththepublic,
(N odetailinfo)
PR inlocaland
regionalm edia
(N odetailinfo)
Postersin
variouspartners
LifeC hannel
Advertsinthe
tw oD octor's
surgeriesw ith
leaflets
Localzerow aste
challenge
C ookerycourse ○ ○
Roadshow ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
D oorstepping ○
C ascadetraining ○
O thers
O rganization's
internal
com unication
○ ○ ○
Retailersetc. ○ ○ ○
Basic
Features
Face-to-
face
approach
Among the mass media, utilisation of TV was very limited. The West London case was
broadcast on TV news (WRAP, 2013a), but no TV adverts were reported in the case studies. It
is thought that TV adverts tended to cover an area wider than the campaign area and was so
expensive that it resulted in reduced cost-effectiveness.
On the other hand, radio adverts were freqently used, in four out of six cases. As most of the
reported local intensive campaigns covered a relatively wide area, radio adverts were
considered to be reasonable in terms of cost-efficiency. If the target of the campaign is listening
to the radio frequently, radio adverts will be an important medium for local intensive campaign.
Newspaper adverts were also often used, in five out of six cases. Use of magazines was varied.

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
West London used adverts in borough magazines (WRAP, 2013a) and Worcestershire used
adverts on Parish/ City Council/ community magazines (WRAP, n.d. j). Herefordshire and
Worcestershire used articles in district magazines and staff newsletters (WRAP, n.d. g). Kent
also reported using editorial (WRAP, n.d. i).
The use of the Internet was hardly reported before 2012 in the local intensive campaign.
West London in 2012 reported the use of internet ads and social media (WRAP, 2013a).
Derbyshire in 2012 also included social media and Video on Net as campaign media (WRAP,
n.d. p). It is considered that social media were added as PR measures around 2012 as their
importance as communication channels increased. There were three reports that mentioned a
local authority’s own website and WRAP’s website.
Regarding transit adverts, bus adverts were often used, in four out of six cases. Three of
them reported using bus back adverts. It is difficult for pedestrians to see bus back adverts, but
those who are riding in a car running behind the bus cannot avoid seeing these adverts for a
relatively long time. Therefore this type of advert will be effective when those who typically use a
car are important campaign targets. Besides bus adverts, bus stop advertising (WRAP, n.d. i),
Magnetic Vehicle Signs with the LFHW logo placed on any internal minibuses/vehicles (WRAP,
n.d. i) and poster sites across the London underground networks(WRAP, 2013a) were also
reported.
Billboards were also often used as outdoor adverts, at least in four out of six cases. A
billboard is a very large board on which adverts are shown, especially at the roadside, and is
prominent. Other unique outdoor adverts were also reported, including giant LFHW inflatables
(WRAP, n.d. i) and big vinyl LFHW banners on the railings of a local school (WRAP, n.d. j).
Distribution of leaflets, displaying posters and events for appealing the campaign were
reported in a few case studies. As another unique form of advert, life channel adverts in two
doctor’s surgeries were reported in the Worcestershire case study (WRAP, n.d. j). Anywhere we
have to wait for a while, such as a bank, a post office, an elevator lobby, or an intersection,
could also be a good place for adverts.
As a whole, we can point out that most local intensive campaigns utilised not only press
releases but also adverts on local media, buses and billboards. Worcestershire did not use
either radio ads or newspaper adverts, perhaps because the campaign scale was limited
(around 10,000 households, far less than other campaigns). However, Worcestershire
succeeded in using press releases to publicise the campaign and also utilised more outdoor ads
such as billboards and big vinyl LFHW banners as well as posters displayed by various partners
and unique local adverts like life channel adverts in the two doctor’s surgeries.
4.3.4 Other activities of local intensive campaigns
Local intensive campaigns often feature activities with a face-to-face approach, in addition to
public relations activities by the above media. Roadshows were reported in five out of six case
studies. The remaining case also used a roadshow, but it was used for internal communication
(WRAP, n.d. p). In some cases, visitors at roadshows were asked to participate by keeping a
food waste diary (WRAP, n.d. i) or filling in a food waste questionnaire (WRAP, n.d. g). Cookery
courses were used in two cases.
In addition, there were three cases using organization's internal communications. Kent
approached the media/press department of a company that had the most employers in the area
and collaborated with this company (WRAP, n.d. i). Posters and giant fruit inflatables were
displayed and leaflets were placed around the building and in the canteen. The canteen team
cooked all of the dishes in the campaign template leaflet and those dishes were freely available
for everyone during their lunch break. Other internal communication was directed at employees
of LAs and related organisations and appealed to them by internal newsletters, intranet, posters

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
and roadshows(WRAP, 2013a, n.d. p).
4.3.5 Cost effectiveness of local intensive campaigns
Intensive media use tends to be expensive, but the cost per household was reported about
£0.3 (about US$0.4 as converted using the average exchange rate in 2016) in three cases. The
unit cost was reduced by conducting wide area campaigns in collaboration with multiple local
authorities containing 300,000 to 600,000 households.
4.3.6 Retailer Activities
Table 2 contains two case study reports about retailer activities. The report in 2011 (WRAP,
n.d. f) introduced each companies’ initiatives for food waste reduction such as smart use of
packaging, information provision about food storage at home and less waste recipes.
Information provision is categorised into campaign activities. The report in 2014 (WRAP, n.d. q)
introduced early activities and outputs of the 10 Cities campaign. WRAP collaborated with 7
leading retailers and 10 local authorities and delivered this campaign until 2016 (WRAP, n.d. r).
From July to September 2014, they held a launch event in each city and encouraged people to
make a pledge to adopt one of the key LFHW behaviours to reduce food waste at home.
Contents of the events depended on each retailer and city. Examples of the contents included
handing out smoothies, LFHW videos playing, minimizing food waste competition, etc. (WRAP,
n.d. q, n.d. s) . These launch events resulted in direct face-to-face engagement with more than
12,000 people and gained over 2,500 pledges to adopt one of the key food waste prevention
behaviours. This campaign was also a part of Courtauld Commitment 3. The final report of
Courtauld Commitment 3 (WRAP, n.d. r) described major activities and outputs of the 10 Cities
campaign. This included LFHW’s cascade and awareness training sessions to over 5,000
attendees, involving 760 different businesses and organisations; the “Big Freeze” events, where
speaking to over 8,000 people about how to save food by freezing; and over 100 cookery
classes to help attendees learn LFHW’s five key behaviours. As such, partnership campaigns
with major retailers and local authorities enable direct face-to-face communication with a very
large number of people. However, it is thought to be necessary to foster a strong trusting
relationship with a number of partners in order to realise a strong large- scale campaign like the
10 Cities campaign.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper has identified and critically evaluated the common characteristics of LFHW
campaigns’ local activities through analysis of case study reports. The key outcomes from
our analysis are listed below:
1. England’s waste strategy in 2002, “Waste not, Want not”, requested WRAP to take the lead
in promoting a retailers initiative to reduce packaging and food waste generated by
households. This move encouraged WRAP to struggle for household food waste prevention,
and it resulted in the LFHW campaign as well as the Courtauld Commitment. The LFHW
approach has been generally recognized as very successful in terms of raising awareness
about food waste within the UK and internationally.
2. The LFHW campaign has consisted of national campaigns and community engagements
together with the activities of such partners as local authorities, grocery retailers, and
community groups. Community-level engagement with face-to-face communication has been
expanded through cascade training programmes. These activities have been supported with
technical changes of the retail environment such as the way food is packaged, labelled and

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
sold and its shelf life.
3. WRAP’s case studies of the LFHW local campaign could be divided into three types: “Single
Method”, “Local Intensive Campaign” and “Retailer’s Activities”. Six types of face-to-face
approach activities and related activities were extracted from case study reports: ”Door-to-
door engagement”, ”Food Waste Reduction Challenge”, “Roadshow”, “Cookery Course”,
“Workshop” and “Cascade Training”.
4. WRAP examined several methods for the second year of the LFHW campaign in 2008 and
chose the most effective methods. As a result, “Local Intensive Campaign”, “Roadshow”,
“Cookery Course” and “Cascade Training” were often adopted in later case studies.
5. Two case studies with pre- and post- compositional analysis showed around a 15% reduction
in avoidable household food waste by the LFHW’s “Local Intensive Campaign”.
6. In relatively large-scale campaigns (i.e. more than 300,000 households), radio, local
newspaper and bus adverts were often used fo spread the campaign messages. In small-
scale campaigns (i.e. 10,000 households), local ads, often in cooperation with various
partners, as well as outdoor ads (e.g. billboards) were adopted instead of mass media ads
and transit ads.
7. Almost all local intensive campaigns included roadshows as a face-to-face approach. Two out
of six cases also included cookery courses.
8. A cost per household of about £0.3 was reported in three cases. The unit cost was reduced
by conducting wide-area campaigns in collaboration with multiple local authorities containing
300,000 to 600,000 households.
9. Partnership campaigns with major retailers and local authorities have the possibility to enable
direct face-to-face communication with a large number of people.
Through examining case study reports about LFHW campaigns’ local activities, we could
conclude that well-designed local intensive campaign with some face-to-face activites such as
roadshows or cookery courses could achieve around a 15% reduction in avoidable household
food waste. However, some reports assumed that campaign effects might decrease 20% a year.
This means we should consider how we could make the effects longer. Timlett and Williams
(2011) indicated that a behaviour-centric approach has limited effectiveness and policy makers
must change infrastructure and service in order to meet challenging recycling targets. If we can
apply this idea to food waste prevention, we should consider the change of retail environment,
food waste seperate collection, food bank service or other infrastructure and service related to
food waste prevention as well as behavioural change campaigns. These are challenges for the
future.
REFERENCES
Brook Lyndhurst (2007). Food Behaviour Consumer Research: Quantitative Phase.WRAP.
Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Food%20behaviour%20consumer%20research%20quan
titative%20jun%202007.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
Cox J., Giorg S., Sharp V., Strange K., Wilson D.C. and Blakey N. (2010). Household waste
prevention – a review of evidence. Waste Manage. Res., vol. 28, 193-219.
DETR (2000). Waste Strategy 2000 for England and Wasles Part 1. Available from:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20040117081610/http://www.defra.gov.uk/environme
nt/waste/strategy/cm4693/index.htm (accessed 30th June 2017)
Exodus market research (2008). The food we waste. WRAP. Available from:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080610145411/http://www.wrap.org.uk/document.r

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
m?id=5635 (accessed 30th June 2017)
FAO (2011). Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention. Available
from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
Goodwin L. and Barthel M. (2013). Food For Thought. In Sustainable Consumption: Stakeholder
Perspectives, World Economic Forum, Geneva, 33-41. Available from:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ENV_SustainableConsumption_Book_2013.pdf (accessed
30th June 2017)
Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) (2013). Global Food: Waste Not, Want Not.
IMechE. Available from: https://www.imeche.org/docs/default-source/default-document-
library/global-food---waste-not-want-not.pdf?sfvrsn=0 (accessed 30th June 2017)
Ipsos MORI (2007). Understanding Consumer Food Management Behaviour. WRAP. Available
from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Understanding_consumer_food_management_behaviou
r_jly_2007.0f60e631.6395.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
OECD (2002). OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: United Kingdom 2002.
Parry, A., P. Bleazard and K. Okawa (2015). Preventing Food Waste: Case Studies of Japan
and the United Kingdom. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 76, OECD
Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js4w29cf0f7-en. (accessed 30th June 2017)
Quested T.E., Parry A.D., Easteal S. and Swannell R. (2011). Food and drink waste from
households in the UK. Nutrition Bulletin, vol. 36 n. 4, 460-467.
Quested T.E., Marsh E., Stunell D. and Parry A.D. (2013). Spaghetti Soup: The Complex World
of Food Waste Behaviours. Resour. Conserv. Recy., vol. 79, 43-51.
Resource Futures and WRAP (2013). Synthesis of Food Waste Compositional Data 2012
report. Available from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/hhfdw-synthesis-food-waste-
composition-data.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
Sharp V., Giorgi S. and Wilson D.C. (2010a). Delivery and impact of household waste
prevention intervention campaigns (at the local level). Waste Manage. Res., vol. 28, 256-268.
Sharp V., Giorgi S. and Wilson D.C. (2010b). Methods to monitor and evaluate household waste
prevention. Waste Manage. Res., vol. 28, 269–280.
Strategy Unit (2002). Waste not, Want not: A strategy for tackling the waste problem in England.
Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20050302035823/http://www.strategy-
unit.gov.uk/su/waste/report/downloads/wastenot.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
The Internet Archive (n.d.). Internet Archive: Wayback Machine.
Available from: https://web.archive.org/ (accessed 30th June 2017)
The National Archives (n.d.). UK Government Web Archive.
Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ (accessed 30th June 2017)
Timlett, R. and Williams, I.D. (2008). Public participation and recycling performance in England:
.A comparison of tools for behaviour change. Resour. Conserv. Recy., vol. 52(4), 622-634.
Timlett R., and Williams I.D. (2011). The ISB model (infrastructure, service, behaviour): A tool
for waste practitioners. Waste Manage., vol.31, 1381–1392.
Waste Watch (2007). Project REDUCE Monitoring & Evaluation/ Developing tools to measure
waste prevention/ Annex 1: Campaign evaluation report/ ‘What not to waste’. Available from:
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WR0105_8682_FRA.pdf (accessed 30th
June 2017)
WRAP (2001). The Waste and Resources Action Programme.
Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20010220185826/http://www.wrap.org.uk:80/
(accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (2002). Annual Report and Accounts for the period from incorporation on 11 December
2000 to 31 March 2002. Available from:
https://web.archive.org/web/20030513191317/http://www.wrap.org.uk:80/publications/Annual_R

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
eport20_6_02c.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (2003). Achievements Report 2002/03. Available from:
https://web.archive.org/web/20030812075418/http://www.wrap.org.uk:80/publications/Wrap_ach
ievements_2002to2003.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (2004). BUSINESSPLAN2 [2004-2006]. Available from:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040703115744/http://www.wrap.org.uk:80/publications/Business
Plan2004.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (2006). Increasing resource efficiency, reducing carbon emissions. / Business Plan
2006-2008. Available from:
https://web.archive.org/web/20071014084443/http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/WRAP_Busin
ess_Plan_2006_-_2008.8fa14dc1.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (2007). Understanding Food Waste. Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/FoodWasteResearchSummaryFINALADP29_3__07.pdf
(accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP(2009a). Annual Report and Consolidated Accounts for year ended 31 March 2009.
Available from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/WRAP_AnnRep09_WEB_3.pdf
(accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (2009b). Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK. Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Household%20food%20and%20drink%20waste%20in%
20the%20UK%20-%20report.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (2009c). Down the Drain. Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Down%20the%20drain%20-%20report.pdf (accessed
30th June 2017)
WRAP(2010). Annual Report and consolidated Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2010.
Available from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/WRAP%20Annual%20Report%202009-
10.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (2013a). West London Food Waste Prevention Campaign Evaluation Report. Available
from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/West%20London%20Food%20Waste%20Campaign%2
0Evaluation%20Report_1.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (2013b). Household Food and Drink Waste in the United Kingdom 2012. Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/hhfdw-2012-main.pdf.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (2013c). Methods used for Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK 2012. Available
from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Methods%20Annex%20Report%20v2.pdf
(accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (2016a). Household Food and Drink Waste Resource Listing. Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Household%20Food%20and%20Drink%20Waste%20Re
source%20Listing%20April%2016%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (2016b). Annual Review 2015-16. Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/WRAP%20Annual%20Review%202015-16.pdf
(accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (2016c). Annual Report and Consolidated Accounts 2015-16. Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/WRAP%20Annual%20Report%20and%20Accounts%20
2015-16.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (2017a). Household Food Waste in the UK, 2015. Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Household_food_waste_in_the_UK_2015_Report.pdf
(accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP(2017b). Helping Consumers Reduce Food Waste – Retail Survey 2015. Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Retail_Survey_2015_Summary_Report_0.pdf (accessed
30th June 2017)

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
WRAP (n.d. a). Local authority communications case studies.
Available from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/local-authority-communications-case-studies
(accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (n.d. b). WRAP resource library.
Available from: https://partners.wrap.org.uk/campaigns/love-food-hate-waste/ (accessed 30th
June 2017)
WRAP (n.d. c). Our vision. Available from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/about-us/about (accessed
30th June 2017)
WRAP (n.d. d). THE COURTAULD COMMITMENT. Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/what-is-courtauld (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (n.d. e). About Food Waste. Available from:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080130014243/http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com:80/about_foo
d_waste (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (n.d. f). What retailers and brands are doing to help you reduce food waste. Available
from: https://partners.wrap.org.uk/assets/3596/ (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (n.d. g). Local Authority waste prevention case study: Herefordshire and Worcestershire
Councils/ Love Food Hate Waste campaign. WRAP. Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/WRAP_herefordshire_worcestershire_LFHW_v31.pdf
(accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (n.d. h). Local Authority communications case study: York and North Yorkshire Waste
Partnership/ Reducing food waste by providing training for Local Communities. WRAP.
Available from: https://partners.wrap.org.uk/assets/3603/ (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (n.d. i). Local Authority communications case study: Kent County Council/ Love Food
Hate Waste Campaign. WRAP. Available from: https://partners.wrap.org.uk/assets/3599/
(accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (n.d. j).Love Food Hate Waste case study: Worcestershire County Council and the
University of Worcester/ Reducing food waste through community focussed initiatives. WRAP.
Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/2011.11_Worcestershire_CC_LFHW_2011_case_study.
3e14035c.11397.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (n.d. k). Local Authority communications case study: Cumbria / Podcasts for Love Food
Hate Waste Cumbria County Council. WRAP. Available from:
https://partners.wrap.org.uk/assets/3597/ (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (n.d. l). Local Authority waste prevention case study: Greater Manchester / Love Food
Hate Waste campaign launch Greater Manchester Waste Partnership. WRAP. Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/WRAP_great_man_lfhw_v4_hr1.pdf (accessed 30th June
2017)
WRAP (n.d. m). LA waste prevention case study: South West Waste & Recycling Partnership /
Local authority partnership waste prevention campaign based on Love Food Hate Waste.
WRAP. Available from: https://partners.wrap.org.uk/assets/3602/ (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (n.d. n). Love Food Hate Waste Metric changes. Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Love%20Food%20Hate%20Waste%20Metric%20chang
es%20-FINAL.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (n.d. o). Household food waste prevention case study: West London Waste Authority in
partnership with Recycle for London / The impact of Love Food Hate Waste. WRAP. Available
from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/West%20London%20LFHW%20Impact%20case%20stu
dy_0.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (n.d. p). Love Food Hate Waste case study: Derbyshire County Council / Derbyshire
County Council’s Love Food Hate Waste Christmas Campaign. WRAP. Available from:

Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 - 6 October 2017
https://partners.wrap.org.uk/assets/4086/ (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (n.d. q). Love Food Hate Waste 10 Cities: 7 retailers! July-September 2014 and beyond.
WRAP. Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/LFHW%2010%20cities%20launches%202014%20Jul-
Sept%20-%20Retailer%20case%20studies.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP (n.d. r). Courtauld Commitment 3: Delivering action on waste. Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Courtauld_Commitment_3_final_report_0.pdf(accessed
30th June 2017)
WRAP (n.d. s). Love Food Hate Waste's 10 Cities campaign. Available from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhaxI9csONI (accessed 30th June 2017)
WRAP and Women’s Institute (2008). Love Food Champions. Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/LFC%20draft%20FINAL%20report%20171008-
FINAL.pdf (accessed 30th June 2017)