Current Issues in Tourism

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20

All you can eat or all you can waste? Effects of

alternate serving styles and inducements on food
waste in buffet restaurants

Yevvon Yi-Chi Chang

To cite this article: Yevvon Yi-Chi Chang (2021): All you can eat or all you can waste? Effects of
alternate serving styles and inducements on food waste in buffet restaurants, Current Issues in
Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2020.1870939

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1870939

Published online: 26 Jan 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 275

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcit20
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1870939

All you can eat or all you can waste? Effects of alternate serving
styles and inducements on food waste in buffet restaurants
Yevvon Yi-Chi Chang
Department of Hospitality Management, Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Consumer plate waste is a pressing environmental concern. Scholars Received 3 September 2020
hypothesize that moral and financial inducements have the potential to Accepted 19 December 2020
reduce food waste at the end of the meal. This study addresses this
KEYWORDS
hypothesis for buffet restaurants, a popular dining option in Asia. ‘All- Food waste; buffet
you-can-eat’ consumption leads to higher volumes of food waste at the restaurants; serving styles;
end of the meal, as the leftovers may not be taken away. This study is inducements; field
the first attempt to examine the effect of the combination of serving experiment method
styles (self-service buffet bar vs. rolling cart) and inducements (both
moral and financial) on food waste, employing a field experiment
method. Bulk food waste was recorded for a total of 630 participants.
The results provide evidence that there is a significant interaction
between serving styles and inducements on food waste volume (Study
1 and Study 2). Specifically, the results indicate that buffet self-service
combined with moral persuasion and a discount produces the least
food waste (Study 3). Restaurants can employ a variety of methods to
address the problem of plate waste by their customers, including
serving styles, moral persuasion, and financial inducements in the form
of discounts as a reward for eating all that one takes at the buffet bar.

Introduction
While the restaurant sector has responded inadequately to the issue of food sustainability (Kasim &
Ismail, 2012), increasing social awareness may ‘force the hand’ of restaurant practitioners to contrib-
ute to a more ecologically responsible world (Raab et al., 2018). Food waste in the restaurant industry
has caught the attention of research scholars (Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2019), who can recommend
management practices that both reduce waste and increase revenues (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2018)
Buffet restaurants boast high customer satisfaction (Kim et al., 2010) and lower labour costs for
restaurant practitioners. However, when food is readily available, and customers are incentivized
to fill their plates by an all-you-can-eat sales model, some customers will take more than they are
willing to consume, and edible food goes to waste (Wansink & Van Ittersum, 2013). Therefore,
both scholars and restaurant managers are well-advised to focus on plate waste by consumers to
minimize food waste and its negative social, economic, and ecological consequences. In buffet res-
taurants, food waste in the preparation stage (whether due to inefficient preparation methods or
overproduction) can be addressed by more efficient management policies (Betz et al., 2015; Silven-
noinen et al., 2015; SV Group, 2011), but plate waste by consumers is the greater contributor to food
waste overall and is less easily prevented (BIO Intelligence Services, 2010; Cox & Downing, 2007;
Juvan et al., 2018; Kuo & Shih, 2016; Lam, 2010).

CONTACT Yevvon Yi-Chi Chang [email protected]

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Y. Y-C. CHANG

The type of buffet restaurant examined in this study is the Japanese-style hot-pot franchise. Hot-
pot buffets are one the most popular restaurant franchise operations in Taiwan, representing over
40% of new franchise openings in a recent report (TCFA, 2018; Tseng, 2019). As part of the ‘experi-
ence economy’ (Pine & Gilmore, 1999), hot-pot restaurants invite the consumer to take part in the
production of the meal, eliminating recruitment and training of chefs (a major expense in traditional
restaurants) and providing an opportunity for customer participation and engagement. Hot-pot res-
taurants are judged by the variety and quality of their soup stocks and the freshness and supply of
the basic ingredients of the meal. For the restaurant owner or franchisee, controlling costs and main-
taining the high quality of the soup stocks and ingredients are the most essential criteria for a suc-
cessful business model (Chen & Shen, 2015).
Unlike open buffets featuring a variety of prepared foods, in hot-pot restaurants, consumers are
engaged directly in food preparation. A set price includes unlimited servings of sliced raw beef or
pork, with raw vegetables offered at a buffet table or on rolling carts. Customers control both the
amount of food that is prepared and the amount of food that is consumed or unconsumed.
Whereas restaurant and hotel managers in traditional cafeteria-style buffets must calculate food
loss at both the server and consumer stages (and implement sound policies to mitigate preparer
and consumer food loss), restaurant practitioners in hot-pot buffets should develop strategies to dis-
courage plate waste among their patrons (Chen & Jai, 2018; Juvan et al., 2018; Kallbekken & Sælen,
2013). For one thing, food that is not taken from the serving table or cart can be used the next day,
whereas cooked food in traditional buffet restaurants – even if untouched at the buffet stand – is
typically discarded (Aamir et al., 2018; Kuo & Shih, 2016; Papargyropoulou et al., 2016). This study
examines what kind of serving style, in conjunction with which incentives to reduce food waste
volume, are most effective in addressing the problem of food waste in consumer-prepared buffet-
style restaurants.
Buffet restaurants can minimize food waste by consumers by altering serving methods in ways
that will encourage full consumption without waste, and by creating inducements to change consu-
mer behaviours. How food is delivered by servers and how food waste is perceived by consumers
may reduce both over-consumption and food waste, thus addressing unhealthy eating habits that
contribute to a global epidemic of obesity and other consumption-related maladies, and mitigating
food waste volume (Sobal & Wansink, 2007). Moreover, as consumers become more willing partners
in service industry efforts to promote environmental sustainability, it is incumbent upon academic
researchers to examine the significant effects of moral persuasion on customer behaviours. Recent
studies have shown that managerial strategies to employ persuasion as a strategy to encourage
environmentally friendly behaviours have produced mixed results, with some indicating that consu-
mers are receptive to such messaging and others suggesting that they are not (Chen & Jai, 2018; Cox
& Downing, 2007; Dolnicar et al., 2020; Kim & Freedman, 2010; Kuo & Shih, 2016; Qi & Roe, 2017).
Filimonau et al. (2020) have investigated food loss in full-service restaurants in Shanghai; and
Huang et al. (2020) employed content analysis to show that attention to food waste and food sus-
tainability is found significantly less often in Asia than it is in Western countries. These studies ident-
ify cultural dimensions of consumption that make mindfulness about food waste especially
challenging in an Asian context. Adopting a Field Experiment method, this study extends existing
research by investigating how buffet restaurants can employ appropriate serving styles and induce-
ments to mitigate food waste. Understanding how to incentivize customers to ‘take only what they
can eat’ can contribute significantly to food waste prevention – especially in Asia, where cafeteria-
style, hot-pot restaurants, and open buffets make up a significant proportion of restaurant share.
This study focuses on moral persuasion as an effective means to prevent food waste, especially in
combination with other inducements. A series of three studies were conducted to examine the
effects of alternative serving styles (self-serve buffet vs. rolling carts) and inducements on food
waste in hot-pot buffet restaurants, with a goal of creating incentive programmes that can be
implemented by restaurant managers to inspire eco-friendly consumer behaviours.
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 3

Literature review
This study builds upon prior research on food waste in hospitality industries; the particular issue of
plate waste in buffet restaurants, especially in Asian contexts; and effective means (such as moral and
financial inducements) that can be adopted by restaurant practitioners to change consumers’ was-
teful behaviours. While Filimonau and DeCoteau (2019) have indicated that food waste in hospitality
industries has received inadequate academic attention, we note several important studies below,
particularly in the context of buffet restaurants; see especially major studies by Sara Dolnicar and
her team on the Slovenian coast (Dolnicar et al., 2017, 2019, 2020), by Steffen Kallbekken and
Håkon Sælen in Scandanavia (Kallbekken & Sælen, 2013), and by Chen-feng Kuo and Ya-hui Shih
in Taiwan (Kuo & Shih, 2016), among others. We explore how the service context, and practitioners’
employment of moral and financial inducements, can change consumer behaviours and reduce
plate waste at the end of the meal. Our research was conducted in an Asian context, where
public consciousness of food sustainability is still undeveloped and where plate waste is a significant
contributor to food waste overall (Filimonau et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2020).

Food waste
Ongoing food shortages and fair distribution of food supplies around the world make food waste
prevention especially important. Over 840 million people worldwide suffer from hunger (FAO,
2013), and wasted food creates bio-hazardous solid waste and overtaxes landfills (Tukker et al.,
2005). So, food waste is both ethically and environmentally unacceptable (FAO, 2013). Though
food waste occurs at every stage of the food cycle (production, preparation, consumption), consu-
mer behaviours in the final stage of consumption are the main generator of food waste (Betz et al.,
2015; Soorani & Ahmadvand, 2019; Wang et al., 2018). Approximately one-third of the global food
supply chain turns into food waste at the stage of consumption, including consumers’ daily food
consumption patterns in both households and restaurants (European Environment Agency, 2014).
While academic research on consumer food waste behaviours is still undeveloped (Filimonau &
DeCoteau, 2019, have conducted a comprehensive review of research to date), both restaurant man-
agers and scholars can contribute to the reduction of food waste at several levels: food preparation
in the kitchen, service on the restaurant floor, and food consumption at the table.

Food waste in buffet restaurants

Buffets are a type of meal service in which guests make their own choices, and can eat their fill
(Cohen & Avieli, 2004). They deliver easier and quicker meal service and can reduce service costs.
Moreover, customers generally report higher levels of satisfaction with buffets than with á la carte
service at the table: buffets are among the most popular restaurant styles in the world (Kim et al.,
2010).
In terms of food sustainability, however, buffets present especially difficult challenges: they
increase food consumption, and they increase food waste (Juvan et al., 2018). Some studies indicate
that left-over food at the buffet counter or serving table (‘serving loss’) represents the largest percen-
tage of food waste in buffet restaurants (Silvennoinen et al., 2015; SV Group, 2011); this issue can be
addressed by restaurant owners and managers to make the presentation and serving of foods more
efficient and less wasteful. By contrast, customer waste (‘plate loss’) is more difficult to control, both
because customers are incentivized monetarily to consume more food (Kuo & Shih, 2016) and
because more self-served food is left on the plate (Wansink & Van Ittersum, 2013). A major source
of food waste is overestimation of the amount of food one will consume, whether at home or in res-
taurants (BIO Intelligence Services, 2010; Cox & Downing, 2007; Kuo & Shih, 2016; Lam, 2010).
Especially in all-you-can-eat settings, people are motivated by perceived financial benefits and
visual cues to serve themselves more food than they can eat (Juvan et al., 2018).
4 Y. Y-C. CHANG

Service context
Serving choices made by restaurant owners, managers, and servers have a significant impact on both
consumption and plate waste at the end of the meal. In a study of food waste in the hospitality
industry, Pirani and Arafat (2016) observed that serving styles and timing, the types of food
served, and inaccuracies in predicting the number of customers are the main contributors to food
waste. Studies of service preparation found that overproduction in the preparation stage was the
most significant cause of restaurant waste (Aamir et al., 2018; Bharucha, 2018). Other studies have
focused on the effect of portion sizes on food consumption and food waste: not unexpectedly,
larger portion sizes led to greater levels of consumption (Diliberti et al., 2004; Freedman & Brochado,
2010; Hackes et al., 1997; Levitsky & Youn, 2004) – contributing to increased levels of obesity and
other consumption-based illnesses, and to increased volumes of solid food waste. Betz et al.
(2015) surveyed restaurant patrons to see why they had left-over food at the end of the meal.
Respondents tended to blame the server (‘portion served by staff too large’ was the reason most
often selected) or the undesirability of the food, rather than accepting responsibility for ‘taking
too much’.
Environmental factors may also increase plate waste volume (Folkes & Matta, 2004; Juvan et al.,
2018; Wansink, 2004). For instance, larger kitchenware is a perceptual cue that may influence how
much people believe is appropriate to eat (Sharp & Sobal, 2012; Sobal & Wansink, 2007). People
serving themselves on large plates both consume and waste more food (Freedman & Brochado,
2010; Hansen et al., 2015; Sharp & Sobal, 2012; Sobal & Wansink, 2007; Van Ittersum & Wansink,
2012; Wansink & Van Ittersum, 2013). Kallbekken and Sælen (2013) conducted a field experiment
by reducing plate sizes in a hotel buffet restaurant. The experiment resulted in a reduction of
plate waste with no negative impact on customer satisfaction, indicating that a simple change in
the service context is ‘a strategy that makes both environmental and business sense’. Similarly,
payment schemes may also mitigate food waste in buffet restaurants. Matzembacher et al. (2020)
found that buffets where customers pay by weight produced less plate waste at the end of the
meal. In all-you-can-eat hot-pot restaurants, however, the effectiveness of this model has not yet
been examined.
As these studies have shown, the service context – how food is served, on what types and sizes of
plateware, and how much food is laid out at the buffet – impacts food waste volume at the end of
the meal.

Inducements
Several studies indicate that persuasion, incentives, or inducements may help to increase environ-
mentally friendly behaviours. Kim and Freedman (2010) discovered that moral persuasion, in the
form of signage reminding students of the negative impacts of food waste, resulted in a 25%
reduction in food waste volume in a university cafeteria. Qi and Roe (2017) examined how consumer
knowledge regarding the negative effects of food waste may affect their dining behaviour: when
consumers were informed about the negative outcomes brought by the disposal of food waste in
landfills, the total amount of solid food waste was significantly reduced. Chen and Jai (2018)
found that consumers with pre-existing concerns about the environment were more likely to
respond positively to restaurant food waste prevention programmes.
However, other studies find that customers may respond negatively to such reminders: in a study
of household food waste in Great Britain, 33% of respondents actively resisted reminders to reduce
food waste, and 26% were ‘disconnected’ from the effort (Cox & Downing, 2007). Similarly, Dolnicar
et al. (2017) found that hotel guests were not inspired by environmental messaging to reduce elec-
tricity and towel use in a four-star hotel; though a subsequent study (Dolnicar et al., 2019) had more
hopeful results, it is not clear if moral persuasion is an effective means to encourage environmentally
friendly behaviours, including the avoidance of food waste at the table. Dolnicar et al. (2020)
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 5

conducted a field experiment comparing moral persuasion with a gift for zero-waste at the end of a
resort hotel stay; while the reward system significantly reduced food waste volume, environmental
messaging did not.
In a field experiment, Kuo and Shih (2016) employed both positive moral ‘education’ (a reminder
to avoid food waste) and negative ‘coercion’ (a financial penalty for plate waste) to mitigate food
waste in a university cafeteria. Average plate waste was lowest when a penalty was imposed,
suggesting that financial inducements may be more effective than moral persuasion; in fact, the
authors discovered that moral persuasion had no significant effect on food waste volume.
However, negative inducements in the form of penalties may be counter-productive, as they may
inspire resentment and adversely affect customer loyalty (McCarthy & Fram, 2000).
This study complements prior research, cited above, that measures the effects of serving styles
and inducements on food waste behaviours, by examining plate waste in a franchise restaurant in
Taiwan.

Research method
Research hypotheses
Review of previous academic research on service contexts and financial and moral inducements
inspired two hypotheses, which we tested in two field studies:
H1 There is a significant interaction between serving styles (self-service at a buffet bar vs. service from rolling
trolley carts) and single inducements (a discount, a penalty, or moral persuasion) on food waste volume.

H2 There is a significant interaction between serving styles and dual inducements (moral persuasion with a
penalty vs. moral persuasion with a discount) on food waste volume.

Based on the findings from Studies 1 and 2, which demonstrated that self-service at a buffet bar
produced significantly less food waste than service from a rolling trolley cart, and that a particular
dual inducement (moral persuasion in combination with a discount) is the most effective deterrent
to customer plate waste at the end of the meal, a third study was conducted to measure the effec-
tiveness of moral persuasion with a discount in comparison to a single inducement (a discount, a
penalty, or moral persuasion alone), under conditions of self-service at a buffet bar.
H3a Self-service at a buffet bar, in combination with moral persuasion and a discount (dual inducement) will
produce less food waste than a discount alone. (single inducement)

H3b Self-service at a buffet bar, in combination with moral persuasion and a discount (dual inducement) will
produce less food waste than a penalty alone. (single inducement)

H3c Self-service at a buffet bar, in combination with moral persuasion and a discount (dual inducement) will
produce less food waste than moral persuasion alone. (single inducement)

Moral persuasion was employed as an instrument in Study 3 for three reasons. First, moral persua-
sion was shown to produce significantly less food waste in Studies 1 and 2. Second, moral persuasion
is managerially significant in a real restaurant business setting, where business owners and managers
are increasingly concerned by diner eating behaviour and food waste. And third, studies such as this
one are part of a broader effort to encourage social responsibility and environmental protection in
actual dining situations, and to expose diners’ food waste behaviour and its prevention. Figure 1
illustrates the research framework.
T-test, two-way ANOVA, and Scheffe post-hoc tests were employed to demonstrate the inter-
actions between serving styles, moral reminders, and financial incentives. A T-test tests for differ-
ences between means of two independent groups whereas ANOVA tests for differences between
the means for more than two groups. Two-way ANOVA is used to estimate how the means of a quan-
titative variable changes according to the levels of two categorical variables. If that change is
6 Y. Y-C. CHANG

Figure 1. Research framework.

significant, Scheffe post-hoc tests compare the unconfounded differences in means. In this study, the
T-test was used to measure the significance of different outcomes depending on serving styles. Two-
way ANOVA was employed in order to examine interactions between two serving styles and three
inducements. Scheffe post-hoc tests were used to compare the hierarchy of serving styles and indu-
cements. These interactions are significant, and the findings of the study show that (1) self-service
from fixed buffet bars in combination with (2) moral reminders and (3) a financial incentive are
effective in reducing customer plate waste and can contribute to restaurant practitioners’ efforts
to reduce food waste.

Setting and experiment design

This study utilized a Field Experiment Method, in cooperation with restaurant practitioners. Sukiyaki
Katazawa is one of the largest all-you-can-eat Japanese sukiyaki franchise restaurants in Taichung
City (the largest city in central Taiwan). Sukiyaki Katazawa features two serving style methods: a
fixed, self-service buffet bar and rolling trolley carts (Figure 2). Customers are offered an unlimited
supply of meats and vegetables, which they cook at the table (Figure 3). The restaurant typically
charges 389 NT Dollars (about US $12), plus a 10% service charge, before 5 PM, and 499 NT
Dollars (about US $15), plus a 10% service charge, after 5 PM. In order to minimize interference
with the restaurant business and operations, data was collected during weekdays from May 1 to
July 31, 2019. The twelve-week period avoided holidays or special events to rule out the possibility
of design interference.

Figure 2. Buffet serving style.

 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 7

Figure 3. Dinning environment.

Servers were trained on the study procedure before conducting the Field Experiment. Business
operations were carried out as usual. After seating, each customer was informed by the server of
the restaurant maximum eating time (90 min), followed by an introduction to the menu, and the
food waste inducement policies for each given test date. Because eating behaviour differs
between males and females (Kuo & Shih, 2016), in this study only same-gender tables and solo
diners were given customer dining experience surveys, including questions about age, gender, occu-
pation, dining purpose, and dining satisfaction. Tukker et al. (2005) have identified the particular
environmental problems of solid waste, and patrons in hot-pot restaurants select only the solid
food they take from the buffet bar while the volume of liquid soup is controlled by the server. There-
fore, for this study, servers drained out the soup and weighed the solid food waste left in the hotpot
(Figure 4). Servers were instructed to use the survey form to record their observations and the
weight-by-volume of the left-over food.

Effects of serving styles and inducements on food waste volume

Three sequential studies were conducted to measure the effects of serving styles (fixed buffet vs.
rolling trolley cart) and both moral and financial inducements (penalties and rewards) on food
waste volume at the end of the meal. The first study tested which combination of serving styles
and a single inducement would have the most significant effect on food waste volume; the
second study tested which combination of serving styles with two inducements (moral persuasion

Figure 4. Food waste collection bins.

8 Y. Y-C. CHANG

plus a financial incentive) would have the most significant effect on food waste volume; and the third
study compared single vs. dual inducements under the condition of a fixed buffet (based upon the
findings from Studies 1 and 2).

Study 1: the interactive effect of serving styles with single inducements on food waste
volume
Study 1 tested the difference in food waste volume when consumers encountered two serving
styles: (a) fixed buffet-style service (‘customer-to-food’) in contrast with (b) portable delivery
service in the form of rolling carts (‘food-to-customer’), similar to dim sum restaurant service.
Second, the study tested whether any of three inducements (a discount, a penalty, or moral per-
suasion, with no inducement as control) would have an effect on food waste volume. Lastly, the
study tested whether there was a significant interaction of serving styles with single inducements.
A total of 360 customers (male = 194, female = 166; 41% of patrons self-identified as students)
were surveyed in a six-week period from May 1 to June 14, 2019, and their left-over food was
recorded.
Framed posters were provided to remind restaurant patrons of the tested inducements: a 200
NTD penalty, a 20% discount, or ‘moral persuasion’ in the form of a written reminder to ‘cherish
the earth and treasure its food’. Eight conditions were applied to 45 participants each, separating
female and male customers to avoid gender bias. The conditions combined two serving styles
(fixed buffet bars vs. rolling trolley carts) with three inducements (a penalty, a discount, and a
written reminder), as shown in Figure 5. One-fourth (90) of the participants were offered no induce-
ment as control.
Before testing H1, t-test analysis confirmed that different serving styles have significant effects on
food waste volume (t=−6.003, p=.000). Customers serving themselves from a buffet bar produced (M
= 54.36 g) less food waste than customers served by restaurant staff from rolling trolley carts. One-
way ANOVA revealed that single inducements had different effects on food waste, as demonstrated
by F (3, 356) = 10.103, p = .000. A discount produced (M = 58.10 g) less food waste than a penalty and
(M = 63.80) less food waste than no inducement (Table 1).

Figure 5. Single inducements.

 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 9

Table 1. Demographic characteristics, t-test, and one-way ANOVA (Study 1).

Food Waste Post Hoc(mean
Sample (n=360) n % Volume (g) comparison)
Mean SD
Gender Male 194 54 104.05 81.85
Female 166 46 132.18 96.61
Age <20 100 28 84.90 74.07
21–20 120 33 137.82 97.71
>30 140 39 122.14 87.57
Occupation Student 147 41 101.31 81.63
Service Industry 63 18 119.76 91.94
Business 80 22 131.60 84.78
Other 70 19 130.89 105.76
Serving style Fixed Buffet1 180 50 89.86 78.07 t=−6.003 1<2
Rolling Cart 2 180 50 144.18 92.97 p=.000**
Penalty1 90 25 136.28 85.06 F=10.103
Inducement p=.000** 2 < 1, 3, 4
Discount2 90 25 78.18 103.26
Moral 90 25 111.64 79.91
Persuasion3
Control1 90 25 141.98 76.04
Serving style/ Buffet/Penalty1 45 12.5 119.87 75.70 F=11.743 2 < 1, 3, 4, 5,
Inducement* 6, 7, 8
p=.000** 3 < 5, 8
Buffet/ 45 12.5 30.20 38.53
Discount2
Buffet/ 45 12.5 85.87 79.18
Persuasion3
Buffet/Control4 45 12.5 123.51 74.68
Cart/Penalty5 45 12.5 152.69 91.39
Cart/Discount6 45 12.5 126.16 124.00
Cart/ 45 12.5 137.42 72.72
Persuasion7
Cart/Control8 45 12.5 160.44 73.63
*p<0.05, **p<0.01.
Two serving styles / Four inducements
1. Self-service buffet bar with Penalty
2. Self-service buffet bar with Discount
3. Self-service buffet bar with Persuasion
4. Self-service buffet bar/control
5. Rolling trolley cart with Penalty
6. Rolling trolley cart with Discount
7. Rolling trolley cart with Moral Persuasion
8. Rolling trolley cart/control

Two-way ANOVA showed that there is a significant interaction between serving styles and single
inducements, demonstrated by F (3, 352) = 2.810, p = .039, supporting H1 (Table 2 and Figure 6), and
one-way ANOVA showed that buffet service in combination with a discount produced the least food
waste volume, demonstrated by F = 11.743, p = .000. The results of Scheffe post-hoc tests for serving
style with single inducement are in accordance with the findings that self-service at a buffet bar in
combination with a discount produce the least food waste by volume (M = 30.20 g). Notably, in terms

Table 2. Two-way ANOVA for serving styles and single inducements.

Dependent variable: Food waste amount
Serving Style 46.6 1 46.6 39.706 .000**
Single inducement 22.8 3 7.6 11.356 .000**
Serving Style * Single inducement 5.64 3 1.88 2.810 .039*
Error 2356 352 6.69
*p<0.05, **p<0.01.
10 Y. Y-C. CHANG

Figure 6. Interaction between serving styles and single inducements.

of moral persuasion, reminders to patrons to ‘cherish the earth, treasure its food’ was an effective
single inducement, producing less food waste than a penalty, regardless of serving style.

Study 2: the interactive effect of serving styles with dual inducements on food waste
volume
In addition to the finding that service from a fixed buffet bar produced less food waste volume than
service from rolling trolley carts, Study 1 also found that moral persuasion has a significant effect on
food waste volume. Study 2 examined whether moral persuasion in combination with other induce-
ments might produce double effects. A dual inducement can potentially reduce food loss because
even a subtle reminder of the impact of food waste on the environment can change subsequent con-
sumer behaviour. The purpose of Study 2 was threefold: (1) to extend the inducement effects, (2) to
encourage environmentally friendly behaviours, and (3) to seek for the best methods for restaurant
practitioners to reduce food waste at the consumer stage.
Study 2, a Field Experiment, took moral persuasion as a common instrument and created six
manipulated conditions: 2 serving styles (self-service bar vs. rolling trolley cart) x 3 dual inducements
(moral persuasion with a discount, moral persuasion with a penalty, and moral persuasion alone/
control). Following upon the results of Study 1, an identical procedure was conducted in the afore-
mentioned Japanese restaurant in the six-week period from June 15 to July 31, 2019. A total of 270
customers (male = 194, female = 166; 48% self-identified as students) were surveyed and their left-
overs recorded by their server.
Two inducement combinations were provided to selected patrons: (1) moral persuasion (as
above) combined with a 20% discount (90 patrons), and (2) moral persuasion combined with a
200 NTD penalty (90 patrons). A separate group of 90 patrons was provided with the moral induce-
ment alone (with no monetary inducement) as the control. Figure 7 shows the dual inducement
framed posters placed on the tables as reminders.
A t-test confirmed the findings from Study 1 that different serving styles have significant effects
on food waste volume (t = −5.890, p = .000), as shown in Table 3. Customers serving themselves from
a buffet bar produced (M = 60.04 g) less food waste than customers served by restaurant staff from
rolling trolley carts. The result of the one-way ANOVA showed that dual inducements (moral
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 11

Figure 7. Framed posters: dual inducement.

persuasion in combination with a discount or a penalty) reduce food waste volume, as demonstrated
by F (2, 267) = 8.865, p = .000. Moral persuasion in combination with a discount produced (M = 35.53
g) less food waste than moral persuasion alone. Notably, moral persuasion in combination with a
penalty produced more food waste than moral persuasion alone, regardless of serving style, indicat-
ing that only in the case of persuasion + discount was a dual inducement more effective than a single
inducement. In contrast to Kuo and Shih (2016), this study found that positive moral education has a
greater statistical impact than negative coercion through financial penalties.

Figure 8. Interaction between serving styles and dual inducements.

12 Y. Y-C. CHANG

Table 3. Demographic characteristics, t-test, and one-way ANOVA (Study 2).

Food Waste Post Hoc (mean
Sample (n=270) n % Volume (g) comparison)
Mean SD
Gender Male 145 54 88.33 76.59
Female 125 46 121.20 98.63
Age <20 94 35 83.94 84.54
21–30 86 32 129.80 93.68
>30 90 33 98.94 83.17
Occupation Student 129 48 100.12 86.06
Service industry 51 19 117.06 101.67
Business 39 14 104.28 66.33
Serving style Fixed Buffet1 135 50 73.53 71.03 t=5.890 1<2
p=.000**
2
Rolling Cart 135 50 133.57 94.79
Dual inducements Moral/Control1 90 33.3 109.49 78.36 F=8.865 2 < 1, 3
p=.000**
2
Moral/Discount 90 33.3 73.97 99.10
Moral/Penalty3 90 33.3 127.19 80.08
Serving style /inducement Buffet/Control1 45 16.7 84.38 74.63 F=13.030 2 < 1, 3, 4, 5, 6
with moral persuasion
p=.000** 1<6
Buffet/Discount2 45 16.7 26.31 38.10
Buffet/Penalty3 45 16.7 109.89 67.76
Cart/Control4 45 16.7 134.60 74.58
Cart/Discount5 45 16.7 121.62 117.34
Cart/Penalty6 45 16.7 144.49 88.13
*p<0.05, **p<0.01.
Two serving styles / Three dual inducements
1. Fixed buffet bar with Moral Persuasion (control)
2. Fixed buffet bar with Moral Persuasion + Discount
3. Fixed buffet bar with Moral Persuasion + Penalty
4. Rolling trolley cart with Moral Persuasion (control)
5. Rolling trolley cart with Moral Persuasion + Discount
6. Rolling trolley cart with Moral Persuasion + Penalty

Two-way ANOVA showed that there is a significant interaction between serving styles and dual
inducements, demonstrated by F (2, 264) = 3.466, p = .033, supporting H2 (Table 4 and Figure 8),
and one-way ANOVA showed that serving styles in combination with dual inducements will have
a significant effect on food waste volume, demonstrated by F = 13.030, p = .000 (Table 3). The
results of Scheffe post-hoc test indicate that moral persuasion is an effective means to reduce
food waste in buffet restaurants, especially in combination with a discount and self-service from a
buffet bar.

Study 3: robustness of inducement effects on food waste / self-service buffet bar

Studies 1 and 2 provide evidence that self-service at a fixed buffet bar results in less food waste than
service by rolling trolley cart, and that moral persuasion in combination with a discount is an
effective means to reduce plate waste in buffet restaurants. As a follow-up study, Study 3

Table 4. Interaction of serving styles with dual inducements.

Dependent variable: food waste amount
Source Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square F P
Serving Style 24.3 1 24.3 37.720 .000**
Dual-inducement 13.2 2 6.6 10.248 .000**
Serving Style * Dual inducement 4.47 2 2.24 3.466 .033*
Error 1702 264 6.45
*p<0.05, **p<0.01.
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 13

hypothesized that buffet bar service in combination with moral persuasion and a discount will
produce less food waste than a single inducement alone.
A total of 180 participants’ data were drawn from Study 1 and Study 2 and analysed by one-way
ANOVA (n = 180, males = 97, females = 83; student patrons comprised 51%). This sample set included
only those patrons from Studies 1 and 2 who served themselves from a fixed buffet bar; patrons
served from rolling trolley carts were excluded. Self-service at a buffet bar in combination with a
dual inducement had a significant impact on food waste, demonstrated by F (3,176) = 24.715, p
= .000, as shown in Table 5. Under conditions of self-service at a fixed buffet bar, moral persuasion
with a discount (dual inducement) produced less food waste by volume than a discount, a penalty, or
moral persuasion alone (single inducements). However, moral persuasion in combination with a dis-
count (M = 26.31 g) did not produce appreciably less food waste than a discount alone (M = 30.20 g),
and H3a was rejected with a post-hoc test p-value > 0.05. Both H3b and H3c were supported, with
post-hoc test p-values < 0.05.

Discussion and implications

Discussion
This study suggests that the most effective means to prevent food waste in buffet-style restaurants is
a combination of three conditions: self-service at fixed buffet bars; moral persuasion in the form of
verbal and written reminders to ‘cherish the earth and treasure its food’; and a reward in the form of a
discount for a ‘clean plate’. The least effective means are service by restaurant staff from rolling
trolley carts and coercive approaches such as a monetary penalty or ‘fine’ for wasting food.
The first major finding of the field experiment was that service employing fixed buffet bars proved
to produce less food waste than service from rolling trolley carts. Social norms dictate standards of
politeness, especially in Asia; patrons may feel that it is more polite to accept food rather than to
reject it (Bresnahan et al., 1994). Moreover, buffet bars are self-serve, and patrons at the buffet
stand do not have time pressure and can more calmly calculate the amount of food that they will
eat (Dolnicar & Juvan, 2019; Juvan et al., 2018). Finally, as buffet bars are frequently replenished,
patrons may feel that they offer an ‘unlimited’ supply and will not run out, thus minimizing the

Table 5. Demographic characteristics, one-way ANOVA for single or dual inducement under fixed buffet serving style condition.
Food Waste Post Hoc (mean
Sample (n=180) n % Volume (g) comparison)
Mean SD
Gender Male 97 53.8 53.52 60.79
Female 83 46.1 79.64 82.42
Age <20 66 36.6 62 54.77
21–30 57 31.6 91 81.22
>30 57 31.6 98.94 83.17
Occupation Student 92 48 20 8.9
Service industry 16 19 41 18.2
Business 32 14 55 24.4
Others 40 22.2 83.93 84.3
Buffet Bar with Single/Penalty1 45 25 119.87 75.70 F=24.715 4 < 2, 3, 1
inducements
p=.000**
Single/Discount2 45 25 30.20 38.53
Single/Persuasion3 45 25 85.87 79.18
Dual/Discount4 45 25 26.31 38.10
*p<0.05, **p<0.01.
Buffet Bar with inducements
1. Fixed buffet bar with penalty (single inducement)
2. Fixed buffet bar with discount (single inducement)
3. Fixed buffet bar with moral persuasion (single inducement)
4. Fixed buffet bar with moral persuasion + discount (dual inducement)
14 Y. Y-C. CHANG

concern that the same foods may not be offered on subsequent visits (Bio, 2010; Kuo & Shih, 2016;
Okumus et al., 2020). This analysis is preliminary: a qualitative study of the test results (such as more
open-ended surveys or in-depth interviews) may yield more information in future research.
The second major finding of this study was that moral persuasion ‘works’ – especially in combi-
nation with a discount inducement. Our conclusion challenges the findings of Kuo and Shih (2016)
and of Dolnicar and her team (2017, 2019, 2020), who found that moral persuasion is relatively
ineffective in improving consumers’ environmentally responsible behaviours; but our research
results are consistent with those of Kim and Freedman (2010), Qi and Roe (2017), and Chen and
Jai (2018), studies which also employed field experiments to show that moral persuasion (in the
form of educational signage or reminders) has a positive effect on reducing food waste volume.
Penalties, on the other hand, do not work: when patrons are presented with a penalty, they are
actually more wasteful than when they are presented with no inducement. This is consistent with
findings by McCarthy and Fram (2000) that customer loyalty is negatively influenced by negative
inducements in other service contexts. But our findings contradict those of Kuo and Shih (2016),
who found that monetary penalties in a university cafeteria did reduce food waste. This may be
attributable to the fact that 56% of our sample were non-students, and that 37% of our sample
were over the age of 30 – populations that might be less adversely affected by financial loss, or
that might be less psychologically receptive to coercive means of persuasion (and might in fact
resist them). Insofar as coercive disincentives to waste food are both less effective and more likely
to damage customer loyalty, this study may encourage business owners and managers to employ
positive monetary inducements (in the form of discounts) rather than negative ones (penalties or
fines).

Theoretical implications
Food waste in buffet-style restaurants can be categorized into four types of edible food loss: losses
through improper storage, losses during cooking, left-over food at the buffet counter or serving
table, and consumers’ left-overs or plate waste at the end of the meal (Betz et al., 2015). While
research to date has examined food waste in all of these stages, this study has emphasized the sig-
nificance of managerial decisions – including serving models and the arrangement of the restaurant
space, incentive programmes and inducements – on consumer behaviour in all-you-can-eat buffets.
The stages of food waste are in fact inseparable and interrelated, and restaurant design, serving
styles, incentive programmes, and customer behaviours all contribute to food waste at the consump-
tion stage. Theoretical approaches that examine only one of these factors in isolation are analytically
weaker than approaches which explore their interconnections.
Prior research on restaurant food waste at the consumption stage has focussed on impacts of
serving styles and inducements: moral education and financial incentives in the form of discounts
and penalties. This study contributes to the existing body of research by testing the theory that
serving styles and inducements will have a positive effect on consumer behaviours. Our findings
indicate that how food is served does impact food waste volume, and that moral persuasion in com-
bination with financial rewards does incentivize consumers to behave in more environmentally
responsible ways.
This research makes theoretical contributions to several literature streams in marketing and
service management. In light of our findings that a moral inducement with a discount significantly
mitigates plate waste volume, the use of similar stratagems could be analysed in other fields of sus-
tainability management. Rosenblum et al. (2000) conducted an exhaustive study of the environ-
mental impacts of service industries, and future studies can extend research on moral
inducements to encourage environmentally friendly consumer behaviours in a variety of service con-
texts. As service industries now represent an increasingly large proportion of global economies,
finding ways to improve moral messaging and to measure its impacts are a promising avenue for
future research.
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 15

Managerial implications
This study examined serving methods and inducements in buffet-style restaurants as management
strategies for reducing plate waste at the consumer stage of the food cycle. The appeal of buffet res-
taurants lies in their variety of choice and their customers’ ‘experiential’ participation in the prep-
aration of the meal; they provide fresh food ingredients for customers to experience cooking for
themselves. However, it is common for patrons to leave untouched or uncooked food at the end
of meal. Business owners and managers are increasingly concerned by diner eating behaviour
and food waste, which are not only environmentally damaging but also increase costs and reduce
profits. From a scholarly point of view, studies such as this one are part of a broader effort to
expose diners’ food waste behaviour and its prevention and to encourage social responsibility
and environmental protection in actual dining situations.
Restaurant practitioners are faced with numerous challenges in making restaurants profitable.
Space considerations may make the installation of permanent buffet bars impractical; one major
advantage of rolling trolley carts is that they allow for placement of more tables accommodating
more diners (Sukiyaki Katazawa manager interview: June 2019). In situations where buffet bars are
unviable, this study shows that both moral and financial incentives can still reduce food waste
volume even when rolling trolley carts are employed. Previous studies of buffet restaurant food
waste indicate that buffet restaurants can implement measures complementing those discussed
in this study to minimize customer plate waste, including better estimates of consumption during
the preparation stage (Filimonau & DeCoteau, 2019); limiting portion sizes when service is controlled
by restaurant staff, such as in the use of rolling trolley carts (Sobal & Wansink, 2007); reducing the size
of serving plates and patrons’ plates and bowls (Freedman & Brochado, 2010; Hansen et al., 2015;);
refining the ‘moral messaging’ of environmentally friendly behaviours (Chen & Jai, 2018; Kasim &
Ismail, 2012); and having a better understanding of the demographic characteristics of the customer
base (Dolnicar et al., 2017).

Limitations and suggestions for future research

Although this study provided relevant insights into the serving style and inducements in buffet res-
taurants, it was limited to a few experimental conditions. Future research can investigate other kinds
of buffet restaurant models (cafeteria service where pricing is based upon weight, automation of
service through AI technologies, and so on) and other research frameworks, including qualitative
studies of server and customer attitudes as well as Field Experiment models that explore other res-
taurant types, consumer demographics, and cross-cultural comparisons. Possible avenues for future
research on hot-pot buffets can include field experiments that manipulate serving portions, table-
ware, and serving styles; other forms of moral persuasion; adjustments to monetary rewards or
penalties to maximize effectiveness in discouraging plate waste; attention to customer demo-
graphics, such as nationality, gender, occupation, and age; as well as studies of customer predisposi-
tions towards food sustainability and the relationship between these predispositions and actual
behaviours.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to express appreciation to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments to improve the
clarity and quality of this study. The author also would like to thank Miss Ching-Wen Lin for her assistance in data col-
lection. This work was partially supported by the Center for Information and Innovation, Academia Sinica, Taiwan.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
16 Y. Y-C. CHANG

Funding
This work was partially supported by the Center for Information and Innovation, Academia Sinica, Taiwan and by the
Computer Society of the Republic of China [grant number 108070].

ORCID
Yevvon Yi-Chi Chang http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0457-9286

References
Aamir, M., Ahmad, H., Javaid, Q., & Hasan, S. (2018). Waste not, want not: A case study on food waste in restaurants of
Lahore. Pakistan. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 24(5), 591–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2018.
1472695
Alonso-Almeida, M. M., Bagur-Femenias, L., Llach, J., & Perramon, J. (2018). Sustainability in small tourist businesses: The
link between initiatives and performance. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.
2015.1066764
Betz, A., Buchli, J., Göbel, C., & Müller, C. (2015). Food waste in the Swiss food service industry: Magnitude and potential
for reduction. Waste Management, 35, 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.015
Bharucha, J. (2018). Tackling the challenges of reducing and managing food waste in Mumbai restaurants. British Food
Journal, 120(3), 639–649. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-06-2017-0324
BIO Intelligence Services. (2010). Preparatory study on food waste across EU 27. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/
pdf/bio_foodwaste_report.pdf
Bresnahan, M., Cai, D., & Rivers, A. (1994). Saying no in Chinese and English: Cultural similarities and differences in strat-
egies of refusal. Asian Journal of Communication, 4(1), 52–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292989409359594
Chen, H. S., & Jai, T. M. (2018). Waste less, enjoy more: Forming a messaging campaign and reducing food waste in res-
taurants. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 19(4), 495–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.
2018.1483282
Chen, C., & Shen, H. W. (2015). Hai Di Lao Hot Pot: From employee stimulation to service innovation. Journal of China
Tourism Research, 11(3), 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2015.1082526
Cohen, E., & Avieli, N. (2004). Food in tourism: Attraction and impediment. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 755–778.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.02.003
Cox, J., & Downing, P. (2007). Food behaviour consumer research: Quantitative phase. http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/
wrap/Food%20behaviour%20consumer%20research%20quantitative%20jun%202007.pdf
Diliberti, N., Bordi, P., Conklin, M., Roe, S., & Rolls, B. (2004). Increased portion size leads to increased energy intake in a
restaurant meal. Obesity Research, 12(3), 562–568. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2004.64
Dolnicar, S., Cvelbar, L., & Grün, B. (2017). Do pro-environmental appeals trigger pro-environmental behaviour in hotel
guests? Journal of Travel Research, 56(8), 988–997. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287516678089
Dolnicar, S., Cvelbar, L., & Grün, B. (2019). A sharing-based approach to enticing tourists to behave more environmen-
tally friendly. Journal of Travel Research, 58(2), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517746013
Dolnicar, S., Juvan, E., & Grün, B. (2020). Reducing the plate waste of families at hotel buffets – A quasi-experimental field
study. Tourism Management, 80, 104103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104103
Dolnicar, S., & Juvan, E. (2019). Drivers of plate waste: A mini theory of action based on staff observations (research note).
Annals of Tourism Research, 78, 102731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.05.008
European Environment Agency. (2014, modified 2019). From production to waste: The food system. https://www.eea.
europa.eu/signals/signals-2014/articles/from-production-to-waste-food-system
Filimonau, V., & DeCoteau, D. (2019). Food waste management in hospitality operations: A critical review. Tourism
Management, 71, 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.10.009
Filimonau, V., Zhang, H., & Wang, L. E. (2020). Food waste management in Shanghai full-service restaurants: A senior
managers’ perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258(10 June), 120975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.
120975
Folkes, V., & Matta, S. (2004). The effect of package shape on consumers’ judgments of product volume: Attention as a
mental contaminant. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 390–401. https://doi.org/10.1086/422117
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),
United Nations World Food Programme (WFP). (2013). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2013: The multiple
dimensions of food security. Available online at http://www.fao.org/3/i3434e/i3434e.pdf (accessed Oct. 20, 2020).
Rome: FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla.
Freedman, M., & Brochado, C. (2010). Reducing portion size reduces food intake and plate waste. Obesity, 18(9), 1864–
1866. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2009.480
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 17

Hackes, B., Shanklin, C., Kim, T., & Su, A. Y. (1997). Tray service generates more food waste in dining areas of a continuing-
care retirement community. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 97(8), 879–882. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0002-8223(97)00213-7
Hansen, P., Jespersen, A., & Skov, L. (2015). Size matters! A choice architectural field experiment in reducing food waste.
Journal of Food and Hospitality Research, 4, 11–15.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F., Moskwa, E., & Wijesinghe, G. (2019). How sustainable is sustainable hospitality research? A review
of sustainable restaurant literature from 1991 to 2015. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(13), 1551–1580. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13683500.2017.1383368
Huang, C. H., Liu, S. M., & Hsu, N. Y. (2020). Understanding global food surplus and food waste to tackle economic and
environmental sustainability. Sustainability, 12(7), 2892. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072892
Juvan, E., Grün, B., & Dolnicar, S. (2018). Biting off more than they can chew: Food waste at hotel breakfast buffets.
Journal of Travel Research, 57(2), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287516688321
Kallbekken, S., & Sælen, H. (2013). ‘Nudging’ hotel guests to reduce food waste as a win-win environmental measure.
Economics Letters, 119(3), 325–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.03.019
Kasim, A., & Ismail, A. (2012). Environmentally friendly practices among restaurants: Drivers and barriers to change.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(4), 551–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.621540
Kim, Y. S., Bergman, C., & Raab, C. (2010). Factors that impact mature customer dining choices in Las Vegas. Journal of
Foodservice Business Research, 13(3), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2010.500237
Kim, T. H., & Freedman, M. (2010). Students reduce plate waste through education and trayless dining in an all-you-can-
eat college dining facility. Journal of The American Dietetic Association, 110((9) Supplement), A68. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jada.2010.06.253
Kuo, C., & Shih, Y. (2016). Gender differences in the effects of education and coercion on reducing buffet plate waste.
Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 19(3), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2016.1175896
Lam, Y. (2010). Why do UC Berkeley students waste food at dining halls? http://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/
projects/2010final/LamY_2010.pdf
Levitsky, D., & Youn, T. (2004). The more food young adults are served, the more they overeat. The Journal of Nutrition,
134(10), 2546–2549. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/134.10.2546
Matzembacher, D., Brancoli, P., Maia, L., & Eriksson, M. (2020). Consumer’s food waste in different restaurants configur-
ation: A comparison between different levels of incentive and interaction. Waste Management, 114, 263–273. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.07.014
McCarthy, M., & Fram, E. (2000). An exploratory investigation of customer penalties: Assessment of efficacy, conse-
quences, and fairness perceptions. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(6), 479–501. https://doi.org/10.1108/
08876040010347606
Okumus, B., Taheri, B., Giritlioglu, I., & Gannon, M. J. (2020). Tackling food waste in all-inclusive resort hotels. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 88, 102543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102543
Papargyropoulou, E., Wright, N., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J., Padfield, R., & Ujang, Z. (2016). Conceptual framework for the
study of food waste generation and prevention in the hospitality sector. Waste Management, 49, 326–336. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.017
Pine, J. B. I. I., & Gilmore, J. (1999). The experience economy. Harvard Business School Press.
Pirani, S., & Arafat, H. (2016). Reduction of food waste generation in the hospitality industry. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 132, 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.146
Qi, D., & Roe, B. (2017). Foodservice composting crowds out consumer food waste reduction behaviour in a dining
experiment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 99(5), 1159–1171. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aax050
Raab, C., Baloglu, S., & Chen, Y. S. (2018). Restaurant managers’ adoption of sustainable practices: An application of insti-
tutional theory and theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 21(2), 154–171. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15378020.2017.1364591
Rosenblum, J., Horvath, A., & Hendrickson, C. (2000). Environmental implications of service industries. Environmental
Science & Technology, 34(22). https://doi.org/10.1021/es9914083
Sharp, D., & Sobal, J. (2012). Using plate mapping to examine sensitivity to plate size in food portions and meal com-
position among college students. Appetite, 59(3), 639–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.07.020
Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J. M., Hartikainen, H., Jalkanen, L., Koivupuro, H., & Reinikainen, A. (2015). Food waste
volume and composition in the Finnish supply chain, special focus on food service sector. Waste Management, 46,
140–145.
Sobal, J., & Wansink, B. (2007). Kitchenscapes, tablescapes, platescapes, and foodscapes: Influences of microscale built
environments on food intake. Environment and Behavior, 39(1), 124–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506295574
Soorani, F., & Ahmadvand, M. (2019). Determinants of consumers’ food management behaviour: Applying and extend-
ing the theory of planned behaviour. Waste Management, 98, 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.08.
025
SV Group. (2011). Umweltbericht 2011. SV Group AG, Memphispark Wallisellenstrasse 57, Postfach, 8600 Dübendorf
(Switzerland). http://www.sv-group.com/de/ueber-uns/publikationen.html
18 Y. Y-C. CHANG

TCFA. (2018). Taiwan Chain Stores Almanac 2018 (in Chinese). Taiwan Chain Stores and Franchise Association. 台灣連鎖
店年鑑 498.93058 75366 2018.
Tseng, Y. H. (2019). The hot pot market is getting hotter and hotter (in Chinese). Ching-li ren (Manager Today), October 24,
2019. https://www.managertoday.com.tw/articles/view/58578
Tukker, A., Huppes, G., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., de Koning, A., van Oers, L., Suh, S., Geerken, T., Van Holderbeke, M.,
Jansen, B., & Nielsen, P. (2005). Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO): Analysis of the life cycle environmental
impacts related to the total final consumption of the EU 25. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS),
European Science and Technology Observatory (ESTO).
Van Ittersum, K., & Wansink, B. (2012). Plate size and color suggestibility: The Delboeuf Illusion’s bias on serving and
eating behaviour?”. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1086/662615
Wang, L., Xue, L., Li, Y., Liu, X., Cheng, S., & Liu, G. (2018). Horeca food waste and its ecological footprint in Lhasa, Tibet,
China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 136, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.001
Wansink, B. (2004). Environmental factors that increase the food intake and consumption volume of unknowing con-
sumers. Annual Review of Nutrition, 24(1), 455–479. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nutr.24.012003.132140
Wansink, B., & Van Ittersum, K. (2013). Portion size me: Platesize induced consumption norms and win-win solutions for
reducing food intake and waste. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19(4), 320–332. doi:10.1037/a0035053