Scholarly article on topic 'Trends and drivers of end-use energy demand and the implications for managing energy in food supply chains: Synthesising insights from the social sciences'

Trends and drivers of end-use energy demand and the implications for managing energy in food supply chains: Synthesising insights from the social sciences Academic research paper on "Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries"

CC BY
0
0
Share paper
Keywords
{"Behaviour change" / "Sustainable food" / "Energy demand" / Interdisciplinary}

Abstract of research paper on Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, author of scientific article — Claire Hoolohan, Carly McLachlan, Sarah Mander

Abstract The Climate Change Act commits the UK Government to an ambitious 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050; this paper provides a consumer focused framework to devise, inform and evaluate potential interventions to reduce energy demand and emissions in food supply chains. Adopting a Life cycle Assessment (LCA) framing we explore the relationship between production and consumption by reviewing trends in the food sector with implications for energy demand. Secondly, a multidisciplinary review of the literature on sustainable consumption is structured around the ISM (Individual, Social, Material Contexts) framework devised by Southerton et al., bringing insights from a range of theoretical perspectives. Combined, these frameworks complement LCA approaches to mapping and quantifying emissions hotspots in a supply chain in two ways. First, production and consumption must be considered with the ‘consumer’ interactive throughout, one of many factors affecting energy use at each stage, rather than restricted to the end of a supply chain. Second, when considering consumption patterns and how they might be changed, drawing on the insights of multiple disciplines allows for a fuller array of potential interventions to be identified. Given the complexity of the food system and the range of relevant sustainability goals, there are several areas in which the ‘preferred trajectories’ for ‘more sustainable’ consumption patterns are unclear, particularly where data on variation, causal relationships and longitudinal change is lacking. Technical and social understandings of ‘desirable’ change in the food sector must continue to be developed in parallel to achieve such challenging reductions in emissions.

Academic research paper on topic "Trends and drivers of end-use energy demand and the implications for managing energy in food supply chains: Synthesising insights from the social sciences"

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Production and Consumption IChoiTlE

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spc

Trends and drivers of end-use energy demand and the implications for managing energy in food supply chains: Synthesising insights from the social sciences^

Claire Hoolohan, Carly McLachlan, Sarah Mander*

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

ABSTRACT

The Climate Change Act commits the UK Government to an ambitious 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050; this paper provides a consumer focused framework to devise, inform and evaluate potential interventions to reduce energy demand and emissions in food supply chains. Adopting a Life cycle Assessment (LCA) framing we explore the relationship between production and consumption by reviewing trends in the food sector with implications for energy demand. Secondly, a multidisciplinary review of the literature on sustainable consumption is structured around the ISM (Individual, Social, Material Contexts) framework devised by Southerton et al., bringing insights from a range of theoretical perspectives. Combined, these frameworks complement LCA approaches to mapping and quantifying emissions hotspots in a supply chain in two ways.

First, production and consumption must be considered with the 'consumer' interactive throughout, one of many factors affecting energy use at each stage, rather than restricted to the end of a supply chain. Second, when considering consumption patterns and how they might be changed, drawing on the insights of multiple disciplines allows for a fuller array of potential interventions to be identified. Given the complexity of the food system and the range of relevant sustainability goals, there are several areas in which the 'preferred trajectories' for 'more sustainable' consumption patterns are unclear, particularly where data on variation, causal relationships and longitudinal change is lacking. Technical and social understandings of 'desirable' change in the food sector must continue to be developed in parallel to achieve such challenging reductions in emissions.

Keyurords:Behaviour change; Sustainable food; Energy demand; Interdisciplinary

© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2

2. Methods and theory..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3

2.1. Identifying trends and trajectories..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3

2.2. Mapping the drivers of energy use..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3

3. Identifying trends and trajectories ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4

3.1. Farming and processing..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4

3.1.1. Trend 1: rise in meat consumption..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4

3.1.2. Trend 2: mechanisation and processing ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................4

* Topics: New trends and directions in food consumption; Models of food consumption behaviour and their predictive power, Individual, Social and Material Model applied to food consumption.

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: s.mander@manchester.ac.uk (S. Mander).

Received 2 February 2016; Received in revised form 14 May 2016; Accepted 2 June 2016; Published online 11 June 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.10167j.spc.2016.06.002

2352-5509/© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

3.2. Transport and distribution..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4

3.2.1. Trend 3: year round produce availability..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................4

3.3. Retail..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5

3.3.1. Trend 4: changing modes of retail..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5

3.4. Homes..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5

3.4.1. Trends 5: home refrigeration/freezing....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5

3.4.2. Trend 6: cooking technologies and practices................................................................................................................................................................................................................6

3.5. Eating..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6

3.5.1. Trend 8: convenience food........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6

3.5.2. Trend 9: eating out................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6

3.6. Food waste..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6

4. Mapping the drivers of energy use................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7

4.1. The Individual Context (I)....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7

4.1.1. Values and attitudes..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7

4.1.2. Costs and benefits................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7

4.1.3. Emotions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7

4.1.4. Agency....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8

4.1.5. Skills and habits......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8

4.1.6. Summary............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8

4.2. The Social Context (S)................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8

4.2.1. Opinion leaders........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8

4.2.2. Institutions......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9

4.2.3. Norms......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9

4.2.4. Identity and roles ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9

4.2.5. Tastes......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9

4.2.6. Meanings............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10

4.2.7. Networks and relationships....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10

4.2.8. Summary............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10

4.3. The Material Context (M)......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10

4.3.1. Infrastructure ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10

4.3.2. Time and schedules............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11

4.3.3. Technologies and objects............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11

4.3.4. Rules and regulations ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12

4.3.5. Summary............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12

5. Conclusion: towards an integrated framework for managing energy in food production and consumption..................................................................12

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................13

References ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................13

1. Introduction

The production of food for UK consumption generates approximately 20% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions (hereby referred to as GHG emissions, or emissions), even excluding those resulting from land-use change (Audsley et al., 2009). Given the complexity of food supply chains, and the interactions between the food and other sectors it is hard to put a figure on primary energy demand within the sector, clearly it has substantial potential to contribute to energy and emissions targets such as the UK's Climate Change Act (HM Government, 2008). In order to do so, in recent years policy and management has focussed on two parallel strands of activity; to reduce energy in food production and distribution, and to facilitate changes in consumer behaviour to create more sustainable patterns of consumption. This is evident in Food 2030 (HM Government, 2010) which presents duel visions in which "consumers are informed, can choose and afford, healthy, sustainable food", and that "food is produced, processed, and distributed, [...] in ways which use global natural resources sustainably" (HM Government, 2010, p. 7).

However, existing research identifies limitations to current management approaches that reduce their capacity to bring about systemic change. Firstly, the food system is typically characterised by a polemic notion of supply and demand that

ignores the entanglement of supply chain energy use with patterns of everyday consumption (Welch and Warde, 2014). Secondly, existing activities designed to increase sustainable consumption are overly simplistic, relying on unsophisticated behavioural models and assumptions regarding the processes of change (Shove, 2010).

This paper contributes to ongoing discussions regarding potential management activities by developing a more sophisticated understanding of the interactions between consumption and production, and the implications for energy in the food supply chain. Thus as part of an interdisciplinary project examining opportunities for an 80% reduction in energy related emissions in the food sector, this paper provides a two part literature review to inform efforts to reduce energy use in food supply chains. First, nine trends in everyday consumption are identified that have implications for energy use throughout the supply-chain, providing an understanding of where interventions may be most beneficial. Second, a multidisciplinary review of the literature on sustainable consumption is provided structured around the ISM framework devised by Southerton et al. (2012, 2011) (see also Darnton and Evans, 2013). Combined these insights provide a more sophisticated understanding of how unsustainable patterns of consumption are configured and sustained and how packages of interventions could target

Academic review Stage 1: Primary review

Database: Science Direct.

Key terms: "food energy consumers"; "sustainable food and household energy"; "sustainable consumption food"; "food consumer climate change"; "consumer behaviour sustainable food"

Return: 142 thousand results. Stage 2: Relevance review Assessed on; date of publication (minimum criteria post- 2000, biased towards those more recent than 2010); original research or literature review (i.e. excludes discussion papers and theoretical works); focus on western developed nations.

Return: 102 articles

Grey literature review Stage 3: Primary review

Source: Google, Food Climate Research Network, Gov.uk, Defra; Key terms: "food energy consumers"; "sustainable food and energy"; "consumer behaviour food"

Stage 4: Relevance review Applicable to research area; post 2010; original research or literature review.

Return: 12 reports

Quality chcck & synthesis

Articles from stages 1-4 reviewed for quality

and initial relevance. Stage 5: 36 articles relating to behavioural trends of relevance to energy use identified. Stage 6: 41 articles relating to drivers of

consumption were identified. Stage 7: ISM framework used to identify gaps in the literature.

Secondary review Stage 8: A secondary review tailored each ISM and life cycle element to identify further research and validate the existence of gaps.

Fig. 1 - Literature review process.

reducing emissions at different stages of the supply chain and the different Individual, Social and Material elements of consumption.

2. Methods and theory

This paper presents a structured review of the literature relating to energy, sustainable consumption and food, the process for which is detailed in Fig. 1. As part of an interdisciplinary project this paper draws on analytical devices from engineering (a life cycle model) and the social sciences (the ISM Tool developed by Southerton et al., 2012, 2011). The discussion identifies the connections between changing patterns of consumption and the energy used in different life cycle stages, and then explores the individual, social and material context of consumption. The review provides transferable understandings that reveal the interaction between production and consumption, as opposed to conventional siloed understanding of consumption as an isolated, postproduction stage of the supply chain. Along with the review process itself this conceptual framing of production and consumption could be applied to alternative spatial scales and policy agendas within and beyond the food system.

2.1. Identifying trends and trajectories

Reported in Section 3, the first part of this literature review is designed to identify significant patterns of consumption for energy demand management. A life cycle model is used to survey the literature to identify how changing patterns of consumption have implications for energy use in food supply chains. Life cycle models are simplified, segmented models of product supply chains designed to aid the systematic assessment of environmental impact through all life cycle stages in order to facilitate decision making as illustrated

in Fig. 2 (UNEP, 2014). Our review uses a life cycle approach to systematically identify problematic trends in consumption that are affected by, and have implications for other life cycle stages.

Recent social science developments challenge the separation of production and consumption particularly where the schism precludes consideration of changes to social and material infrastructure which may enable systemic change (Spaargaren et al., 2012; Welch and Warde, 2014). Life cycle models typically sustain this schism, positioning consumption as a discrete, post-production stage that takes place in specific spaces (namely homes, restaurants, and retail) where the impacts arise from practices such as shopping, cooking and eating. However this review extends traditional analysis placing emphasis on the interactions between consumption and other life cycle stages. With these observations as the starting point, Section 3 identifies nine trends in consumption that are problematic from an energy perspective. Where gaps were identified, a secondary review was carried out to either validate or address them.

2.2. Mapping the drivers of energy use

Section 4 uses the ISM framework devised by Southerton et al. (2012, 2011) (see also Darnton and Evans, 2013), to develop a more holistic understanding of context in which current (unsustainable) trends in consumer behaviour emerge. This framework presents three 'contexts' to behaviour; 'the individual', which refers to things that shape purchase and consumption patterns; 'the social', which relates to relationships, norms and institutions that guide individual practices; and 'the material', which looks towards technologies and infrastructures that shape and constrain consumer behaviour.

Defra identify "a deeper understanding of what drives consumer purchasing and consumption decisions" as paramount to informing debate and future change (Defra, 2012, p. 30)

Packaging

^ Food waste ^

Farming and processing

Retail and catering

Transport

Consumption/eating Fig. 2 - Life cycle model typical of food management.

and in recent years there has been extensive effort to inform this. However, this statement echoes a tendency to sustain emphasis on individual decisions despite evidence that the behavioural models behind such policies present an overly simplified account of human action (Shove, 2014; Geels et al., 2015). This paper proposes that research from across the social sciences provides valuable insights to inform these debates, however disparate aims and theoretical starting points within the various disciplines render their potential contributions confusing, contradictory, and difficult to apply in practice. We do not propose to unite irreconcilable theoretical differences, but suggest that speaking across a broad spectrum of research provides a more expansive body of inspiration for intervention, and that combined action across all three context simultaneously is likely to yield more substantive impacts (Southerton et al., 2011). Thus the ISM is used structure a multidisciplinary review of recent social science contributions with an aim to understanding the context in which current trends in consumption emerge.

3. Identifying trends and trajectories

The following section presents findings from the first stage of literature review. These findings are structured according to the life cycle flow model presented in Fig. 2. The interactions between the various life cycle stages with patterns of consumption, and the implications of these for energy demand, are presented in the discussion along with a statement regarding the desirable trajectory of change.

3.1. Farming and processing

In a globalised food system where relationships between producers and consumers are indirect and mediated by a multitude of actors, the interactions in food supply chains are complex. The clearest connection is that certain dietary trends correspond to greater energy use on farms and in factories than others. Of all dietary changes to occur in recent decades, many of which have implications for energy use, a growing body of literature is focussed on the increase in meat consumption and the increase in processed foodstuffs.

3.1.1. Trend 1: rise in meat consumption Over the last 50 years meat supply in the UK has increased by approximately 20% (FAO, 2014). This is problematic as research demonstrates that meat and dairy products have greater environmental impacts than non-meat alternatives (Berners-Lee et al., 2012; Masset et al., 2014). From an energy perspective, meat production requires significant resources, for example the production of fertiliser for the production

of animal feed is a particularly energy intensive process, requiring 30-50 gigajoules per tonne (FAO, 2006). Energy is also required to produce other inputs and to sustain on-farm operations such that Sainz (2003, in FAO, 2006) estimate that a typical US farm requires around 25 mega joules (MJ) of energy per kilogram of carcass chicken, 46 MJ for pigs and 51 MJ for beef (FAO, 2006).

Consequently a shift towards a diet incorporating fewer animal proteins, or a shift from ruminants towards pork and poultry has been shown to offer significant potential contributions towards both energy and emissions targets (Berners-Lee et al., 2012; Hoolohan et al., 2013; Garnett, 2014; Masset et al., 2014).

3.1.2. Trend 2: mechanisation and processing Processed products have become a common feature in today's diet, with a corresponding impact on energy consumption along the supply chain (Foster et al., 2006). As the life cycle of specific products vary substantially so this discussion uses the example of fruit juices, a staple feature of UK diets, to demonstrate the impact of processing on energy consumption.

In the UK fruit juice consumption has increased tenfold since 1974 from 34 to 350 ml person-1 day-1 in 2005 (Defra, 2008). While the energy and water required to produce concentrated juice is much higher than non-processed alternatives (Beccali et al., 2010), the potential reduction in transport emissions (due to the greater volume that can be shipped), refrigeration emissions and significant reduction in waste during processing means that overall the GHG impact is positive (Foster et al., 2012). On balance, fruit juices are a relatively energy intensive way of accessing nutrients and there are thought to be significant dietary benefits from eating whole fruit (and vegetables) over processed forms (Masset et al., 2014).

While the relative difference in energy consumption between processed and non-processed alternatives may be small, the scale of the shift towards mass-consumption of processed products means there may be potential positive contributions to energy and emissions targets made by shifting towards whole food diets.

3.2. Transport and distribution

3.2.1. Trend 3: year round produce availability Increased transport networks, trans-nationalisation of companies and supply chains, and growing retail markets, mean an increasing range of foods from around the world are available in UK stores year-round. While the debate around the impacts of globalisation tends to focus on locality and transport, as is reflected in its position in this paper, it is recognised that

things are more complex than the term 'food miles' suggests (Garnett, 2015).

Where production depends on artificial conditions, locally grown produce may be more energy intensive, Edwards-Jones et al. (2008). For example, lettuce incurs less than 0.5 kg CO2e kg-1 when grown outdoors in the UK while Spanish lettuce consumed in the UK results in approximately 0.8-1 kg CO2e kg-1, as a result of transport emissions. In contrast indoor grown British lettuce results in approximately 5 kg CO2e kg-1, due to heating and Ugandan lettuce incurs over 10 kg CO2e kg-1 (Milai Canals et al., 2008).1 While Ugandan lettuce, air-freighted due to its short shelf-life, is the most energy intensive, growing lettuce domestically out of season also has significant environmental impacts.

As a net importer of food (Defra, 2014) transport energy use is an issue for the UK, particularly that which is air-freighted (Garnett, 2003). Moreover, significant road miles are incurred moving produce around the EU which could be sourced locally. Between 1978 and 2002, the amount of food moved by heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) in the UK increased by 23% per annum with the average trip distance increasing by over 50%. As a result food transported for consumption in the UK accounts for in excess of 30 billion vehicle kilometres (Smith et al., 2005). While transport efficiencies continue to reduce the intensity of transportation this is insufficient to offset the general trend and shortening supply chains has added benefits for reducing spoilage and refrigeration emissions (Garnett, 2003).

Thus the greatest contribution towards energy and emissions targets would be to ensure that products are grown without climate control and without air-freighting (Hoolohan et al., 2013), requiring integrated management of production, distribution, retail and consumption.

3.3. Retail

3.3.1. Trend 4: changing modes of retail In recent years there has been much media attention, if little academic research, on the shift towards supermarkets and out-of-town retailers whilst internet shopping is a recent yet rapidly increasing shopping practice. The latter accounted for 5% of all grocery sales in 2015, and is predicted to grow to 8.6% by 2020, equating to approximately £8.3 billion growth (IDG, 2015), findings broadly consistent with those reported by Dawes and Nenycz-Thiel (2014) for the 2000-2011 period.

Considering first the energy intensity of retail, which varies substantially depending on store type, research by Tassou et al. (2011) demonstrates that while 'hyper-markets' use significantly more energy than convenience stores overall, the energy intensity per square meter is substantially lower in larger stores.2 This is in part due to the efficiency of technologies and practices in larger stores but also related to the disproportionate space allocated to refrigeration in smaller stores. Online retailing enables greater centralisation of supply chains, requiring fewer warehouses (thereby reducing operating emissions) and more efficient distribution

1 These are estimates from Fig. 3.1f (Milai Canals et al., 2008) and appropriate caution should be applied in quoting these figures.

2 The largest stores use on average 770 kWh/m2 per annum, while superstores more typical of a chain supermarket use 920 use kWh/m2 and convenience stores (80-280 m2) average 1480 kWh/m2 per annum.

of products (thereby reducing transport miles and potential for spoilage). It is also suggested that internet shopping better allows supply for demand, with advanced ordering and improved data on purchasing patterns (Siikavirta et al., 2003).

In terms of transport energy, whilst superstores offer opportunities for public transport and internet shopping, their location often necessitates driving, and therefore increases energy use (Avineri, 2012). In contrast the locality of convenience stores mean they are generally within walking distance and have fewer parking facilities, reducing the need and opportunity for motorised travel. Internet shopping may reduce the number of journeys made by consumers and be timed to avoid contributing to peak traffic. Consequently Coley et al. (2009) demonstrate internet shopping offers potential energy savings in situations where a typical food shop would incur a journey of more than 6.7 km. However, the opportunity for 'on-time' supply provided by internet shopping risks increasing demand for high speed logistics such as air-freighting (Siikavirta et al., 2003), and there is no guarantee that internet shopping will directly replace physical shopping trips (Edwards et al., 2010).

The ideal course of action is unclear in this instance, it is likely to be a balance between store types that includes increased support for efficient technologies in smaller retail space as well as improved transport connections for larger stores. Further research into the broader energy implications of online shopping is needed to holistically evaluate the realistic potential for energy demand reduction.

3.4. Homes

Energy in the home is a comparatively small part of energy use in food supply chains. Clear et al. (2013) calculate that on average supply chain emissions up to the point of sale exceed emissions from food storage, preparation and cooking by a factor of 3.8. However energy in the home has nonetheless been a significant area of interest to policy makers (e.g. HM Government, 2010; Defra, 2013). In the following sections we summarise the trends with regards to cold storage and cooking of food.

3.4.1. Trends 5: home refrigeration/freezing Cold storage of food in the home accounts for approximately 16% (570 kWh per annum) of household electricity (Zimmermann et al., 2012), it also adds to peak demand as appliances tend to be accessed during 1700-1900 h and require further energy to retain their temperature (Strengers, 2012; Zimmermann et al., 2012). Between the 1960s and 2000 freezer ownership in the UK increased from 3% to over 96% (Shove and Southerton, 2000) with direct implications for energy demand.

In addition to the direct energy use research describes the co-evolution of the freezer with a broader shift in patterns of food provisioning and domestic practice (Shove and Southerton, 2000). Originally designed to overcome seasonal gluts and preserve food in the home, the freezer now is more commonly used to store convenience foods, playing a key role for many consumers managing busy lifestyles (Shove and Southerton, 2000; Spurling et al., 2013). See Section 3.5.1 for details.

In this instance energy demand management may benefit from efficiency measures such as tightening of product standards and smart appliances. However, greater potential reductions may be attained through the (re)introduction of domestic cold spaces (e.g. pantries), and changes to diets may also offer savings.

3.4.2. Trend 6: cooking technologies and practices Cooking accounts for approximately 14% of household electricity use (Zimmermann et al., 2012).3 The amount of primary energy used for cooking depends on a number of factors; the choice of fuel and its efficiency of production and distribution, the efficiency of appliances, and consumer cooking habits (Hager and Morawicki, 2013). Cooking habits in particular have been shown to vary substantially between individuals. In a study of student cooking practices Clear et al. (2013) demonstrate that cooking a single serving of pasta requires between 0.2-0.4 kWh, however in one case 0.75 kWh was consumed. Although these are small values taken individually, long-term such variance amounts to significant differences in household energy use. Furthermore there is evidence of highly synchronous cooking and eating in the UK which is problematic in so far as it aligns with peak energy use therefore increasing the required capacity of the energy supply system necessary to meet demand (Southerton et al., 2012).

Based on these trends rescheduling activities such that they occur at off-peak times is likely to be beneficial to reduce peak load and changes to the practices of cooking and eating may offer positive contributions to energy and emissions targets. Efforts could focus improving efficiency (e.g. appropriately sized hobs and use of lids), on matching appropriate cooking apparatus and practices to meals, and establishing different approaches to how and where we eat (e.g. community facilities).

3.5. Eating

Changing patterns of eating are also evident in many western societies, with implications for energy use associated with food and more broadly. Cheng et al. (2007) report an overall decline in the time devoted to cooking and eating, particularly for young people and those who are single and/or without children.

3.5.1. Trend 8: convenience food

Over the last 20 years, convenience food (including canned meals, bread and cake mixes, pre-prepared fruit and vegetables, and ready-meals) has become an increasing feature of people's everyday lives (Shove, 2003; Scholderer and Grunert, 2005; Daniels et al., 2014). 10% of UK households report eating ready-meals at least once a week (Garnett, 2003), a finding echoed by Daelman et al. (2013) in a study of Belgian eating habits. In 2013 sales of ready meals in major supermarkets were estimated to be worth over £2.3 billion, an 8% rise on the previous year (Gibbons, 2013).

The implications of this for energy in the supply chain are complex (Schmidt Rivera et al., 2014) demonstrate that fresh ready-meals have only marginally higher energy requirement than preparing similar meals from ingredients but frozen ready-meals are significantly higher impact due to the increased energy used in manufacturing and refrigeration throughout the supply chain. In addition while total wastage is broadly similar, ready-meals result in less household waste which may be harder to manage (Jungbluth et al., 2014).

It is unknown whether increased consumption of convenience foods will increase or reduce energy demand due to the diversity of products. However, there may be potential

3 It should be noted that this study omits gas consumption which is significant in terms energy used in cooking.

to reduce energy use and manage waste by controlling the ingredients in these meals (e.g. by reducing meat and dairy content) and by the substitution of conventional oven cooking for microwave in single person households. This potential needs to be considered in the context of whether consumers make 'like-for-like' exchanges between cooking from scratch and ready-meals and any wider related changes in terms of their diet. Further research is required in this area.

3.522. Trend 9: eating out

Parallel to the rise of convenience foods in the home is a trend towards eating out, particularly for younger (18-30 years) and more affluent consumers (Cheng et al., 2007). There is little peer-reviewed research regarding this trend and government statistics which rely on self-reported data are known to contain reporting issues (see Berners-Lee et al., 2012 for discussion). Despite this, research suggests that one in six meals are now consumed outside the home (Grinnell-Wright et al., 2013), resulting in £84 bn of consumer spending per annum (Defra, 2014).

One sub-trend of the general shift towards eating out is that of on-the-go eating Cheng et al. (2007) demonstrate that one of the most significant changes between 1975 and 2000 is the increased frequency of short duration meals outside of the home. Grinnell-Wright et al. (2013) show a significant rise in the number of people breakfasting on-the-go in particular with the number of coffee shops rising four-fold in a decade to nearly 15 thousand establishments in 2011. There is also evidence that fast foods are becoming a staple feature of British eating, with one in three people reporting to eat fast food at least once a week (Grinnell-Wright et al., 2013).

The energy implications of this trend are difficult to analyse and there is little research that attempts to do so. Some key issues are worthy of mention. Firstly evidence suggests a high representation of processed products and meat based meals (Cullen, 1994; Cummins et al., 2005) both of which are of higher environmental and energy impact than their alternatives (Williams et al., 2010, 2013; Berners-Lee et al., 2012; Hoolohan et al., 2013). Secondly, eating out is shown to increase the chances of over eating in the US (Kral and Rolls, 2004) although corresponding research in Europe or the UK is lacking. Commercial kitchens may offer a potential space for intervention to provide consumers with efficiently produced, wholesome meals with the opportunity to enhance such benefits by reducing reliance on processed produce and meat proteins and increasing use of local/seasonal foods. However further research is needed to understand the energy implications of such a trend, in particular focussing on whether eating out makes a difference to what is eaten (e.g. portion sizes, meat content, local and seasonal produce), and the opportunities to introduce interventions at this scale.

3.6. Food waste

Globally between 30 and 50% of all food produced is wasted (Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 2013). Wastage occurs for many reasons and is a systemic issue, occurring throughout the supply chain. The Waste and Resource Action Programme (WRAP) estimate that of the 15 million tonnes of food waste occur annually in the UK, approximately half occurs in consumer homes (over 7.2 million tonnes, of which 4.4 million tonnes is avoidable), 3.9 million tonnes occur during manufacturing and 3.0 million tonnes in other spaces

(including on-farm). Only around 1.15 million tonnes result from retail, catering and hospitality (WRAP, 2015).

Reducing food waste is beneficial not only in terms of managing energy use, but also for reducing a wide range of environmental, social and economic impacts. There are useful applications for food waste, such as bioenergy and compost, however these are sub-optimal and the most preferable solution is prevention (WRAP, 2015).

Having identified some trends in food consumption in the UK with implications for energy use life cycle stages, we now turn to a review of different approaches to understanding the drivers of that consumption from a range of social science perspectives.

4. Mapping the drivers of energy use

The ISM tool developed by Southerton et al. (2012, 2011) aims to offer a way of combining disparate social science approaches in a way that is meaningful to policy and management. This framework presents three 'contexts' in which to understand consumption; (1) the individual, which refers to things that shape behaviours and purchasing patterns; (2) the social, which relates to shared understandings, social norms and cultural conventions that guide behaviour; and (3) the material, which looks towards technologies and infrastructures that shape and constrain behaviour. The combination of these three shape the landscapes in which routine purchase and consumption practices arise, and thereby interventions that consider and seek to alter each of these contexts offer greater opportunity to steer demand reduction than those that consider only one.

4.1. The Individual Context (I)

The Individual Context of food related behaviour is the most commonly researched in the social sciences, including a particularly large body of marketing psychology that focusses on the drivers of purchasing patterns influencing the uptake environmental produce. In the technical guide to the ISM tool Darnton and Evans (2013) list values and attitudes; costs and benefits; emotions; agency; skills and habits as key factors that make up the Individual Context. Each of these will now be discussed in turn.

4.1.1. Values and attitudes

In psychological theory attitudes, beliefs and values form the basis of individual activity. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) and the theory of basic values (TBV) (Schwartz, 2012) are two commonly applied models which use values and attitudes to predict behavioural intentions and are extensively applied in relation to food and sustainable consumption.

Attitudes are context specific behavioural beliefs about desirability of the behaviour and the perceived outcome of action (Ajzen, 1991). In most models attitudes are one of a tri-partitive system predicting behaviour accompanied by perceived behavioural control (i.e. an individual's perception of their ability; see agency) and normative judgements (see norms). Research shows attitudes to be the main predictor of behavioural intention in relation to sustainable dairy choices (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2008), alternatives to meat (de Boer et al., 2009; Ruby, 2012; Vanhonacker et al., 2013), farmers markets (Conner et al., 2010), and fast-food (Dave et al., 2009).

Values are less easily defined (Schwartz, 2012) but refer to beliefs that motivate a behavioural outcome, serve as foundations for action that transcend the specific situation and principles that guide individual behaviour. Although Vermeir and Verbeke (2006) show that while values poorly predict intention they influence attitudes and therefore remain relevant. Universalism, a group of values pertaining to broad-mindedness, social justice, and other bigger-than-self priorities, is found to relate to intentions to act sustainably. Animal welfare is a specific universal value that relates to reduced meat consumption (de Boer et al., 2007; Fox and Ward, 2008; Ruby, 2012; De Backer and Hudders, 2015), while Sey-fang (2006) describes sympathy for local farmers as driving for local food purchasing. Other influential values in relation to food consumption include ethical beliefs regarding appropriate conduct, for example in not wasting food (Graham-Rowe et al., 2014), and buying local food (Kemp et al., 2010).

4.1.2. Costs and benefits

Costs and benefits (both real and perceived) attributed to certain products and behaviours have been show to significantly influence individual motivation. Rational choice models suggest consumers intuitively calculate relative costs and benefits in order to make purchase and use decisions. For example consumers balance the perceived elevated costs of local produce against the perceived higher quality (Chambers et al., 2007; Darby et al., 2008; Brunner et al., 2010; Martinez et al., 2010; Campbell et al., 2014).

Price, health and nutrition, food safety, quality and convenience are the most commonly cited costs and benefits associated with sustainable food. For example financial saving has been identified as a reason for consuming less meat (de Boer et al., 2009) and avoiding food waste (Quested et al., 2013; Graham-Rowe et al., 2014). Conversely perceived high price is an obstacle to uptake of local and seasonal produce (Weatherell et al., 2003; Conner et al., 2010), and cooking from scratch (Grinnell-Wright et al., 2013).

An increasingly powerful benefit is the time-saving afforded by certain products and services, particularly convenience foods (Candel, 2001; Mahon et al., 2006; Dave et al., 2009; Celnik et al., 2012). Convenience also relates to the frequency and type of meals consumed outside the home, alongside perceived novelty and social value (de Boer et al., 2004). Finally Rohm and Swaminathan (2004) show convenience to be one of several factors which influence how and where consumers shop including desire for variety, immediacy of possession and social interaction.

Other influential perceived benefits include freshness and nutritional value which influence decisions regarding unprocessed products and cooking from scratch (de Boer et al., 2004; Broad and Cavanagh, 2011; Foster et al., 2012), and transparency which is associated with cooking food from scratch (de Boer et al., 2004), buying local produce (Noble et al., 2006; Kemp et al., 2010), or buying from farmers markets (Seyfang, 2006) and choosing recognisable brands and retailers (Williams et al., 2001; Sahagun and Vasquez-Parraga, 2014).

4.1.3. Emotions

Emotions are usually grouped in two categories in psychological models; egoistic and altruistic, the former referring to self-centred emotions and the latter to bigger-than-self emotions. Empathy is the most prevalent altruistic value relating to sustainable consumption. Empathy for other people, animals and

environments leads to emotional responses to meat eating (Ruby, 2012; Rothgerber, 2014a), local food (Seyfang, 2006) and other food consumption behaviours (Nisbet et al., 2008). Guilt and pride are two of the most significant egoistic emotions and are powerful motivators to consume ethically (GregorySmith et al., 2013) and minimise food waste (Evans, 2011a; Quested et al., 2013; Graham-Rowe et al., 2014). Pride has also been associated with several food moderation choices, such as eating healthily and while it is not well researched, Gregory-Smith et al. (2013) suggest pride should have a positive influence on consumers' desire to engage in sustainable consumption. (Antonetti and Maklan, 2014).

In a different vein, research into socio-spatial relations looks at the emotions provoked by material conditions (see also Material Context), Williams et al. (2001) illustrate how anxiety and stress caused by complex journeys or the (lack of) facilities available at given locations can have a significant impact on the experience of shopping and likelihood of return.

4.1.4. Agency

In the ISM agency refers to an individual's confidence in their ability to behave in a specific way (see also Bandura, 1977). In the context of sustainable food this is commonly connected to a perceived ability to have an effect, for example Kneafsey et al. (2012) refer to agency in terms of consumers capacity to influence suppliers and supply chains through their food purchasing choices. Lack of agency is frequently identified as a barrier to action in relation to sustainable food, and pro-environmental behaviour more generally, with the perceived ineffectiveness of individual action in the face of global challenges identified as an underlying determinant of attitudes (Barr et al., 2011; Tobler et al., 2011; Kneafsey et al., 2012; Vanhonacker et al., 2013). That said it has been shown to be a factor in managing household waste (Thogersen and Grunert-Beckmann, 1997), buying local food (Bissonnette and Contento, 2001), and changing food preparation and cooking patterns (Morin et al., 2013). Further Seyfang (2006) considers how agency is enhanced through increased proximity of local food networks, such as farmers markets (see also Seyfang and Smith, 2007), indicating that changes in the social and material that come with the introduction of such a facility have the capacity to alter individual agency. This connects to a growing body of literature that challenges the notion of innate individual agency as presented by psychological models, instead viewing agency as something that arises from the social and material context (Shove, 2010).

4.1.5. Skills and habits

In partial rebuttal of the cognitive models that underpin the TPB, TBV and RC models there is growing evidence regarding the habitual and routinised nature of consumption. Decision making takes place in constrained rather than idealistic conditions, in particular the limited availability of time inhibits reasoned action (Lockie, 2002), consequently consumers are shown to have short-cuts to enable 'fast and frugal' decision making (Kalnikaite et al., 2011, 2012). de Boer et al. (2009) show these processes become routinised as consumers repetitively select products that appear to best match their values, and exclude the least desirable options.

The potential de-skilling of the British public is a growing area of interest. With regards to cooking, there is evidence that people's self-reported ability to cook is declining (Grinnell-Wright et al., 2013), and Short (2003, 2006) shows

that the meaning of 'cooking' has changed over time to incorporate many pre-prepared foods (e.g. soups and breads). Consequently contemporary cooking is about providing a meal rather than assembling fresh ingredients. Skills are also associated with food waste. While some of the population possess habits and skills to plan meals, prepare and store batch meals, make use of left-overs and determine when to abide by the sell-by date, many do not and the lack thereof is significant to domestic waste generation and management (Ganglbauer et al., 2013; Quested et al., 2013; Graham-Rowe et al., 2014).

Habits and skills are shaped through long-term interaction with activities such as work, childcare and leisure time (see also 'roles and identities' and 'time and schedules'). Consequently the time given to cooking, the likelihood of preparing food from scratch, and the frequency and type of food consumed beyond the home are all connected to daily routines (Daniels et al., 2012, 2014) which in turn connects people to structures of food provisioning (see 'infrastructure').

4.1.6. Summary

The studies presented in the previous sections demonstrate the relationship between the Individual Context and sustainable consumption. Individual factors influence many of the trends identified in Section 2 such as meat consumption (e.g. animal welfare, emotions and financial savings), buying locally produced food (e.g. sympathy for local farmers and cost) and convenience foods (e.g. time saving and skills). However, the directness of the relationship between the Individual Context and sustainable consumption is contested, for example Gregory-Smith et al. (2013) find that consumers partake in both ethical and unethical behaviours in relatively short timeframes, using personal compensatory mechanisms to manage emotions and govern values. Furthermore most studies conclude that values, attitudes and beliefs are useful predictors of behavioural intention rather than outcome, and a well-developed body of literature exists that discusses the value-action gap (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). There is much discussion regarding how this gap may be overcome however Shove (2010), amongst others, caution that preoccupation with the Individual context risks producing an analytical blind-spot that inhibits our understanding of how behaviours, along with values, attitudes and emotions, are produced within the social and material context of everyday life.

4.2. The Social Context (S)

While the literature on the Individual Context is well developed that relating to the Social Context is still emerging and fragmented across disciplines. The following paragraphs seek to draw out key findings grouped around the factors listed by Darnton and Evans (2013); opinion leaders, institutions, norms, identity and roles, tastes, meanings, networks and relationships.

4.2.1. Opinion leaders

Opinion leaders (Feick and Price, 2015) are individuals who communicate information, opinions and experiences of new products and practices with others who then replicate these activities. There is very little research into the role of opinion leaders in the diffusion of food related sustainable behaviours, however celebrity chefs have been shown to act as knowledge intermediaries (Inwood et al.,

2008; Barnes, in press). This research describes how trust, credibility and popularity enable opinion leaders to expose consumers, either through the media, or through culinary experience to new foods, food practices and diets. Examples in the literature are Jamie Oliver introducing consumers an extensive discussion regarding how to make use of leftovers (Barnes, in press) and 'trendsetting chefs' disseminating the use of alternative, long-life food products in professional kitchens (Romero del Castillo et al., 2014).

Opinion leaders have also been shown to play a role at the firm level, for example the role of The Co-operative (a UK supermarket chain) in stimulating the diffusion of organic produce by proving it to be a high value growth area rather than a commercial risk (Elzen et al., 2004). 'Trendsetters' have also been acknowledged in relation to food, particularly around diets. De Boer et al. show trendsetters to play a key role in raising the profile of alternative sources of protein, such as cereals, lentils and seaweed (de Boer et al., 2013), while Rothgerber (2014b) provides examples in the context of low meat diets (see also Smart, 2004).

4.2.2. Institutions

Institutions refer to formal and informal socio-political systems that govern individual behaviour (Darnton and Evans, 2013), ranging from workplace and family life which present implicit expectations around personal conduct (see 'identity and roles' and 'time and schedules'), to government guidance in the food industry.

Labelling and certification are the most distinguishable institutional mechanisms in the food industry. Draper and Green (2002) describe how such guidance has shifted from a protectionist role, shielding consumers from potential negligence, to educational role, enabling consumers to make the best choices from the products on offer. However Lang (2010) suggest that restrained choice is desirable to achieve social, environmental and nutritional health. A commonly proposed mechanism is 'choice-editing' whereby undesirable products are excluded from the market using information regarding product sustainability criteria to govern upstream management. Lang (2010) demonstrate choice editing to be an already common feature in supply chains resulting from contractual agreements and buyer-supplier relationships, but that existing practices are poorly tailored to address social, environmental and nutritional priorities. Kneafsey et al. (2012) demonstrate that consumers are aware such practices occur thereby limiting the choices available to individuals, and research by ASDA suggests that consumers support a certain amount of choice editing to enhance the sustainability credentials of products in stores (ASDA, 2011). Consequently Lang (2010) advocates a systemic shift towards in this upstream choice-editing. Similar principles can be applied to convenience food and meals outside the home using portion and calorie controls or nutritional balancing as means to ensure that the food available to consumers is sustainable (Story et al., 2008), as opposed to methods such as nutritional guidance on menus which has been shown to have an insignificant effect (Harnack et al., 2008).

4.2.3. Norms

Norms refer both to descriptive norms, behaviours perceived to be typical of everyday conduct, and injunctive norms, consumer understanding of how others perceive their conduct. In both cases normative influence is thought to be most affective within self-identified peer groups, particularly

where behaviour forms part of group identity (see also 'identity and roles') (Darnton and Evans, 2013). Mahon et al. (2006) demonstrate that normative influence is important context to some intentions, such as whether or not to eat ready-meals at home, yet insignificant for others, such as whether or not to eat take-away meals. Similarly, Robinson et al. (2014) illustrate that the provision of normative information has a moderate relationship to the amount of food consumed, intake of snack food, fruit and vegetables, and main meals.

Norms are also significant beyond immediate acts of consumption. For example, the proliferation of social and cultural experience on offer to consumers in contemporary society arises in conjunction with a normative cue that participation in cultural and social activities is an expected feature of citizenship in a globalised society (Darier, 1998; Warde, 1999; Southerton, 2006) consequently research suggests that individuals engage in a wider variety of consumption practices than ever before. This has a duel outcome, reducing time for shopping, preparation and consumption such that food is increasingly incorporated in other activities and the proliferation of available culinary experiences that consumers may engage with (Darmon and Warde, 2013).

4.2.4. Identity and roles

Identity is comprised of personal identity (e.g. a person's values, attitudes, opinions) and social identity, whereby they gain behavioural references derived from membership in social groups, which may also relate to their social roles (e.g. parent, employer/ee) (Abrahamse et al., 2009). Individuals may fulfil many different roles in their lives each with different associated behaviours (Valentine, 2001). Identity is thought to shape attitudes and values, and in turn influence what people eat (Bisogni et al., 2002; Abrahamse et al., 2009), particularly whether or not one eats meat. Sparks et al. (2001) found that meat-eating correlated with self-identification as a healthy person, however Povey et al. (2001) did not find health-consciousness to explain difference between meat eaters and vegetarian/vegan diets. In a further study Abrahamse et al. (2009) demonstrated that for those who do not identify as a vegetarian, pro-vegetarian branding and information can significantly reduce individuals intention to eat certain products. There is also research to suggest that different sup-groups of the population have different tastes, eating practices and principles, all connected to identity. For example Bugge (2011) show that fast-food may be a part of youth food cultures, but that in recent years this has shifted to reflect health concerns such that there is increasing scepticism from young people towards such foods. Connections have also been made between food waste and identity, with people self-identifying as thrifty and frugal more likely to adopt waste minimising routines (Evans, 2011b,c). Similarly identity has been shown to be rooted in notions of place and belonging, with consequences for the uptake of local food. However place is shown to be a reflexive concept, not necessarily corresponding to geographic locale (Feagan, 2007).

4.2.5. Tastes

The ISM defines tastes as collectively developed preferences based on shared understandings of appropriate conduct through which people signal their belonging to particular social groups (Darnton and Evans, 2013). The literature

on tastes is poorly connected to sustainability and even less so to questions regarding energy use. Despite this one might speculate that the variation in diets between different cultural, religious and social groups would render this an important area of consideration for those interested in reducing energy and other impacts of food production and consumption. Further certain food movements, such as vegetarianism (with implications for supply chain energy use) and raw food (which results in low energy demand for cooking) have been connected to age (e.g. Bugge, 2011), class (e.g. Cappellini et al., 2015) and political expression (Guthman, 2003; Clark, 2004; Fox and Ward, 2008). These are traditional reams of enquiry for social scientists however disciplinary boundaries inhibit connections being developed between such research fields and applied research fields such as energy management and sustainable food where productive synergies might lie.

4.2.6. Meanings

The ISM defines meanings as "culturally-constructed understandings of daily life" that serve to guide routine behaviour. This review identifies two themes within the literature on meanings that are relevant to the research questions; first, the meaning of cooking and its incorporation in everyday activities (e.g. Short, 2006); and second, the meanings of various spatial concepts embedded in food movements and products, particularly local, home grown and community food (Feagan, 2007).

Regarding the first, Daniels et al. (2012) illustrate how the meaning of cooking varies between people in different social and material contexts and with regards to specific moments and situations, such that cooking is variously allocated a chore, a hobby, a convivial activity (particularly Sunday lunch), or an obligation to the family. Similarly, (Jabs and Devine, 2006; Jabs et al., 2007) demonstrate how cooking is shaped by, and adapts to, changing temporal structures in society, particularly changing patterns of labour and leisure. Burningham et al. (2014) associates moments of new motherhood with changes in meanings that impact upon shopping (not specifically food shopping, but partially). This research is poorly connected to questions regarding energy use, however conceptual developments in sustainable consumption identify meanings as an important aspect of everyday routine with implications for the everyday consumption of resources and there may be benefit in exploring these overlaps further (Gram-Hanssen, 2011).

The meanings of various spatial concepts are embedded in food movements and products, particularly local, home grown and community food. Feagan (2007) illustrates how spatial concepts such as local and community are increasingly applied in research into sustainable food consumption-production systems, but that these are complex and heterogeneous terms which also have varying implications for the reduction of impacts associated with food. Allen et al. (2003) shows how the meaning of local food is politically mobile, variously referring to different sites and scales and Hinrichs (2000) demonstrates how social and environmental relations map poorly onto geographic space, rendering ideas of local and community food problematic. Similarly DuPuis and Goodman (2005) describes how consumers associate with various people and places such that the notion of 'coming home', a popular reference to localisation of food systems is troublesome. The discussion revolving around the meaning of local food poorly relates to energy, but

has intersections with transport and retail practices, as well as bearing on relationships between food producers and consumers that may affect shopping and eating practices with potential implications for energy use.

4.2.7. Networks and relationships

Consumers who socialise around food are shown to be more likely to consume convenience foods and more likely to eat out (de Boer et al., 2004). Daelman et al. (2013) note the presence of a clear bell curve with consumers aged 18-30 most likely to purchase and consume ready-meals, and men more frequently than women. They associate this with lifestyle, and in particular working patterns. In this case ready-meals offer the freedom to partake in other activities deemed important by the individual, such as socialising with friends and family (Short, 2003). Connections are also made to eating alone, while few consumers report the desire to eat alone busy schedules mean many do (Daniels et al., 2014). Eating alone is shown to correlate with more frequent eating out, suggested to be as a result of different patterns of socialising for single people compared to couples and families. It is also seen to correlate with reduced cooking from raw ingredients and more frequent purchase of both ready-meals and fast-food (Daniels et al., 2014).

Research demonstrates the connection between eating and other social roles may potentially offer explanation for this trend. For example, consumers who incorporate eating and socialising are more likely to prepare food or eat out while those who work are more likely to skip meals or eat on the go (Daniels et al., 2014; Devine et al., 2009). It is also suggested that households with more than one adult are more likely to prepare food as there is a more significant cost saving than when preparing food for one. Work by Scholderer and Grunert (2005) support these findings, however they associate the above factors with disposable income and available time rather that lifestyles and interaction with other activities.

4.2.8. Summary

The previous section illustrates the significance of the Social Context in situating consumption, enabling and empowering certain behaviours, and facilitating the diffusion or suppression of new patterns of consumption. Consequently for anyone interested in changing consumption behaviours the Social Context in which they are embedded cannot be ignored. What is not shown, and is addressed below, is the significance of Social Context when it becomes embodied in material (and immaterial) structures that shape and constrain everyday activities.

4.3. The Material Context (M)

The Material Context is relatively under researched with regards to sustainable food. In the ISM tool rules and regulations, technologies and objects, time and schedules, infrastructure are all specified as factors within this third 'context' of behavioural change (Darnton and Evans, 2013).

4.3.1. Infrastructure

Darnton and Evans (2013) refer to both hard and soft infrastructures that facilitate or impede certain actions, the former relating to, for example, roads and public transport networks, while the latter refers to intangible elements of everyday life (including 'Time and schedules', and 'Rules and regulations').

The most expansive literature relating to the effect of infrastructure on consumption is in the environmental justice literature where the term 'food desert' describes areas with limited access to affordable and healthy diets (Beaulac et al.,

2009). There is much discussion regarding the significance of food deserts for consumption. Pearson et al. (2005) suggest that none of the three key elements of the food desert; prices, socio-economic deprivation and the presence of appropriate local amenities, had a relationship to fruit and vegetable intake. However other research has shown connections between local infrastructure and diet, for example Fraser and Edwards (2010) demonstrate that the density of fast-food purveyors correlates with obesity while Wrigley et al. demonstrate that the introduction of a large supermarket lead to positive, if only modest changes to consumers' diets in the local area (Wrigley et al., 2003, 2004, 2015; Whelan et al., 2015). In terms of the implications of changing infrastructure, Larsen and Gilliland (2009) show that the introduction of a farmers market into a food desert resulted in grocery prices in the neighbourhood decreasing by 12% in 3 years, suggesting changing one infrastructural element may result in broader changes in the local area.

These findings resonate with those relating to sustainable consumption. For example Darmon and Warde (2013) demonstrate how changes to provisioning were likely to result in changes to eating habits, particularly for customers using 'veg boxes' in which selections are made on their behalf. This finding is echoed in the UK governments convenience store pilot programme (Department of Health,

2010) which found that, on average, changes to the range and promotion of fruit and vegetables could increase sales by 143%. This is interesting in light of the 'explosion of farmers markets' Seyfang observes (2006) which grew from none in 1997 to 450 in 2002. Seyfang describes how local food networks enable certain forms of consumption, and may provide context for individual expression of sustainable purchasing and consumption patterns if designed to do so.

Connections have also been made between an area's socio-economic demography and the availability of healthy affordable food. Cummins et al. (2005) show a statistically significant relationship between neighbourhood deprivation and the mean number of McDonald's outlets and that high-fat, high-sugar foods were likely to be affordable options in poorer areas (Cummins and Macintyre, 2002). These findings on fast-food suggest that the presence of different outlets for food has some bearing on how frequently the food is consumed, thus if a neighbourhood is rich in fast-food but poor in food retail people are likely to consume more fast-food than on average.

While few of these studies research implications for energy use, they provide insights as to how change to consumption patterns relate to infrastructure. This is significant in considering the adoption of alternative systems of provisioning (for example mass collective provisioning of food or pharmaceutical products such as nutritional pills Bows et al., 2012; Spurling et al., 2013; Bows-Larkin et al., 2014) but also the degree to which material infrastructures prevent and enable certain behaviours.

4.3.2. Time and schedules

Southerton (2006) illustrates how everyday life is anchored around spatially and temporally located practices, not only of individuals but within families units and social groups. Consequently practices that are not spatially and

temporally fixed must fit the gaps between these. Warde

(1999) demonstrates the significance of this in relation to convenience foods, offering partial suggestions as to how they have become a feature of modern life. Firstly people increasingly juggle multiple roles resulting in 'modularised', as opposed to continuous, time. Consequently convenience foods integrate easily with modular time through their capacity to be stored, prepared and consumed in keeping with fragmented lifestyles. Secondly, modularisation makes eating together increasingly difficult, resulting in complex scheduling processes to bring families and social groups together to eat, something that research indicates is still highly valued (Cheng et al., 2007). Such scheduling is more easily organised around convenience foods and eating out than cooking from scratch (Jabs and Devine, 2006; Jabs et al., 2007).

Time and scheduling is also important to energy use when considering the synchronicity of practices across societies as a result of the interconnection between personal and organisational rhythms (Walker, 2014). In a cross-comparison of synchronised eating practices in the UK and Spain, Southerton et al. (2012) demonstrate that the degree of synchronicity in the UK is far less than in Spain, with meals interspersed such that rarely are more than 20% of the population eating at any one time (compared to 30%-40% for Spain).

While there is only a small body of research specifically exploring the significance of time and scheduling to sustainability, and virtually nothing written about the energy implications, ideas around flexibility and modularity can be detected in studies on convenience food (including prepared foods) (Jabs and Devine, 2006; Jabs et al., 2007) eating out (Short, 2003; de Boer et al., 2004; Daelman et al., 2013), internet shopping (Verhoef and Langerak, 2001), and shopping at convenience stores (Bachour et al., 2012) all of which have implications for energy use in the supply chain.

4.3.3. Technologies and objects

The role of technologies and objects in facilitating behaviours is a simple, yet under-researched element in the sustainable food agenda. In seeking to manage energy use in the home, much has been written about smart meters and other feedback mechanisms to raise awareness and change consumer behaviours, however these technologies have been shown to have only limited impact on consumption (Strengers, 2008, 2011). Home automation has been discussed in a number of studies aiming to reduce peak energy loads, however while some practices are considered flexible (e.g. laundry and dishwashing) cooking is more fixed in time, connected to other people, places and practices which prevent rescheduling (Paetz et al., 2011).

Objects and technologies have been shown to be entangled with behavioural trends and societal shifts in the way food is stored and eaten. For example Shove and Southerton

(2000), illustrate how the popularisation of the freezer co-evolved with changing conventions around convenience and time-management. However missing from the literature is discussion of how everyday objects and technologies structure food related behaviours in certain ways, and produce blind-spots as to how alternative ways of doing may be contrived. There is some theoretical discussion of this in the design literature (de Borja et al., 2010) but little application.

4.3.4. Rules and regulations

The rules and regulations of relevance to this discussion are vast and there is not a consolidated literature on these themes, however it is useful to provide a brief example of the interrelationship between rules and regulations and energy use. The issue of cosmetic standards is one that has been picked up by food waste organisations and activists in recent years as a cause of supply chain waste, much of which is to do with very specific rules and regulations and their embedding in business practice. Stringent standards placed on the appearance of produce by retailers (particularly fruit and vegetables) endure despite relaxation of both national and European legislation (Bond et al., 2013). In a case study of carrots, as many as 25%-30% failed to meet cosmetic standards and consequently were unavailable for retail FAO (2011). The obduracy of these standards is problematic, supermarkets cite consumer preference for aesthetically perfect produce as the primary reason yet a growing body of evidence suggests that consumers accept 'ugly' produce, as a result of price inflation as well as a growing understanding of sustainability issues (Bond et al., 2013). This issue leaves significant volumes of edible produce on farms but the weight of supermarket buying power undermines alternative infrastructures for distribution leaving managing this food waste to third parties and charities (e.g. gleaning) (Friends of the Earth, 2002).

4.3.5. Summary

The sections above demonstrate the significance of the Material Context, illustrating how the social and material are heavily entangled as shared understandings, meanings and norms become embedded in the physical infrastructures. Local infrastructure, through access to different of food outlets, and time shape decisions over eating out, for example, similarly time and scheduling play a key role in the rise of convenience foods. Considering the social and material elements provide insight into behaviour, widening the focus of discussions away from individuals by revealing the situated nature of the Individual Context.

5. Conclusion: towards an integrated framework for managing energy in food production and consumption

This paper responds to calls for a more integrated understanding of production and consumption to inform robust policy and management practice, HM Government (2010) recognising that in the main, management of energy in food supply system is fragmented and demand-side approaches limited to providing consumers with the awareness, information and incentive to take action to make sustainable purchase decisions, and reduce domestic energy use (Southerton et al., 2005). Although the limitations of existing research must be acknowledged, we demonstrate how combining existing insights from disciplines within and beyond the social sciences provides a more sophisticated approach to managing energy demand at a system level. Section 3 presents the foundations of an approach in which the interactions between consumers and remote supply chain stages are appreciated. Such an approach, when combined with the review of the Individual, Social and Material Contexts in which specific patterns of energy demand are formed in Section 4, provides a means of systematically

characterising the drivers of energy use in the food system that is a-typical of research in this field. So what might be done to progress towards an integrated approach to managing energy in food production and consumption?

An important implication of this analysis is that in order to fully embrace the range of potential energy reduction interventions we must overcome the methodological and conceptual isolation of consumption in which the behavioural domain of consumers extends only to homes, shops and restaurants. Section 3 identified trends in consumption that have implications for energy use throughout the life cycle; however it is evident that there are several areas in which the preferred trajectories for such trends are unclear— particularly where longitudinal data or understanding of relationships is lacking. There is a need for research to better understand interactions in this complex system, and interdisciplinary approaches are likely to be invaluable in providing such methodological and conceptual sophistication. Potential questions include, for example, does increased frequency of meals outside the home equate to domestic energy savings, are there certain forms of catering that are less energy intensive than others (taking account of the menus, portions, sourcing, and cooking practices for example), and is currently trajectory towards more or less energy intensive meals?

One key element, and particularly in addressing the critique presented in Section 2, is the development of concepts and methods that support integrated management activity, and for models that better account for the interactions of production, supply and consumption. This is particularly true in the food industry where globalisation renders the relationships increasingly complex and precarious; however similar questions resonate with other substantive agendas (e.g. water, transport, energy). The concepts and tools that traditionally have facilitated the mapping and quantification of impacts are not necessarily the same as those which identify routes to realise change. Equipping policy makers and other stakeholders with the tools that do embed a more diverse conceptualisation of the drivers of consumptions and the interactions between consumption and the rest of the life cycle is an important step in supporting integrated management of the food chain from farm to fork. It is proposed that by combining a more consumption-centric analysis to understanding the drivers of emissions across the life cycle with a tool such as ISM, which encourages the synthesis of insights from multiple social science perspectives, a fuller and wider array of potential interventions (and packages of interventions) can be identified.

In addition, a related progression and one which echoes calls made elsewhere (Shove, 2010; Wilson and Chatterton, 2011; Spurling et al., 2013; Welch and Warde, 2014) is that management responses must diversify and expand. Behaviour change is a valid and valuable feature of policy (Wilson and Chatterton, 2011), however current policy and management remains focus on the Individual context, developing increasingly sophisticated mechanisms to do so but at the expense of attention as to how change in the Social and Material Contexts might be realised (Macrorie et al., 2014; Sharp et al., 2015). Southerton et al. (2012, 2011) suggest the greatest potential for changing patterns of consumption arise when interventions engage with all three contexts. Consequently perhaps the most useful starting point at this time is to consider what intervention into Social and Material contexts might look like. The analysis in Section 4 provides the grounds to begin this process with regards to

food by providing a much needed discussion on how diverse elements such as retail provision, agricultural policy and practice, transport networks, IT, household technologies all shape patterns of consumption.

The benefits of re-calibrating food systems extend far beyond energy demand, which is the principle concern of this paper. While the discussion has identified the implications of the individual, social and material context as they relate to energy demand, there are likely to be important understandings that may be applied in other substantive topics. In particular food systems have substantial intersections with (a) the public health agenda, particularly in the study of non-communicable disease, nutrition and obesity; (b) non-energy related greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in relation to meat production and consumption; (c) various other resource management issues such as land management and water demand; and (d) various social issues such as equality and food poverty debates. The discussion of these co-benefits exceeds the scope of this paper, but there is likely to be considerable value in exploring the approach taken in this paper to expand conceptual understandings of the challenges faced in other food related fields.

The scale of the emissions reductions committed to under the Climate Change Act mean significant reductions to energy use and emissions are needed across all sectors. The complex nature of food supply chains and their interactions with everyday patterns of shopping, cooking and eating requires an integrated approach if such reductions are to be realised. This paper begins to unravel complex supply-demand interactions by identifying trends in shopping, cooking and eating that have implications for energy demand throughout the food supply chain and through a further structured review of the social science literature presents a more sophisticated conceptualisation of the context in which these trends emerge and develop.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the funding received from RCUK for the establishment of the National Centre for Sustainable Energy Use in Food Chains (CSEF) (grant no. EP/K011820/1), as well as contributions made by industry partners and other stakeholders. The authors would also like to thank the referees for their useful input to this paper. All data supporting this publication are directly available herein.

References

Abrahamse, W., Gatersleben, B., Uzzell, D., 2009. Encouraging sustainable food consumption: The role of (threatened) identity. University of Surrey: RESOLVE Working Paper 04-09. Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. In: Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50. pp. 179-211.

Allen, P., FitzSimmons, M., Goodman, M., Warner, K., 2003. Shifting plates in the agrifood landscape: The tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California. J. Rural Stud. 19 (1), 61-75.

Antonetti, P., Maklan, S., 2014. Feelings that make a difference: How guilt and pride convince consumers of the effectiveness of sustainable consumption choices. J. Bus. Ethics 124 (1), 117-134.

ASDA. 2011. Green is Normal [online]. Available from: http:// your.asda.com/system/dragonfly/production/2011/12/15/ 16_13_37_444_Green_is_Normal_ASDA_SustainabilityStudy. pdf [Accessed 26.01.15].

Audsley, E., Brander, M., Chatterton, J., Murphy-Bokern, D., Webster, C., Williams, A., 2009. How Low Can We Go? An Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the UK Food System and the Scope for to Reducetion them by 2050. Cranfield University, WWF- UK.

Avineri, E., 2012. On the use and potential of behavioural economics from the perspective of transport and climate change. J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 512-521.

Bachour, K., Bird, J., Kalnikait e, V., Rogers, Y., Villar, N., Kreitmayer, S., 2012. Fast & Frugal shopping challenge [online]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_ embedded&v=BNXx9hzllNE [Accessed 15.01.15].

Bandura, A., 1977. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 84, 191-215.

Barnes, C., 2014. Mediating good food and moments of possibility with Jamie Oliver: Problematising celebrity chefs as talking labels. Geoforum (in Press).

Barr, S., Gilg, A., Shaw, G., 2011. Citizens, consumers and sustainability: (Re)Framing environmental practice in an age of climate change. Global Environ. Change 21 (4), 1224-1233.

Beaulac, J., Kristjansson, E., Cummins, S., States, U., 2009. A Systematic Review of Food Deserts, 1966-2007. Prev. Chronic Dis. 6 (3), 1-10.

Beccali, M., Cellura, M., Iudicello, M., Mistretta, M., 2010. Life cycle assessment of Italian citrus-based products. Sensitivity analysis and improvement scenarios. J. Environ. Manage. 91 (7), 1415-1428.

Berners-Lee, M., Hoolohan, C., Cammack, H., Hewitt, C.N., 2012. The relative greenhouse gas impacts of realistic dietary choices. Energy Policy 43,184-190.

Bisogni, C.a., Connors, M., Devine, C.M., Sobal, J., 2002. Who we are and how we eat: A qualitative study of. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 34, 128-139.

Bissonnette, M.M., Contento, I.R., 2001. Adolescents' perspectives and food choice behaviors in terms of the environmental impacts of food production practices: application of a psychosocial model. J. Nutr. Educ. 33 (2), 72-82.

Bond, M., Meacham, T., Bhunnoo, R., Benton, T., 2013. Food waste within global food systems. A Global Food Security report (www.foodsecurity.ac.uk).

Bows, A., Dawkins, E., Gough, C., Mander, S., McLachlan, C., Roder, M., Thom, L., Thornley, P., Wood, R., 2012. What's Cooking? Adaptation & Mitigation in the UK food System. The University of Manchester: Sustainable Consumption Institute.

Bows-Larkin, A., McLachlan, C., Mander, S., Wood, R., Roder, M., Thornley, P., Dawkins, E., Gough, C., O'Keefe, L., Sharmina, M., 2014. Importance of non-CO 2 emissions in carbon management. Carbon Manag. 5 (2), 193-210.

Broad, R., Cavanagh, J., 2011. The Story of Refined White Rice [online]. Yes! Available from: http://www. yesmagazine.org/blogs/john-cavanagh-and-robin-broad/ the- story- of- refined- white- rice.

Brunner, T.a, van der Horst, K., Siegrist, M., 2010. Convenience food products. Drivers for consumption. Appetite 55 (3), 498-506.

Bugge, A.B., 2011. Lovin' it? Food Cult. Soc. 14 (1), 71-89.

Burningham, K., Venn, S., Christie, I., Jackson, T., Gatersleben, B., 2014. New Motherhood: a moment of change in everyday shopping practices? Young Consum. 15 (3), 211-226.

Campbell, J., DiPietro, R.B., Remar, D., 2014. Local foods in a university setting: Price consciousness, product involvement, price/quality inference and consumer's willingness-to-pay. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 42, 39-49.

Candel, M., 2001. Consumers' convenience orientation towards meal preparation: conceptualization and measurement. Appetite 36 (1), 15-28.

Cappellini, B., Parsons, E., Harman, V., 2015. 'Right Taste, Wrong Place': Local Food Cultures, (Dis)identification and the Formation of Classed Identity. Sociology 1-17. (in print).

Celnik, D., Gillespie, L., Lean, M.E.J., 2012. Time-scarcity, ready-meals, ill-health and the obesity epidemic. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 27 (1), 4-11.

Chambers, S., Lobb, A., Butler, L., Harvey, K., Traill, W.B., 2007. Local, national and imported foods: a qualitative study. Appetite 49 (1), 208-213.

Cheng, S.-L., Olsen, W., Southerton, D., Warde, A., 2007. The changing practice of eating: evidence from UK time diaries, 1975 and 2000. Br. J. Sociol. 58 (1), 39-61.

Clark, D., 2004. The Raw and the Rotten: Punk Cuisine. Ethnology 43 (1), 19-31.

Clear, A.K., Hazas, M., Morley, J., Friday, A., Bates, O., 2013. Domestic food and sustainable design: A study of university student cooking and its impacts. In: CHI 2013: Changing Perspectives: Session: Food and Health April 27-May 2. Paris, France, pp. 2447-2456.

Coley, D., Howard, M., Winter, M., 2009. Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: A comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches. Food Policy 34 (2), 150-155.

Conner, D., Colasanti, K., Ross, R.B., Smalley, S.B., 2010. Locally grown foods and farmers markets: Consumer attitudes and behaviors. Sustainability 2 (3), 742-756.

Cullen, P., 1994. Time, tastes and technology?: The economic evolution of eating out. Br. Food J. 96 (10), 4-9.

Cummins, S., Macintyre, S., 2002. A Systematic Study of an Urban Foodscape?: The Price and Availability of Food in Greater Glasgow, Vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 2115-2130.

Cummins, S.C.J., McKay, L., MacIntyre, S., 2005. McDonald's restaurants and neighborhood deprivation in Scotland and England. Am. J. Prev. Med. 29 (4), 308-310.

Daelman, J., Jacxsens, L., Membre, J.-M., Sas, B., Devlieghere, F., Uyttendaele, M., 2013. Behaviour of Belgian consumers, related to the consumption, storage and preparation of cooked chilled foods. Food Control 34 (2), 681-690.

Daniels, S., Glorieux, I., Minnen, J., van Tienoven, T.P., 2012. More than preparing a meal? Concerning the meanings of home cooking. Appetite 58 (3), 1050-1056.

Daniels, S., Glorieux, I., Minnen, J., van Tienoven, T.P., Weenas, D., 2014. Convenience on the menu? A typological conceptualization of family food expenditures and food-related time patterns. Soc. Sci. Res. 51, 205-218.

Darby, K., Batte, M.T., Ernst, S., Roe, B., 2008. Decomposing local: A conjoint analysis of locally produced foods. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 90 (2), 476-486.

Darier, E., 1998. Time to be lazy: Work, the environment and modern subjectivities. Time Soc. 7 (2-3), 193-208.

Darmon, I., Warde, A., 2013. Change in eating habits: the contribution of new local food infrastructures. Manchester, No. Discussion Paper 3.

Darnton, A., Evans, D., 2013. Influencing Behaviours: A Technical Guide to the ISM Tool. The Scottish Government, Edinburgh, UK.

Dave, J.M., An, L.C., Jeffery, R.W., Ahluwalia, J.S., 2009. Relationship of attitudes toward fast food and frequency of fast-food intake in adults. Obes. (Silver Spring, Md.) 17 (6), 1164-1170.

Devine, C.M., Farrell, T.J., Blake, C.E., Jastran, M., Wethington, E., Bisogni, C., 2009. Work conditions and the food choice coping strategies of employed parents. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 41 (5), 365-370.

Dawes, J., Nenycz-Thiel, M., 2014. Comparing retailer purchase patterns and brand metrics for in-store and online grocery purchasing. J. Market. Manag. 30 (3-4), 364-382.

De Backer, C.J.S., Hudders, L., 2015. Meat morals: relationship between meat consumption consumer attitudes towards human and animal welfare and moral behavior. Meat Sci. 99, 68-74.

de Boer, J., Boersema, J.J., Aiking, H., 2009. Consumers' motivational associations favoring free-range meat or less meat. Ecol. Econom. 68 (3), 850-860.

de Boer, J., Hoogland, C.T., Boersema, J.J., 2007. Towards more sustainable food choices: Value priorities and motivational orientations. Food Qual. Preference 18 (7), 985-996.

de Boer, M., McCarthy, M., Cowan, C., Ryan, I., 2004. The influence of lifestyle characteristics and beliefs about convenience food on the demand for convenience foods in the Irish market. Food Qual. Preference 15 (2), 155-165.

de Boer, J., Schosler, H., Boersema, J.J., 2013. Motivational differences in food orientation and the choice of snacks made from lentils, locusts, seaweed or 'hybrid' meat. Food Qual. Preference 28 (1), 32-35.

de Borja, J., Kuijer, L., Aprile, W.A., 2010. Designing for sustainable food practices in the home. In: ERSCP-EMSU Conference, 25-29 October 2010. Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 1-25.

Defra. 2008. Family Food Survey [online]. Available from: http://www. defra.gov. uk/statistics/foodfarm/food/familyfood/ datasets/.

Defra. 2012. Green Food Project Conclusions. London: Defra.

Defra. 2013. Sustainable Consumption Report Follow-Up to the Green Food Project. London: Defra.

Defra. 2014. Food Statistics Pocketbook. London: Defra.

2010. Change4Life Convenience Stores Evaluation Report. Produced by Department of Health, London.

Draper, A., Green, J., 2002. Food safety and consumers: Constructions of choice and risk. Soc. Policy Adm. 36 (6), 610-625.

DuPuis, E.M., Goodman, D., 2005. Should we go 'home' to eat?: toward a reflexive politics of localism. J. Rural Stud. 21 (3), 359-371.

Edwards, J.B., McKinnon, A.C., Cullinane, S.L., 2010. Comparative analysis of the carbon footprints of conventional and online retailing: A 'last mile' perspective. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage. 40 (1-2), 103-123.

Edwards-Jones, G., Milai Canals, L., Hounsome, N., Truninger, M., Koerber, G., Hounsome, B., Cross, P., York, E.H., Hospido, A., Plassmann, K., Harris, I.M., Edwards, R.T., Day, G.a.S., Tomos, a.D., Cowell, S.J., Jones, D.L., 2008. Testing the assertion that 'local food is best': the challenges of an evidence-based approach. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 19 (5), 265-274.

Elzen, B., Geels, F., Green, K., 2004. System Innovation and The Transition To Sustainability. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Evans, D., 2011a. Blaming the consumer—once again: the social and material contexts of everyday food waste practices in some English households. Crit. Public Health 21 (4), 429-440.

Evans, D., 2011b. Thrifty, green or frugal: Reflections on sustainable consumption in a changing economic climate. Geoforum 42 (5), 550-557.

Evans, D., 2011c. Beyond the throwaway society: Ordinary domestic practice and a sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology 46 (1), 41-56.

FAO, 2006. Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. FAO, Rome.

FAO. 2011. Global food losses and food waste - Extent, causes and prevention. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

FAO. 2014. Food balance sheets [online]. Available from: http:// faostat.fao.org/site/610/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=610# ancor [Accessed 22.02.15].

Feagan, R., 2007. The place of food: mapping out the 'local' in local food systems. Progr. Hum. Geogr. 31 (1), 23-42.

Feick, L.F., Price, L.L., 2015. Maven?: Market A Diffuser of Information Marketplace, Vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 83-97.

Foster, C., Green, K., Bleda, M., Dewick, P., Evans, B., Flynn, A., Mylan, J., 2006. Environmental Impacts of Food Production and Consumption: A report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Manchester Business School, Defra, London.

Foster, C., McMeekin, A., Mylan, J., 2012. The entanglement of consumer expectations and (eco) innovation sequences: the case of orange juice. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 24 (4), 391-405.

Fox, N., Ward, K., 2008. Health, ethics and environment: a qualitative study of vegetarian motivations. Appetite 50 (2-3), 422-429.

Fraser, L.K., Edwards, K.L., 2010. The association between the geography of fast food outlets and childhood obesity rates in Leeds, UK. Health place 16 (6), 1124-1128.

Friends of the Earth. 2002. Supermarkets and Great British fruit. London: Friends of the Earth.

Ganglbauer, E.V.A., Fitzpatrick, G., Comber, R.O.B., 2013. Negotiating food waste?: Using a practice lens to inform design. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 20 (2), 1-25.

Garnett, T., 2003. Wise Moves: Exploring the relationship between food, transport and CO2. A report for Transport 2000.

Garnett, T., 2014. What is a sustainable healthy diet?? A discussion paper Contents page. A Food Climate Research Network Report.

Garnett, T., 2015. The food miles debate: Is shorter better? In: Alan McKinnon, M.P., Browne, Michael, Whiteing, Anthony (Eds.), Green Logistics: Improving the Environmental Sustainability of Logistics. Kogan Page Limited, London, pp. 358-371.

Geels, F.W., McMeekin, A., Mylan, J., Southerton, D., 2015. A critical appraisal of sustainable consumption and production research: the reformist, revolutionary and reconfiguration positions. Global Environ. Change 34 (1), 1-12.

Gibbons, L., 2013. Ready meal UK sales hit £2.3bn over last year [online]. Food Manufacture.co.uk. Available from: http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Manufacturing/Ready-meal-UK-sales-hit-2.3bn-over-last-year [Accessed 21.11.14].

Graham-Rowe, E., Jessop, D.C., Sparks, P., 2014. Identifying motivations and barriers to minimising household food waste. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 84,15-23.

Gram-Hanssen, K., 2011. Understanding change and continuity in residential energy consumption. J. Consum. Cult. 11 (1), 61-78.

Gregory-Smith, D., Smith, A., Winklhofer, H., 2013. Emotions and dissonance in 'ethical' consumption choices. J. Market. Manag. 29 (11-12), 1201-1223.

Grinnell-Wright, V., Wilson, J., Downing, P., 2013. Review of evidence on consumer food-related behaviours that impact on sustainability: Final Report. A report for Best Foot Forward.

Guthman, J., 2003. Fast food/organic food: Reflexive tastes and the making of 'yuppie chow'. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 4 (1), 45-58.

Hager, T.J., Morawicki, R., 2013. Energy consumption during cooking in the residential sector of developed nations: A review. Food Policy 40, 54-63.

Harnack, L.J., French, S.a, Oakes, J.M., Story, M.T., Jeffery, R.W., Rydell, S.a, 2008. Effects of calorie labeling and value size pricing on fast food meal choices: results from an experimental trial. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 5 (1), 63-76.

Hinrichs, C.C., 2000. Embeddedness and local food systems: Notes on two types of direct agricultural market. J. Rural Stud. 16 (3), 295-303.

HM Government, 2008. Climate Change Act 2008. The Stationery Office, London.

HM Government. 2010. Food 2030. London.

Hoolohan, C., Berners-Lee, M., McKinstry-West, J., Hewitt, C.N., 2013. Mitigating the greenhouse gas emissions embodied in food through realistic consumer choices. Energy Policy 63, 1065-1074.

IDG. 2015. ShopperVista [online]. Available from: http:// shoppervista.igd.com/ [Accessed 14.04.15].

Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 2013. Global food: Waste Not, Want Not. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London.

Inwood, S.M., Sharp, J.S., Moore, R.H., Stinner, D.H., 2008. Restaurants, chefs and local foods: insights drawn from application of a diffusion of innovation framework. Agric. Hum. Values 26 (3), 177-191.

Jabs, J., Devine, C.M., 2006. Time scarcity and food choices: an overview. Appetite 47 (2), 196-204.

Jabs, J., Devine, C.M., Bisogni, C.a, Farrell, T.J., Jastran, M., Wethington, E., 2007. Trying to find the quickest way: employed mothers' constructions of time for food. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 39 (1), 18-25.

Jungbluth, N., Keller, R., Houlder, G., 2014. Food losses in the life cycle of lasagne Bolognese: ready-to-serve vs. home-made. In: the Proceedings of the 9th International Conference LCA of Food 8th-10th October 2014. San Francisco, USA, np.

Kalnikaite, V., Bird, J., Rogers, Y., 2012. Decision-making in the aisles: informing, overwhelming or nudging supermarket shoppers? Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 17 (6), 1247-1259.

Kalnikaite, V., Rogers, Y., Bird, J., Villar, N., Bachour, K., Payne, S., Todd, M., Schöning, J., Krüger, A., 2011. How to Nudge In Situ: Designing Lambent Devices to Deliver Information Salience in Supermarkets. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM International conference on Ubiquitous computing, Ubicomp '11. New York, USA.

Kemp, K., Insch, A., Holdsworth, D.K., Knight, J.G., 2010. Food miles: Do UK consumers actually care? Food Policy 35 (6), 504-513.

Kneafsey, M., Dowler, E., Lambie-Mumford, H., Inman, A., Collier, R., 2012. Consumers and food security: Uncertain or empowered? J. Rural Stud. 29 (2013), 101-112.

Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, J., 2002. Mind the Gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 8 (3), 239-260.

Kral, T.V.E., Rolls, B.J., 2004. Energy density and portion size: their independent and combined effects on energy intake. Physiol. Behav. 82 (1), 131-138.

Lang, T., 2010. From 'value-for-money' to 'values-for-money'? Ethical food and policy in Europe. Environ. Plann. A 42 (8), 1814-1832.

Larsen, K., Gilliland, J., 2009. A farmers' market in a food desert: Evaluating impacts on the price and availability of healthy food. Health Place 15 (4), 1158-1162.

Lockie, S., 2002. 'The invisible mouth': Mobilizing 'the consumer' in food production-consumption networks. Sociol. Rural. 42 (4), 278-294.

Macrorie, R., Foulds, C., Hargreaves, T., 2014. Governing and governed by practices: exploring interventions in low-carbon housing policy and practice. In: Strengers, C., Maller, Y. (Eds.), Social Practices, Intervention and Sustainability: Beyond behaviour change. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon.

Mahon, D., Cowan, C., McCarthy, M., 2006. The role of attitudes, subjective norm, perceived control and habit in the consumption of ready meals and takeaways in Great Britain. Food Qual. Preference 17 (6), 474-481.

Martinez, S., Clark, S., Lohr, L., Low, S., Newman, C., 2010. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues. An ERS Report: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Masset, G., Soler, L.-G., Vieux, F., Darmon, N., 2014. Identifying sustainable foods: the relationship between environmental impact, nutritional quality, and prices of foods representative of the French diet. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 114 (6), 862-869.

Milái Canals, L., Muñoz, I., Hospido, A., Plassmann, K., McLaren, S., 2008. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of domestic vs. imported vegetables: Case studies on broccoli, salad crops and green beans. CES Working Paper 01/08.

Morin, P., Demers, K., Turcotte, S., Mongeau, L., 2013. Association between perceived self-efficacy related to meal management and food coping strategies among working parents with preschool children. Appetite 65, 43-50.

Nisbet, E.K., Zelenski, J.M., Murphy, S.A., 2008. The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ. Behav. 41 (5), 715-740.

Noble, S.M., Griffith, D.a., Adjei, M.T., 2006. Drivers of local merchant loyalty: Understanding the influence of gender and shopping motives. J. Retail. 82 (3), 177-188.

Paetz, A.-G., Dütschke, E., Fichtner, W., 2011. Smart homes as a means to sustainable energy consumption: A study of consumer perceptions. J. Consum. Policy 35 (1), 23-41.

Pearson, T., Russell, J., Campbell, M.J., Barker, M.E., 2005. Do 'food deserts' influence fruit and vegetable consumption?-A cross-sectional study. Appetite 45 (2), 195-197.

Povey, R., Wellens, B., Conner, M., 2001. Attitudes towards following meat, vegetarian and vegan diets: an examination of the role of ambivalence. Appetite 37, 15-26.

Quested, T.E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D., Parry, a.D., 2013. Spaghetti soup: The complex world of food waste behaviours. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 79, 43-51.

Robinson, E., Thomas, J., Aveyard, P., Higgs, S., 2014. What everyone else is eating: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of informational eating norms on eating behavior. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 114 (3), 414-429.

Rohm, A.J., Swaminathan, V., 2004. A typology of online shoppers based on shopping motivations. J. Bus. Res. 57 (7), 748-757.

Romero del Castillo, R., Puig-Pey, M., Biarnés, J., Vilaseca, H., Simó, J., Plans, M., Massanés, T., Casañas, F., 2014. Using trendsetting chefs to design new culinary preparations with the 'Penjar' tomato. J. Culin. Sci. Technol. 12 (3), 196-214.

Rothgerber, H., 2014a. Underlying differences between conscientious omnivores and vegetarians in the evaluation of meat and animals. Appetite 87, 251-258.

Rothgerber, H., 2014b. Can you have your meat and eat it too? Conscientious omnivores, vegetarians, and adherence to diet. Appetite 84, 196-203.

Ruby, M.B., 2012. Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite 58 (1), 141-150.

Sahagun, M.a., Vasquez-Parraga, A.Z., 2014. Can fast-food consumers be loyal customers, if so how? Theory, method and findings. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 21 (2), 168-174.

Schmidt Rivera, X.C., Espinoza Orias, N., Azapagic, A., 2014. Life cycle environmental impacts of convenience food: Comparison of ready and home-made meals. J. Cleaner Prod. 73, 294-309.

Scholderer, J., Grunert, K.G., 2005. Consumers, food and convenience: The long way from resource constraints to actual consumption patterns. J. Econ. Psychol. 26 (1), 105-128.

Schwartz, S.H., 2012. An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values, Vol. 2, pp. 1-20.

Seyfang, G., 2006. Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining local organic food networks. J. Rural Stud. 22 (4), 383-395.

Seyfang, G., Smith, A., 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environ. Politics 16 (4), 584-603.

Sharp, L., Macrorie, R., Turner, A., 2015. Resource efficiency and the imagined public: insights from cultural theory. Global Environ. Change 34, 196-206.

Short, F., 2003. Domestic cooking practices and cooking skills: findings from an English study. Food Serv. Technol. 3, 177-185.

Short, F., 2006. Kitchen Secrets: The Meaning of Cooking in Everyday Life. Berg Publishers, Oxford, New York.

Shove, E., 2003. Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience?: The Social Organization of Normality. Berg Publishers, Oxford.

Shove, E., 2010. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environ. Plann. A 42 (6), 1273-1285.

Shove, E., 2014. Putting practice into policy: reconfiguring questions of consumption and climate change. Contemp. Soc. Sci.: J. Acad. Soc. Sci. 9 (4), 415-429.

Shove, E., Southerton, D., 2000. Defrosting the freezer: From novelty to convenience: A narrative of normalization. J. Mater. Cult. 5 (3), 301-319.

Siikavirta, H., Punakivi, M., Ka, M., Linnanen, L., 2003. Effects of E-Commerce on Greenhouse Gas Emissions A Case Study of Grocery Home Delivery, Vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 83-97.

Smart, A., 2004. Adrift in the mainstream: Challenges facing the UK vegetarian movement. Br. Food J. 106 (2), 79-92.

Smith, A., Watkiss, P., Tweddle, G., McKinnon, A., Browne, M., Hunt, A., Treleven, C., Nash, C., Cross, S., 2005. The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development Final Report produced for DEFRA.

Southerton, D., 2006. Analysing the temporal organization of daily life:: Social constraints, practices and their allocation. Sociology 40 (3), 435-454.

Southerton, D., Chappells, H., Vliet, B.V., 2005. Sustainable Consumption: The Implications of Changing Infrastructures of Provision. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., London.

Southerton, D., Mcmeekin, A., Evans, D., 2011. International Review of Behaviour Change Initiatives. A report fot the Scottish Government.

Southerton, D., Diaz-mendez, C., Warde, A., 2012. Behavioural change and the temporal ordering of eating practices?: A UK— Spain comparison. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 19 (1), 19-36.

Spaargaren, G., Oosterveer, P., Loeber, A. (Eds.), 2012. Food Practices in Transition: Changing Food Consumption, Retail and Production in the Age of Reflexive Modernity. Routledge, New York, London.

Sparks, P., Conner, M., James, R., Shepherd, R., Povey, R., 2001. Ambivalence about health-related behaviours: an exploration in the domain of food choice. Br. J. Health Psychol. 6 (Pt 1), 53-68.

Spurling, N., Mcmeekin, A., Shove, E., Southerton, D., Welch, D., 2013. Interventions in practice: re-framing policy approaches to consumer behaviour. Sustainable Practices Research Group Report.

Story, M., Kaphingst, K.M., Robinson-O'Brien, R., Glanz, K., 2008. Creating healthy food and eating environments: policy and environmental approaches. Annu Rev. Public Health 29, 253-272.

Strengers, Y., 2008. Smart Metering Demand Management Programs: Challenging the Comfort and Cleanliness Habitus of Households. In: Proceedings of the OZCHI 2008, 8th - 12th December 2008. Cairns, QLD, Australia, pp. 9-16.

Strengers, Y., 2011. Negotiating everyday life: The role of energy and water consumption feedback. J. Consum. Cult. 11 (3), 319-338.

Strengers, Y., 2012. Peak electricity demand and social practice theories: Reframing the role of change agents in the energy sector. Energy Policy 44 (1), 226-234.

Tassou, S.a., Ge, Y., Hadawey, A., Marriott, D., 2011. Energy consumption and conservation in food retailing. Appl. Therm. Eng. 31 (2-3), 147-156.

Thogersen, J., Grunert-Beckmann, S.C., 1997. Values and attitude formation towards emerging attitude objects: From recycling to general, waste minimizing behavior. Adv. Consum. Res. 24, 182-190.

Tobler, C., Visschers, V.H.M., Siegrist, M., 2011. Eating green. Consumers' willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite 57 (3), 674-682.

UNEP. 2014. Life Cycle Assessment [online].

Available from: http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/ Consumption/StandardsandLabels/MeasuringSustainability/ LifecycleAssessment/tabid/101348/Default.aspx [Accessed 12.12.14].

Valentine, G., 2001. Eating in: home, consumption and identity. Sociol. Rev. 47 (3), 491-524.

Vanhonacker, F., Van Loo, E.J., Gellynck, X., Verbeke, W., 2013. Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite 62, 7-16.

Verhoef, P.C., Langerak, F., 2001. Possible determinants of consumers' adoption of electronic grocery shopping in the Netherlands. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 8 (5), 275-285.

Vermeir, I., Verbeke, W., 2006. Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer "attitude - behavioural intention" gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 19 (2), 169-194.

Vermeir, I., Verbeke, W., 2008. Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecol. Econom. 64 (3), 542-553.

Walker, G., 2014. The dynamics of energy demand: Change, rhythm and synchronicity. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1 (1), 49-55.

Warde, A., 1999. Convenience food: space and timing. Br. Food J. 101 (7), 518-527.

Weatherell, C., Tregear, A., Allinson, J., 2003. In search of the concerned consumer: UK public perceptions of food, farming and buying local. J. Rural Stud. 19 (2), 233-244.

Welch, D., Warde, A., 2014. Theories of practice and sustainable consumption. In: Reisch, J., Th0gersen, L. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 84-100.

Whelan, A., Wrigley, N., Warm, D., Cannings, E., 2015. Life in a 'Food Desert'. Urban Stud. 39 (11), 2083-2100.

Williams, A.G., Audsley, E., Chatterton, J.C., Murphy-bokern, D., Brander, M., 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from UK food and drink consumption by systems LCA: current and possible futures. In: the proceedings of LCA-Food: VII International conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the agri-food sector, 22nd-24th September 2010. Bari, Italy.

Williams, A., Hess, T., Chatterton, J., Daccache, A., 2013. Are potatoes a low-impact food for GB consumers compared with rice and pasta?? A Report for the Potato Council: Department of Environmental Science and Technology.

Williams, P., Hubbard, P., Clark, D., Berkeley, N., 2001. Consumption, exclusion and emotion: The social geographies of shopping. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 2 (2), 203-220.

Wilson, C., Chatterton, T., 2011. Multiple models to inform climate change policy: a pragmatic response to the 'beyond the ABC' debate. Environ. Plann. A 43 (12), 2781-2787.

WRAP. 2015. Estimates of Food and Packaging Waste in the UK Grocery Retail and Hospitality Supply Chains [online]. Available from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/ wrap/UKEstimatesFebruary15(FINAL).pdf [Accessed 23.03.15].

Wrigley, N., Warm, D., Margetts, B., 2003. Deprivation, diet, and food-retail access: findings from the Leeds 'food deserts' study. Environ. Plann. A 35 (1), 151-188.

Wrigley, N., Warm, D., Margetts, B., Lowe, M., 2004. The Leeds 'food deserts' intervention study: what the focus groups reveal. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 32 (2), 123-136.

Wrigley, N., Warm, D., Margetts, B., Whelan, A., 2015. Assessing the Impact of Improved Retail Access on Diet in a 'Food Desert': A Preliminary Report, Vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 2061-2082.

Zimmermann, J.-P., Evans, M., Griggs, J., King, N., Harding, L., Roberts, P., Evans, C., 2012. Household Electricity Survey A study of domestic electrical product usage. Intertek Report R66141.