Causes and solutions for fruit and vegetable waste: a participatory approach with Romanian farmers for sustainable agriculture

ABSTRACT

Fruit and vegetable (FV) waste poses significant challenges to agricultural sustainability, causing resource inefficiencies, environmental degradation, economic loss, and social inequalities. Farmers are the most important stakeholders in minimizing FV waste in primary production, and any intervention must consider their attitudes and perspectives. This study had three objectives: (i) to uncover Romanian farmers’ understanding of FV waste; (ii) to explore their perceptions of direct and indirect causes of FV waste; and (iii) to reveal the solutions suggested by farmers to reduce FV waste. The results of the qualitative research methods, including one to one interviews and a community-based causal analysis (CBCA) process, showed that farmers defined FV waste as discarded produce, excluding items used for compost or animal feed. During the CBCA sessions, three commonly identified indirect causes emerged: consumers’ preference for supermarkets and perfectly shaped FV, the difficulties farmers face in accessing supermarkets, and selling imperfect FV. The study emphasizes farmers’ role in sustainable practices, calling for inclusive policies that prioritize local knowledge and farmers’ needs to tailor FV waste reduction solutions.

KEYWORDS:

• Food waste
• fruit and vegetable
• farmers
• causes
• solutions

1. Introduction

Food waste, a global issue that aggravates resource inefficiencies, environmental degradation, economic loss, and social inequalities, compromises our food systems’ sustainability. The widespread effects of food waste include lost revenue, higher food prices, increased disposal costs, food insecurity, negative health impact, greenhouse gas emissions, resource depletion, pollution, and biodiversity loss (Chen et al., 2020; Luo et al., 2022; Papargyropoulou et al., 2014; Ribbers et al., 2023). When nearly 17.2% of the world’s population, or 1.3 billion people, lack regular access to ‘nutritious and sufficient food’, food waste is a missed opportunity to feed the millions of people who suffer from hunger and malnutrition (United Nations, 2022a; the numbers refer to 2022 data). Still, about 17% of global food production is wasted (United Nations, 2022b). Transitioning from the global perspective to regional and local ones, it can be mentioned that, in 2021, in the European Union (EU), the average food waste was 131 kilograms/ per person (EUROSTAT, 2023). In total, the EU generated a total of 58.4 million tonnes of discarded food. In Romania, approximately 5 million tons of food are wasted annually, which is approximately one third to one-half of the total annual food production intended for human consumption (Chereji et al., 2023). Thus, the local impact mirrors the global concerns associated with food waste. To put it in perspective, this amounts to around 250 kg per inhabitant (Chereji et al., 2023), which is higher than the European average. According to the National (Romanian) Institute for Public Health (2019), among the total wasted household food, 24% is cooked food, 22% is fruits, 21% are vegetables, 20% are bakery products, 11% are dairy products, and 1% is meat. These data demonstrate the inefficiency of food systems and the need for action to reduce food waste.

In the EU, primary production is the second largest contributor to food waste among the members of the food supply chain, accounting for 25% of food waste (the first place is attributed to the consumption stage, which generates 46% of the supply chain’s total food waste) (Caldeira et al., 2019; European Commission, 2021; Jeswani et al., 2021; Statista, 2017). Among various food categories, fruits and vegetables (FV) are the most wasted in volume (FAO, 2015). More concretely, a paper introducing a top-down methodology for food waste accounting in the EU found that FV collectively account for 76% of waste in the primary production stage (Caldeira et al., 2019). Overproduction, cosmetic standards (specific requirements regarding colour, shape, and size of harvested FV; Roels & Van Gijseghem, 2017), storage and transportation, weather variability, or handling practices are some of the causes most frequently mentioned in the scientific literature for food waste in primary production (Bartezzaghi et al., 2022; de Brito Nogueira et al., 2020; Magalhães et al., 2021; Plazzotta et al., 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2018; Voge et al., 2023).

Therefore, efficient waste reduction solutions must be implemented to address the numerous points that must be addressed while also recognizing that farms have the potential to generate sustainable solutions (Gillman et al., 2019; Rastegari et al., 2023). The scientific literature on sustainable agriculture and food waste testifies that farms can reduce their environmental impact and contribute to a more efficient food system through sustainable farming practices (Bajželj et al., 2020; Bloise, 2020; Ho et al., 2022; Mishra et al., 2021), increasing farmers’ education and improving farming facilities (storage, handling, etc.) (Sisay et al., 2022), utilization of surplus produce (Facchini et al., 2018), and by embracing a closed-loop system (Al-Kodmany, 2018; Bloise, 2020; Soma, 2022). Farmers are the most important stakeholders in minimizing food waste in primary production, and any intervention must consider their attitudes and perspectives on food waste. Small farmers play a key role in agricultural production worldwide, and the perceptions of local farmers regarding their needs, knowledge, and adaptation practices are crucial to increasing agricultural sustainability, including food waste reduction (Spies et al., 2022).

Although existing studies have made valuable contributions to understanding and mitigating food loss and waste, a noticeable gap persists in the literature. Some research mainly focused on addressing crop losses associated with pests, climate change, and technical aspects (Savari et al., 2019; Schudel et al., 2023; Sultan et al., 2019) or were specifically concerned by food loss and waste measurements (Corrado et al., 2019; Hoehn et al., 2023). In particular, other studies highlighted the relevance of farmers behaviour towards food waste. Peira et al. (2018) emphasized the importance of understanding the distinct behaviours of farmers, market traders, and the category referred to as ‘hybrid’ in their examination of food waste. The study revealed farmers’ perspectives on food waste, showing they were receptive to reusing it and interested in recycling efforts. Using interviews with fresh produce farmers from California, Gillman et al. (2019) examined the role of farms and farmers in reducing food waste. They focused on the environmental benefits, distinguishing between landfill waste that increases greenhouse gas emissions and food diverted through alternative supply chains.

In this context, the study aims to contribute to the international debate on food waste reduction by adopting an inclusive and participatory approach to food waste prevention-reduction and providing a deeper understanding of farmers’ views about the meaning of FV waste, its causes, and possible solutions. This study focused on fresh FV, where ‘fresh’ means ‘unprocessed’. Furthermore, considering the global call for action made through the Sustainable Development Goal 12 (SDG), target 12.3, to reduce food loss and waste by 2030 along the entire supply chain (SDG 12.3) at the global level (United Nations, 2019), this paper aims to contribute to the discussion about strategies to reduce food waste, with broader implications, such as on agricultural sustainability, food security, health, social equity, and resource use.

2. Exploratory research questions

Despite the rich scientific literature on FV waste, several critical gaps persist, motivating our exploration. First, there is a lack of insight into farmers’ comprehension of the significance of FV waste. Second, there is a notable scarcity of research that examines the perspectives of the farming community of practice on the causes and solutions of FV waste, both essential for a comprehensive grasp of FV waste complexity. Furthermore, the scientific literature almost entirely overlooks an examination of Romanian farmers’ perceptions of FV waste, with only one study that hypothesized that Romanian farmers invested in recycling and reusing agricultural waste to contribute to the bioeconomy (Balan & Zeldea, 2023). This subsection aims to bridge these gaps, placing the exploratory research questions (ERQ) in the light of the scientific literature and outlining how this study contributes to a better understanding of the FV waste phenomenon.

A mismatch between people’s understanding of food waste and loss and its definition in the legal framework can lead to the failure of food waste reduction strategies. Limited attention has been paid in previous research to farmers’ understanding of food waste and loss (e.g. Beausang et al., 2017; Janousek et al., 2018; Peira et al., 2018) and whether their definition aligns with the definitions outlined in the legal framework. To address this knowledge gap, farmers’ understanding of the FV waste phenomenon was investigated in this study through semi-structured one to one interviews. This approach enabled a thorough investigation into farmers’ perspectives on FV waste, responding to the following ERQ:

ERQ1. “What are farmers’ perceptions of FV waste, including its definition, the main sectors responsible for its generation, its dimension at the farm level, and its ultimate destination?”

Before going further with the presentation of the ERQ, a terminological clarification is necessary. We discuss the meaning of ‘food waste’ in the following lines because this is a key concept of the study. Developing clear and accepted definitions of food loss and waste and measurement methods is crucial to creating effective strategies to address food loss and waste (Blakeney, 2019). However, the meanings of food loss and food waste concepts are not obvious. There are various understandings of food loss and waste in literature and practice (Boiteau & Pingali, 2023), and there are also variations in the meaning of these words in different languages. The different uses of the terms ‘food loss’ and ‘waste’ usually stem from the aim of the work, which can be oriented towards food or waste, aiming to optimize food use or improve resource efficiency, respectively. Some authors (Aragie et al., 2018; Gustavsson et al., 2011; Rezaei & Liu, 2017) make a distinction between ‘loss’ and ‘waste’ based on the stage of the food supply chain where loss or waste occurs at: the beginning of the supply chain (i.e. from harvest to retailer but without including the retail level) for the former and end of it (retail and consumer level) for the latter. Others use only ‘food waste’. Some take into account the intentionality and consider that ‘waste’ is voluntary and ‘loss’ is not. Finally, some take edibility into account and distinguish between ‘non-avoidable waste’ (non-edible parts of food) and ‘avoidable waste’ (edible food waste) (HLPE, 2014).

The following examples shed light on the numerous meanings assigned to food waste and loss in scientific papers, reports, and books. Thus, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, the United Nations) defines food loss as a ‘decrease in edible food mass at the production, post-harvest, and processing stages of the food chain’. The FAO considers that the ‘discard of edible foods at the retail and consumer levels’ is food waste. Food wastage cumulates both food loss and waste (FAO, 2013, 2023), and is also referred to as food supply chain losses (Abiad & Meho, 2018). The EU FUSION (2016) project uses the term ‘food waste’ and defines it as ‘any food, and inedible parts of food, removed from the food supply chain to be recovered or disposed of (including composted, crops plowed in/not harvested, anaerobic digestion, bio-energy production, co-generation, incineration, disposal in sewer, landfill or discarded to sea)’. Therefore, FUSION includes all members of the supply chain as generators of food waste. However, it does not consider that unharvested or lost crops at the primary producer level (FV farmers in our case) before being ready for harvest (for example, pest or weather-related damage to not mature crops) are food waste. Only the crops ready to be harvested or in the post-harvest stage are included in FUSIONS’s definition of food waste (i.e. crops ploughed into the soil, left unharvested, spoiled during manipulation or storage). Moreover, FUSION does not consider that the part of food that becomes animal feed or biobased materials is waste. The reason is that the production of animal feed or biobased materials from food can be as resource-efficient as the production of food and may generate economic value for the producing company (European Commission, 2021; FUSIONS, 2016).

The EU uses the term ‘food waste’ in the revised Waste Framework Directive (European Parliament & Council of Ministers, 2018). The revised Waste Framework Directive defines food waste (Article 1, point 3, c) as ‘all food as defined in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (*2) that has become waste’ (European Parliament & Council of Ministers, 2018). Furthermore, ‘food’ is defined (Article 2) as ‘any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans’, and it does not include feed and plants prior to harvest (among other categories not relevant in the FV discussion) (European Parliament & Council of Ministers, 2002). Given this definition of food adopted at the EU level, a difference can be noted between the FUSION’s and EU’s definitions of food waste. Thus, ready to be harvested crops are included in food waste by the former but not by the latter. In the EU legislation, waste is ‘any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard’ (European Parliament & Council of Ministers, 2008). In Romania, food waste is defined as ‘the situation after which food leaves the circuit of human consumption due to degradation and is destroyed, according to the legislation in force’ (Law No. 217/ 2016, Art. 1, point 2) (Romanian Parliament, 2016).

For this study, we used only the term ‘FV waste’ for all FV that are not consumed by people (regardless of the existence of intentionality or other factors). We selected ‘waste’ over ‘loss’ and ‘wastage’ in the light of study results, being closer to the meanings provided by the interviewed farmers, and also to the one defined in the Romanian law (Law No. 217/2016). This is a simple language clarification. We do not advocate here for using one term or another; this is beyond the purpose of this study, and we are aware that a different context may support the use of different words. In this study, we considered that FV waste was all FV that left the human consumption circuit. Other studies adopted a similar perspective. Bajželj et al. (2020) used the term ‘food waste’ as a general term for all material that was produced with the intention to be consumed by people, but left the food supply chain, and did not distinguish between food waste and food loss. Lee and Soma (2016) (cited by Soma, 2022) defined food waste as ‘any discarded organic matter that was intended for consumption by humans, regardless of its ultimate fate’. Unlike this definition assumed by the authors, the results of the one to one interviews of the present study revealed that most the participating farmers had a different perspective of the meaning of FV waste (which was explained in detail in the Results and Discussion sections). Considering unclear definitions, Bellemare et al. (2017) suggested a differentiation between ‘food actually wasted’ and food removed from the supply chain, but not discarded. They argued that food should not be considered wasted if it is not landfilled.

A clear understanding of FV waste causes at the primary production level is the foundation on which focused, sustainable, and impactful waste reduction strategies can be built. Without a sound understanding of the causes, efforts to minimize waste can be misguided and ineffective. The study of the appropriate solutions based on farmers’ views can indicate what FV waste prevention-reduction strategies that involve them are more likely to enjoy their support and also infer about farmers’ needs. The relevance of and need for research on food waste causes and solutions for food waste reduction was recognized in the literature (Canali et al., 2016; de Moraes et al., 2020). The complexity of the causes and their dependence on a multitude of factors such as the stage of the supply chain and the development level of the country, point to the need for context-specific studies. The FAO (2016) emphasizes that the causes of food waste can differ between low-income countries and medium- and high-income countries. The same report indicates that, for example, at the primary production level, in middle- and high-income countries, food waste causes may be a consequence of strategies that address other priorities. Thus, in middle- and high-income countries, food safety and quality standards can eliminate edible food from the supply chain, and agricultural subsidies can allow overproduction with consequently reduced prices and less care to recover its value (Blakeney, 2019; FAO, 2016). In developed countries, the research on food waste causes was predominantly directed toward the retail and consumption level, the final links of the food chain (Boulet et al., 2021; Canali et al., 2016; de Moraes et al., 2020). Studies that considered the entire supply chain usually evaluated the level of food loss and waste along the food supply chain and the contribution of each member (Blakeney, 2019; Gustavsson et al., 2011; HLPE, 2014), while the primary production as the main focus of research is scarce. All of this suggests the need for a deeper investigation of the FV waste causes and solutions at the primary production level.

Waste, in general, is not an isolated problem but a part of a complex system of causes and effects (Messner et al., 2022) and, consequently, the drivers of food waste generation must be studied in a comprehensive manner (Chauhan et al. 2021). The lack of a systemic perspective may blur the image of the real causes of food waste, preventing significant changes and effective strategies (Halloran et al., 2014, citing Parfitt et al., 2010). A system thinking approach enables the identification of relationships between factors (e.g. causes) that interact in non-obvious ways, in a direct or indirect manner, influencing the effect of interventions (Messner et al., 2022). The integration of system thinking into food waste analysis and solution design allows interventions to be more inclusive, effective, and sustainable (Lake et al., 2020).

With this framing in mind and drawing on the knowledge gaps mentioned above, the present study acknowledges the importance of involving the farmers’ community of practice in FV waste problem-solving and the potential of a participatory approach to generate bottom-up innovative solutions. By engaging farmers in the research process, we provide a more nuanced and accurate picture of the drivers of FV waste and the potential solutions that can be implemented at the community level. Therefore, another step of this research included the implementation of a community-based causal analysis (CBCA) process to identify the causes of FV waste and the appropriate intervention measures (solutions) to counteract the loss. The following ERQ were asked:

ERQ2. “What is the common perception among Romanian farmers regarding the direct and indirect causes of FV waste?”

ERQ3. “What solutions have farmers suggested to reduce FV waste?”

Considering the selected ERQ, the present study uses a qualitative approach to investigate Romanian farmers’ perspectives on what FV waste means to them, its causes, and solutions (measures) to reduce waste throughout the production process, including before, during, and after harvest. Qualitative research methods have been used successfully to study food loss and waste in the later links of the food supply chain (i.e. retail, consumers), while qualitative investigation of food loss and waste in primary production is relatively scarce (Beausang et al., 2017). Qualitative approaches (such as interviews) are valuable in research because they generate more in-depth knowledge than quantitative methods, enabling the researcher to investigate complex topics more freely than quantitative methods (Beausang et al., 2017). They aim to learn more about a problem or situation by looking at people’s thoughts and actions in their daily settings (rather than experimental ones) (Kaplan & Maxwell, 2005). Moreover, qualitative research helps to understand causal processes and take action based on study findings (Kaplan & Maxwell, 2005). Interviews with farmers and other food chain stakeholders were often used to investigate various aspects of agricultural sustainability, such as causes of food loss and waste (Voge et al., 2023), FV waste causes and suggested strategies (Beausang et al., 2017), drivers and barriers to the use of vermicomposting of agricultural waste (Rastegari et al., 2023), and the roles of stakeholders in the safe use of pesticide by cocoa farmers (Oludoye et al., 2021).

Participatory approaches make food waste strategies more democratic and just, avoid policy-field reality gaps, and can increase the public acceptability of strategies and policies (Spies et al., 2022). The adoption of a participatory approach to sustainable agriculture has been increasing (Allasiw et al., 2023). Linking individual interviews with CBCA in this study was a powerful way to understand and address FV waste. Using a similar approach, Jawad et al. (2023) combined systems theory with thematic framework analysis to better understand stakeholders’ discursive environment and their responses (in a public consultation on the Soft Drinks Industry Levy in the UK). One to one interviews and CBCA complement each other in a way that the interviews provide insights into the perspectives and experiences of individual farmers, and CBCA offers insights into the broader causal factors of FV waste at the community level. We consider CBCA to be a community of practice (Eckert, 2006; Wenger, 1999), highlighting shared learning, collaborative problem-solving, and practical knowledge exchange between farmers. This valuation is based on CBCA key features, such as the application of system dynamics thinking to address complex issues such as FV waste causes, farmers engaging in collaborative learning to collectively understand FV waste causes, fostering joint problem-solving (to reduce FV waste) within the farming community, and its qualitative approach that facilitates the exploration of tacit knowledge through informal sharing. Building upon the foundation of qualitative approaches and collaborative learning previously discussed, the usefulness of CBCA becomes evident. The causal diagrams used in CBCA to illustrate the intricate connections between various problems aid farmers and researchers in identifying nuanced relationships between the system’s components (Dorward et al., 2007).

3. Methodology

3.1. Study area

Romania has long-standing agricultural traditions, fertile soil, and a climate that are ideal for agriculture, animal husbandry, and horticulture. With a land area of about 238,000 km², Romania is one of the countries with the greatest potential for agriculture in the European Union (EU). The country has 15 million hectares of farmland, including more than 9 million hectares dedicated to arable crops (Association of Cross-Border Cooperation ‘Lower Danube Euroregion’, 2022). Romania accounts for 31.8% (2.9 million holdings) of the agricultural holdings in the EU; of these, 2.6 million farms (90.3%) were less than 5 ha, and the 0.9% of farms with 50 ha or more farmed just over half (54%) of the area that was used for agriculture (EUROSTAT, 2023). However, the share of agriculture in Romania’s GDP was only 4.2% (Statista, 2023a), employing 21.4% of the working-age population (Statista, 2023b).

According to FAO (2022), Romania produced approximately 1.799 million tonnes of vegetables, 2.954 million tonnes of fruits, and 2.699 million tonnes of roots and tubers in 2020 (latest available statistic). It is worth noting that these figures can vary from year to year and depend on various factors, such as weather conditions, market demand, and international trade policies. Additionally, as highlighted in other studies [e.g. (Archip et al., 2023)], currently, there is a lack of available data regarding details about FV waste in Romania. This reality requires a concerted effort to improve data collection and analysis, fostering collaboration between governmental authorities, research institutions, and relevant stakeholders in Romania.

3.2. Methodological design

The research included two stages. In the first one, we individually interviewed 23 farmers to respond to the first ERQ. The second stage of the research used workshops with 16 farmers to respond to the second and third ERQ, and it was called CBCA. The participants in both stages gave their informed consent to participate. The researchers ensured anonymity, confidentiality, and a supportive environment for sharing ideas and experiences. The present research adhered to the COREQ guidelines (COREQ stands for COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research. It is a checklist of items that should be included in qualitative research reports to ensure explicit and comprehensive reporting) (Tong et al., 2007). The demographic profile of the participants in the individual interviews and workshops is included in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic profile of study participants.

Method	No of participants	Age (average)	Gender (percentage)
Individual interviews	23	39	Men: 48%
			Women: 52%
Workshops	16	37	Men: 44%
			Women: 56%

The research team contacted various organizations/ institutions that were in contact with farmers, such as farmers’ markets, universities with an agricultural profile, farmers’ associations, and cooperatives, and requested their support in finding farmers willing to participate in the individual and group sessions. Individual farmers were also directly invited by researchers. We filtered farmers to cultivate FV on a minimum plot size of 0.3 ha (because this is the minimum surface required by the Romanian law for receiving agricultural subsidies).

3.3. Individual interviews with farmers

The researchers conducted the one to one interviews, online and face-to-face that lasted between 30 and 50 min. The interviews were transcribed verbatim in the first stage (verbatim transcription means transcribing every word, pause, stutter, and filler words, such as ‘ahs’ and ‘ums’). For verbatim transcription, we used the Vatis Tech online platform that allows speech to text transcription of Romanian audio files. In the second step, we performed an intelligent transcription (this transcribes every word but makes an interpretation to exclude pauses, status, and filler words and potentially cleans up the grammar). The text of the intelligent transcription in Romanian was used for analysis. The quotes of farmers’ answers included in the paper are the English translation of the intelligent transcription. A mix of deductive and inductive was used for coding. First, deductive coding was used to identify in the text the main codes concerning (FV waste) definition, (FV waste generation) responsible actors, (FV waste) dimension (at farm level), and (FV waste) destination. Inductive coding was used to identify sub-codes, for example, the particular meanings attached by farmers to FV waste definition (Figure 1). We interviewed farmers until we reached theoretical saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 2017). In this study, we considered that we reached saturation when we did not find additional new meanings in people’s answers (Hennink & Kaiser, 2022), and this happened after the 21st interview. Table 2 describes the main questions dedicated to eliciting farmers’ understanding of fresh FV waste that were included in the interview script.

Figure 1. The main steps of the coding process used for the transcription of the interviews.

Table 2. The main questions dedicated to eliciting farmers’ understanding of FV waste and used in the interviews.

The purpose of the question	Main question	Details
(i) Identify farmers’ definition(s) of FV waste	‘Please tell us what you understand by FV waste’.	Supplementary questions (examples): ‘Do you consider that FV that are sent to composting facilities to be FV waste?’; ‘What about FV that are left in the field or plowed in the field?’; ‘What about FV that are given to animals as feed?’
(ii) Identify the extent of FV waste within farmers’ activity	‘Please try to estimate how much of your fresh FV production you throw away. Express this estimate in percentages and also in kg’.
(iii) Identify farmers’ perception regarding the responsibility for the generation of FV waste along the FV supply chain	‘Please tell us what sector/sectors is/are the main responsible/s for the generation of FV waste among the members of the FV supply chain’.	After allowing farmers to answer, we reminded them who the members of the FV supply chain were (explaining their meaning) and allowed them to revise their answer if they wanted. The members of the FV supply chain listed by the researchers were: farmers, manufacturers and processors, transporters, retailers (and wholesalers, FV storage companies), food services, consumers, waste collectors and processors (for landfilling, composting, etc.). We also asked participants if someone was missing and if they could suggest adding other members to the chain.
(iv) Identify the destination of farmers’ FV surplus	‘Please tell us what you do with the fresh FV that you cannot sell as fresh FV. Refer to FV that are suitable for human consumption and those that are improper for it’.

3.4. Outline of the participatory approach

We called our second methodological approach CBCA. It is at the border between the idiographic causal mapping and community-based system dynamics (CBSD). The three methods – CBCA, CBSD, and idiographic causal mapping – have in common that they aim at a detailed understanding of a phenomenon and use small-size samples and semi-structured scripts to gather data (Bryson et al., 2004). Unlike idiographic causal mapping, CBCA does not reflect on ‘why’ and ‘how’ events, in our case, related to FV waste (Ackermann & Alexander, 2016). CBCA and CBSD differ primarily in how they represent and analyze complex systems. While both approaches utilize causal diagrams with arrows to illustrate the relationships between variables, CBSD also includes feedback loops. In CBSD, the arrows may form reinforcing loops that amplify the effects of variables or balancing loops that mitigate the effects of variables. As they create feedback mechanisms that influence the behaviour of the system, these loops can have complex effects on the system over time. In contrast, CBCA is more concerned with identifying the direct and indirect causal relationships between variables, without considering feedback loops. CBCA is useful for identifying a system’s direct and indirect factors and understanding how one variable can influence other variables. Compared to CBSD, the novelty of CBCA is its simplicity and ease of use, as it provides a clear and intuitive method to visualize the relationships between variables in a complex system. However, it may not capture all aspects of the system’s complexity, as feedback loops can significantly determine system behaviour over time. CBCA is a participatory methodology that involves community members in understanding a system. The CBCA approach recognizes that communities possess valuable knowledge and experience about the systems in which they live and work, and this can be used to improve the system’s performance. By leveraging farmers’ knowledge and expertise, CBCA offers a platform for the community of practice members to identify and implement solutions that lead to improved system performance.

The steps and the content of the participatory approach are described in Table 3. We used computer simulation software Vensim PLE 9.3.3 to create qualitative causal diagrams (CDs) that showed the causal relationship between the direct and indirect drivers of FV waste and helped identify potential solutions to induce changes to the system’s design that could lead to less FV waste. Like the system dynamics approach (Hovmand, 2014; Owen et al., 2018; Sterman, 2000), the CDs illustrated the feedback dependencies between variables, providing a visual representation of the FV waste drivers and their interrelationships. The arrow direction in the diagrams shows how variables relate to one another, and added polarity signs make it easier to understand how the system works and how to influence a particular result. Thus, the plus (+) sign indicates that when a variable increases, the other one increases too, and vice-versa. In other words, they go in the same direction. The minus (−) sign shows that when a variable increases, the other one decreases and vice-versa.

Table 3. The development of the CBCA sessions.

Session 1
Preparatory steps:
1. Welcome and brief presentation of workshop participants, objectives, etc.; 2. Creation of a comfortable communication space; 3. Introduction to causal and systems thinking; 4. A short discussion about the meaning of FV waste to ensure a common understanding of this term among participants. The definition extracted from one to one interviews was supported by most of the CBCA participants. Considering that farmers defined FV waste as FV that go to the garbage bin and excluded FV used as animal feed or fertilizer, in the CBCA, participants were asked to think about causes that determine FV to leave the human consumption circuit (in line with the food waste definition in the national legislation, Law No. 217/2016);
Direct and indirect causes of FV waste:
5. The participants identified key issues that they considered to influence FV waste: the causes of FV waste. First, they were asked to think of direct causes and then of indirect ones;
6. The participants were asked to think about the type of relationship between the identified causes and to include polarity signs (+/-) to determine if the relationships were positive or negative.
After the session: Researchers refined the CDs (e.g. by eliminating overlaps and using consistent terms to define the same causes).
Session 2
The solutions to reduce FV waste:
1. Review the main aspects discussed during the first session; 2. Validate the refined causal model by the participants; 3. The participants identified ways (solutions, measures) to reduce the quantity of FV that leave the human consumption circuit; 4. The researchers synthetized suggested solutions (measures) (they removed duplications, and used the same terms to name the same solutions) proposed by participants in 20 solutions. 5. The participants voted for the most useful solutions (seven solutions) to reduce FV that leave the human consumption circuit on their farms among those initially proposed.

The FV waste causality system can be understood from the interaction of the CDs components, which comprise a network of positive and negative feedbacks. Furthermore, understanding the causal relationships between variables helps to identify more upstream influences (Poon et al., 2022). Finally, the methodology allowed the farmers to suggest solutions (measures) to influence the FV waste causal system structure, leading to FV waste reduction.

We organized two sessions for the participatory stage of the qualitative research (CBCA). The CBCA sessions were developed face-to-face, and researchers took notes of the main ideas (e.g. causes, direct and indirect, polarity signs, solutions, and validation of the causal diagrams). The script for the CBCA sessions was used as a template to take notes. We did not use the verbatim transcription of the CBCA discussion to design the CDs because the causes and solutions were discussed and represented in diagrams with the participants during the sessions. Right after the sessions, the researchers who participated discussed the notes and agreed on the final version of the notes. After the session, the researchers replicated the diagrams drawn by hand during the workshops using the Vensim software. The steps of the CBCA sessions are included in Table 3. Information on the agricultural profile of the participants in the CBCA sessions and the individual interviews is included in Table 4.

Table 4. The agricultural profile of the study participants.

Farmer’s code	Interview participant	CBCA participant	Surface cultivated with FV	Cultivated crops
F1	√	√	2	garlic, green onions, onions, tomatoes
F2	√		4.8	apples, cherries, peaches, plums, raspberries
F3	√		7.5	cabbage, carrots, cucumbers, lettuce, peppers, potatoes, tomatoes
F4	√		1.3	cabbage
F5	√		5	carrots, cucumbers, eggplants, peppers, potatoes, tomatoes, zucchini; apples, plums
F6	√		4	blackcurrants, raspberries, strawberries
F7	√	√	3.5	cabbage, eggplant, peppers, strawberries
F8	√	√	5	eggplant, onions, peppers, potatoes, tomatoes; apples, cherries, grapes, pears, plums, quinces, sour cherries
F9	√	√	1	apples, blackberries, blackcurrants, plums, raspberries, sour cherries
F10	√		55	cucumbers, peppers, tomatoes; apples, cherries, plums
F11	√	√	2.5	eggplant, peppers, chili peppers; strawberries
F12	√	√	1	peppers, tomatoes; plums
F13	√	√	2	beans, potatoes, tomatoes; apples, cherries, pears
F14	√	√	0.5	cucumbers, lettuce, onions, potatoes, tomatoes
F15	√	√	1	cabbage, cucumbers, onions, potatoes, tomatoes; apples, pears
F16	√	√	4	cucumbers, potatoes, tomatoes; apples, cherries, pears, strawberries
F17	√	√	3	cucumbers, peppers, potatoes, tomatoes; cherries
F18	√	√	0.5	cucumbers, potatoes, pumpkins, tomatoes
F19	√	√	0.5	cauliflower, eggplant, potatoes, tomatoes
F20	√	√	0.5	plums, apples
F21	√		50	beetroot, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, celery, green onions, onions, parsley, parsnip, peppers, potatoes, radishes, zucchini
F22	√	√	0.5	carrots, garlic, onions, peppers, potatoes, garlic, pumpkins, tomatoes, zucchini; apples, grapes, mirabelles, pears, plums, strawberries
F23	√	√	4	beans, cabbage, carrots, cucumbers, garlic, green beans, onions, peppers, potatoes, tomatoes, zucchini, etc.; apples, cherries, pears, plums, etc.

4. Results

4.1. One to one interviews: what is FV waste in farmers’ perception

Within this phase, farmers’ understanding of FV waste was elicited. More precisely, it revealed how they defined the FV waste, FV waste share in total production, the destination of fresh FV surplus, and the main perceived generators of FV supply chain waste.

4.1.1. The definition of FV waste in Romanian farmers’ perception

A key finding is the meaning (definition) of FV waste encountered most frequently among interviewed farmers. They define FV waste as FV that are thrown away, usually disposed of in trash cans, but not FV that leave the human consumption circuit and are used as animal feed, compost, or fertilizer after being plowed into the ground (Table 5, lines 1–4; Figure 2). Only three farmers had a different understanding, considering that all FV that people do not consume are food waste (Table 5, line 5).

Figure 2. Main results of one to one interviews: the most frequent answers from all participants.

Table 5. Quotes from one to one interviews with farmers.

Line no	Investigated dimension	Answer (farmer’s code)
1	Definition of FV waste	‘The waste is when I have fruit that I try to offer to someone, and I have no one to turn to’ (F2)
2		‘if FV end up in compost, they are not wasted […] it is the same for animals. I mean we use that too […] So, we simply put them in the orchard as fertilizer’. (F10)
3		‘I am thinking that [FV waste] is throwing away FV to the garbage … if we compost them or if we give them to the animals, they are not wasted, not at all … . We do not have any FV waste … We let them in the orchard, as fertilizer … We do not throw anything to the garbage bins’. (F10)
4		‘ … you see, FV cost us time and money. I never throw away my time and money … Nooo, I never do this. I compost those that spoil. I do not waste any of them … The FV that I give to animals or compost are not wasted. Obviously, they are not wasted. A farmer understands this’. (F23)
5		‘ … all FV not consumed by people are food waste […] FV that are feed for animals are food waste. Composted FV are food waste’ (F21)
6	Share of FV waste in farmer’s production	‘Apple waste is around 3%−4%’. (F10)
7		‘Sometimes we have 50% waste in lettuce’. (F3)
8	Destination of fresh FV surplus	‘When the peppers or carrots are spoiled, I give them to neighbors for their pigs, chickens, or other animals’. (F5)
9		‘I am trying to put the vitamins back into the soil and avoid wasting food. I have costs with the oil I need for the machine to shred the FV, and I spend time on it. It costs me. But I cannot throw them into the garbage bin. This would be a waste’. (F17)
10		‘I process all FV that I cannot sell fresh. I make jam, compote, pickles, all types of preserves we know and I use the bad ones as fertilizer … Sometimes apples or other FV spoil because I bring them to the market and I cannot sell them in time because people don’t come to buy sometimes. I compost these. I never throw anything to the garbage bin’. (F23)
11	Actors responsible for FV generation waste along the supply chain	‘People always tend to buy more than they need’. (F9)
12		‘Indeed, many consumers, if they see something wrong, throw away the whole apple […] even if they could discard that small bit and eat the rest’. (F3)

4.1.2. The share of FV waste in farmers’ total production

The share of FV waste in total FV production varied by product and fluctuated from one year to another (depending, for example, on weather, market demand, and labour availability and costs) (Table 5, lines 6–7). According to farmers’ understanding of FV waste, the most frequently indicated percentage of FV waste share was 15% (Figure 2).

4.1.3. The destination of farmers’ fresh FV surplus

The next point of the discussion referred to the destination of FV waste. It is important to mention that we refined this question in light of farmers’ understanding of FV waste discovered during the one to one interviews (that FV waste are FV that are thrown away, but not FV that become compost or animal feed). Consequently, we asked ‘What is the destination of your fresh FV surplus?’, where the fresh FV surplus included the unprocessed (fresh) FV that cannot be sold as fresh FV. The most frequent options were to process and donate them. Regarding the FV that leave the human consumption circuit, the most common fresh FV surplus destination was animal feed and soil fertilizer (Table 5, lines 8–10; Figure 2).

4.1.4. The main generators of FV waste in the supply chain, in farmers’ perception

Regarding the main responsible sectors for FV waste (FV waste as the interviewed farmers defined it), 80% of interviewed farmers considered that consumers were the ones to blame in the first place (Table 5, lines 11–12; Figure 2). In second place, with the same number of nominations, were the retailers, wholesalers, FV storage companies, and food services. The transporters (where ‘transporter’ refers to a person or a company involved in the transportation of FV between members of the FV supply chain) were named only by two participants and farmers by one.

4.2. CBCA participatory approach: causes of FV waste and solutions

4.2.1. Causes that determine FV to leave the human consumption circuit

In CBCA workshops, we referred to causes that determine FV to leave the human consumption circuit and solutions to this problem. The reasons for this focus were that one to one interviews showed that most farmers considered composted FV or those used as animal feed to be not FV waste, and the definition in the national legislation (Law No. 217/ 2016).

Farmers identified 12 direct and 31 indirect causes that determined FV to leave the human consumption circuit (Figure 3; Table 6, lines 1–2). The indirect causes were grouped into five main categories: production, market, institutional, farmers’ knowledge and behaviour, and consumer education. A cause was included in a certain category according to how the farmers perceived it (and not to its abstract nature). In some cases, a cause belongs to more than one category and this is represented by writing its name in different colours (Figure 3, below the coloured line).

Figure 3. Direct and indirect causes that determine FV to leave the human consumption circuit identified by farmers.

Table 6. Quotes from farmers’ CBCA discussions that show the causes that determine FV to leave the human consumption circuit and their suggested solutions.

Line no.	Quote (farmer code between brackets)	Cause	Solution
1	‘I don’t have workers to hire. This is my biggest problem. Nobody wants to work in agriculture anymore. Young people went to work in the cities or abroad. The few still here require very high payments that make my vegetables too expensive on the market. I had no choice but to pay what they asked. I gave them […] RON* daily plus three meals, drinks, and cigarettes. Even like this, they came to work one-two days and then did not return for the rest of the contracted period […] I had to do all the work with my family. I cannot find clients and contracts for my vegetables if I work all day in the field. This is why I cannot sell my products, and food waste happens. Because I don’t have time to find clients’. (F16) * RON = the Romanian currency	√
2	‘Consumers preferences are the cause of FV waste […] When consumers are aware of the natural processes, such as hail, that make an apple spotted or not perfectly round-shaped, they will appreciate and buy them. Advertising should use imperfect shapes too, not only the perfect ones’. (F15)	√	√
3	‘I cannot stand to see that fruits are wasted. They should never end up in the waste bin. I prefer to sacrifice my time and find a use for them. I pick up all fruits, good and damaged. We make preserves from the good ones that cannot be consumed fresh and put the others to fermentation’. (F20)		√
4	‘Some time ago, when we only sold fresh fruit, much more fruit was wasted because it wasn’t sold, I actually had nothing to do with them […] What if each person would think about what else they could do and from what? For example, if you have a lot [FV], what else could you do in addition to selling them [fresh]? […] It is harder than selling them fresh […] But, […] we do not waste so much […] When I look at the balance […] I realize that I threw away in previous years many tons of fruit, and the loss was much higher compared to now, when the cost was the time and money for preparing the jam or syrup’. (F9)		√
5	‘I had to hire day laborers and I increased their salaries. I paid higher taxes. I need more money to cover all costs. The subsidies should be higher’. (F11)		√

Solutions for the reduction of FV that leave the human consumption circuit.

Production-related causes refer to causes that occur during the production process, such as crop diseases, pests, and weather events that can damage crops and reduce yields. Market-related causes include factors that arise during the marketing and selling of the product, such as lack of access to markets and low prices, which can lead to unsold and wasted products. Farmers’ knowledge and behaviour-related causes refer to factors concerning the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours of farmers, such as lack of awareness of proper storage and handling techniques, poor post-harvest management practices, and inadequate training, which can contribute to food waste. The causes related to consumers’ education included, for example, a lack of awareness of the benefits of FV coming from small agricultural holdings and the aesthetic preference for visually appealing FV leading to the rejection of imperfect (e.g. misshapen) fruits (Table 6, line 2).

Farmers proposed solutions to reduce FV waste at the farmers’ level considering the causes they identified. They mentioned 20 solutions (measures) (this number resulted after removing duplicates), and we asked them to vote for the ones they considered the most useful to reduce FV waste in their farms (Figure 4). Seven solutions were kept for further discussion (solutions marked in green, Figure 4). The first solution included various forms of FV processing (drying, preserves, powder, etc.) of FV that cannot be sold fresh (Table 6, lines 3–4). The second was to increase consumer education about what sustainability is, what the cultivation process consists of, how the natural elements (soil quality, rain, temperature, hail, etc.) affect the cultivation and the crops, and the quality of imperfect FV (Table 6, line 2). The third required procedural simplification for national project funds for agriculture because this would increase their accessibility to these funds and allow them to invest money according to farm needs (e.g. harvesting, storage, etc.). The fourth solution requested a substantial increase in agricultural subsidies because this would allow them to support the high salary demand of workers and face the competition of foreign farmers (Table 6, line 5). The fifth solution suggested the creation of a regional centre for collection, storage, distribution, and processing at a fair price. The sixth one proposed the implementation of a law that imposes that supermarkets obtain at least 50% of their FV from Romanian/ local farmers. Last but not least, interviewed farmers acknowledged the need to increase farmers’ and workers’ knowledge about how to respond to local weather and soil conditions, harvest, store, and manipulate FV, analyze the FV flows, and reduce waste.

Figure 4. Solutions proposed by farmers to reduce the quantity of FV that leave the human consumption circuit (green: solutions selected for deeper discussion; yellow: other suggested solutions; grey: details about the content of a solution).

The causal diagrams and solutions (measures) to reduce the quantity of FV that leave the human consumption circuit (Figure 5) emerged as follows. First, farmers identified direct and indirect causes and their relationship (positive or negative) to FV that leave the human consumption circuit, thus generating CDs. The farmers then identified seven main solutions for the reduction of FV that leave the human consumption circuit. In the next step, the participants placed the seven solutions on the CDs. They indicated the polarity signs. As a result, 11 CDs could be identified following farmers’ perception of the system of FV that leave the human consumption circuit (CD1 to CD11, Figure 5).

Figure 5. Causal diagrams and solutions (measures) to reduce the quantity of FV that leave the human consumption circuit (briefly named ‘FV waste’).

Note: The names of the variables were adjusted for consistency (e.g., neutral language); the name of each causal diagram is displayed in the middle of the diagram, e.g., ‘CD1’; a hexagon represents the investigated problem (FV that leave the human consumption circuit, briefly named ‘FV waste’); a rectangle includes a direct cause of FV that leave the human consumption circuit; a text without an outline shape describes an indirect cause of FV that leave the human consumption circuit; a circle contains solutions to reduce FV that leave the human consumption circuit; a black arrow indicates a relationship between causes, and between causes and FV waste; a blue arrow indicates a relationship between solutions and causes of FV that leave the human consumption circuit; the ‘+’ sign shows that there is a positive relationship; the ‘−’ sign indicates that there is a negative relationship.

5. Discussion

5.1. One to one interviews and derived strategy implications

According to one to one interviews, investigated farmers have a narrower sense of FV waste than Romanian law or other definitions (as presented in the section ‘2. Exploratory research questions’). Romanian farmers consider that only the FV disposed of in the trash bins are FV waste, while the FV used to feed animals or as soil fertilizer are not FV waste (Table 5, lines 1–4).

Although the farmers’ definition of FV waste differs from the broader definitions of ‘food waste’ and ‘food loss’, it is still a valid point of view that reflects their understanding and application of the term in their context. Concerning the ‘food waste’ concept, it is also worth mentioning that some of the Romanian interviewed farmers included immature crops in the food definition, while officially, they are not food (European Parliament & Council of Ministers, 2002). As soon as the product is developed enough to resemble the mature one, the farmer considers it ‘food,’ even if it still needs time to develop to be ready for harvest. Different to some extent from this view, in a study by Beausang et al. (2017), farmers in Scotland defined FV waste either by the quality of produce or based on economic value. Regarding economic value, Scottish farmers considered FV waste as FV that do not have a market or are not sold. In Italy, farmers in the Torino region linked the concept of food waste to ‘reuse’ and ‘unsold’, thereby acknowledging the potential to repurpose unsold food by considering alternative uses at the end of the day (Peira et al., 2018). Food producers from Canada did not agree unanimously on defining on-farm food waste, but three producers indicated that their definitions depended on the ability to sell harvested food (Janousek et al., 2018). For them, if the grown and harvested food is rejected or returned by customers, resulting in a financial loss, it is deemed food waste. In a narrative review, where O’Connor et al. (2023) navigate the intricate challenge of defining food waste, they argue that understanding food waste requires nuanced considerations of terminology, acknowledging the implications for policy, recognizing diverse agricultural practices, and addressing the complexities of waste prevention within farm boundaries.

When asked about the percentage of FV waste in their overall production, the prevailing response was 15%. This aligns closely with Gustavsson et al.’s (2011) estimate of 20% waste for total marketed FV in Europe and the estimated 10% waste for the total crop in California (Campbell & Munden-Dixon, 2018). We must be aware that this percentage changes when the interviewed farmers consider certain types of FV, such as 3%−4% for apples or even 50% for lettuce (Table 5, lines 6–7). Farmers in other countries mentioned different waste ranges for different crops, from 2.2% for potatoes and 20.1% for beets (Eičaitė et al., 2022) to, for example, 57% for cucumber (Johnson et al., 2018). Considering that the farmers interviewed in this study define FV waste as FV thrown away in garbage bins, the above percentages will increase if we add the share of unharvested FV and those sent back to the field. In terms of quantity in kg, farmers could not provide any estimation. One excuse they offered for this was the fluctuation in production from year to year. The same difficulty in providing estimates, was observed among Italian farmers (Bonadonna et al., 2019). In Canada, estimates of on-farm waste varied between 1% and 20% of total food production, with farmers using various units such as pounds, dollars, and percentages, and, notably, none of the participants’ estimates included unharvested food (Janousek et al., 2018). O’Connor et al. (2023) warn that gathering on-farm data is technically challenging, often relying on farmer estimates obtained through semi-structured interviews or surveys. Although it contributes to the existing data gap, the accuracy of farmers’ estimations may be low.

The interviewed farmers placed greater emphasis on the role of consumers in the FV waste generation, probably due to their direct interactions with them (Table 5, lines 11–12). The most frequent feedback was the need for consumer education and advertising campaigns for local food with more exposure to the naturalness of the FV produced by farmers (Table 6, line 2). However, even if consumers are one of the main contributors to FV supply chain waste at the retail and household levels (Ananda et al., 2022; de Moraes et al., 2022), we should consider the broader systemic factors contributing to FV waste. Thus, Herzberg et al. (2022) point out that standard institutional settings, business practices, product specifications, and communication favour retailers and promote food waste. The causes of FV waste are often complex and multifaceted and require a comprehensive approach that involves multiple stakeholders and interventions throughout the supply chain.

When farmers have fresh FV surplus (fresh FV that they cannot sell as such), they first attempt to donate those FV to other people or process them. Processing requires time, workforce, and equipment that are often unavailable to the interviewed farmers. Donation is also seen as a solution to FV waste in other countries. In Mexico, most of the surveyed farmers (64%) want to establish an effective, organized, and transparent system that optimizes FV donation, ensuring mutual benefits for both parties (López-Sánchez et al., 2021). In the U.S.A., more frequently, rejected loads are donated at their destination rather than directly from the farm (Johnson et al., 2019). This practice enables growers to avoid covering the transportation costs for returning rejected goods to the farm. Even though donation is a common practice worldwide to avoid FV waste, Romanian farmers complained that donation was often complicated from an administrative point of view, and finding a receiving partner in due time was difficult. In reality, donation for human consumption and processing is often not possible. Therefore, the most frequently mentioned destination for fresh FV surplus was animal feed on their farms or on friends’ farms as donations. Likewise, farmers from California directed food waste to nearby animal operations, such as a citrus grower with a long-standing arrangement with cattle producers, transferring most of the waste for feed (Campbell & Munden-Dixon, 2018). They also managed post-harvest FV waste by incorporating them into the soil as fertilizer. FV as fertilizer is the next most frequently mentioned destination of fresh FV surplus accessible to Romanian farmers, along with leaving them on the field. Farmers acknowledged that using FV waste as soil fertilizer triggers time and fuel consumption costs, in addition to the lack of income from not selling the FV. However, farmers considered it the best option compared to discarding them in garbage containers or letting them rot in a farm corner because they believed that the environmental benefit (improved soil quality) was greater than the associated costs (Table 5, line 9).

5.2. Causes of FV waste and the solutions mentioned in CBCA discussions

To identify the correct solutions to reduce FV that leave the human consumption circuit, we must first discover causes and differentiate between direct and indirect causes. Solutions should preferably target the indirect causes because by addressing these, we tackle the root causes while also addressing the direct ones.

Numerous earlier studies identified the absence of subsidies, logistic-related aspects, lack of connection between farmers and processing units, restricted access to retailers, and pests as primary drivers of FV waste (Debebe, 2022; Gardas et al., 2017; Stathers et al., 2020; Surucu-Balci & Tuna, 2021). By addressing the causes, policy makers can tailor solutions to reduce FV waste. The interviewed farmers also mentioned the cited causes.

Farmers often mention that investments are needed to eliminate the root cause. They need money to buy equipment to process fresh FV, protect against unfavourable weather through irrigation, greenhouses, etc., and adequately pack or store crops. Farmers in other countries reported similar concerns. Research by Abera et al. (2020) conducted in Ethiopia focused on post-harvest tomato losses revealed that a substantial factor contributing to the 20.45% wastage of tomatoes on-farm was the use of unsuitable packing boxes, which caused damage to the harvested fruit. The lack of access to cooling storage facilities also led to fruit overripening, further exacerbating the problem. Adverse weather conditions can lead to negative consequences that impact market dynamics. In Scotland, retailers reduced soft fruit orders from farmers during weekends with predicted rain, anticipating a decrease in consumer demand (Beausang et al., 2017).

Farmers requested procedural simplification of the national project funds for agriculture because the current ones are prohibitive to them. Even with public funds, the cost of individual storage facilities can be inefficient for small farmers. In addition, they recognized that the production quantity is often too small to offer them negotiation power with big retailers. In this context, another solution that farmers highly valued was a regional centre for collection, storage, distribution, and processing at a fair price. The literature highlights the benefits of collaboration, including knowledge and goal sharing, donation, training, community support, and consumer education (Vachon & Klassen, 2008). Despite being expensive and time-consuming, collaboration fosters comprehensive solutions to reduce food waste in supply chains (Bhattacharya & Fayezi, 2021). An example is the Italian farmers market (‘The Rainbow Market’) case (Moggi et al., 2018). It illustrates the creation of a distinctive accounting and control system seamlessly incorporated into the operational processes of the food donation system. Solutions for tackling food waste challenges are developed at the network level rather than focusing solely on individual farmers.

Processing was the most appreciated way to valorize fresh FV surplus, both standard (with normal, usual shape) and imperfect (e.g. small, misshapen, with spots), and reduce FV waste. However, farmers commented that investments required for it are not always affordable to them, that not all FV are suitable for processing, and also that it can be equally challenging to find clients for the processed FV in due time (before their expiration date), a similar challenge as for selling fresh FV. A significant drawback of the processing solution is that it addresses the direct causes of FV waste, and it does not eliminate the root of the problem (indirect causes), such as overproduction, which could be addressed by better production planning and understanding of the market, or by production reduction. One farmer (F14) admitted that production reduction is the most reasonable way to avoid FV waste and money waste when farmers cannot sell their fresh or processed FV.

Worldwide, the complexity of understanding food waste was evident during the Covid-19 pandemic, with challenges arising from a shortage of labour (Gu & Wang, 2020). Farmers, who faced disruptions and social distancing requirements, lost part of their production due to the lack of the necessary workforce to maintain normal operations (Khan et al., 2022). In addition to this, in Romania, due to a high migration rate [with over 4 million Romanians residing abroad, Romania ranks 17th among countries of origin for international migration (The International Organization for Migration, 2023)], many farmers complained that their crops were not harvested in due time. This caused over-ripeness or spoilage of the produce and delays in processing and packaging, leading to further deterioration of the quality of the FV. Another signalled problem was the lack of proper maintenance of crops, such as irrigation and pest control, which can lead to reduced yields and increased waste. During the discussions, one of the recurring problems was the lack of the labour force. This generated high salary costs and forced the farmer to work himself, thus, reducing the time he could spend to find clients (Table 6, line 1). The solution came naturally: to receive subsidies to cover all production costs and make domestic FV competitive in front of the imported ones.

Lack of proper knowledge about good practices in various production stages was often mentioned as an indirect cause for FV that leave the human consumption circuit. Many farmers commented on how this leads to improper pesticide treatment application, handling, or storage and highlighted various stages in the agricultural process where farmers’ and workers’ knowledge can be improved to reduce FV that leave the human consumption circuit. Another point was how best to store products and organize storage facilities to maintain a constant optimal storage environment. Not least, methods of monitoring FV that leave the human consumption circuit, identifying weak points, and reducing waste were mentioned. This is why one frequently mentioned solution to the reduction of FV that leave the human consumption circuit was to increase farmers’ and workers’ knowledge through training. Similarly, in Mexico, 70% of interviewed farmers stressed the importance of expert advice to prevent or treat diseases in the field to minimize FV waste, in a context where pests and weather conditions significantly impact crops, affecting 96% of agricultural producers (López-Sánchez et al., 2021). Training has been acknowledged as an effective means to reduce FV waste (Gruber et al., 2016), but relying solely on training has proven insufficient to mitigate it (de Moraes et al., 2022).

The participants also pointed out aesthetic standards as an indirect driver of unsold FV, which has been consistently identified as a source of FV waste in the scientific literature (Beausang et al., 2017; de Hooge et al., 2018; Magalhães et al., 2021). For example, the rejection of FV on visual appearance was found to be a major cause of FV wastage in Australia or China, along with extreme weather events and changing climatic conditions (Ghosh et al., 2016; Jun et al., 2022). German farmers also noted that standards for shape and colour are the main causes of food loos and waste (Voge et al., 2023). In Romania, farmers considered that unsold imperfect FV is a direct cause that determined FV to leave the human consumption circuit. By imperfect food, they understood FV that are smaller than those accepted by retailers, with spots, deviations in colour, or abnormal shape but suitable for human consumption and with intrinsic quality like the ‘normal’ ones. Farmers explained that the cause of the unsold imperfect FV is consumers’ demand for perfect-looking FV, driven by mass media and retailers’ promotion of perfect FV and consumers’ lack of knowledge about the natural process of growing FV (Table 6, line 2). Farmers suggested that consumer education is the key to changing their perception of imperfect FV and indirectly retailers’ acceptance of this category. Furthermore, as studies showed that consumers care about the food waste generated along the food supply chain (Petrescu et al., 2022), this concern can enhance the effect of measures aimed at stimulating them to reduce food waste, for example, by purchasing misshapen FV (Vermeir et al., 2023).

Although most direct and indirect causes are similar to those reported by other farmers in various geographic regions, some specific aspects identified within the participatory approach deserve attention. For instance, unlike in China, the participants did not mention the origin of FV as a cause of consumers’ rejection (Jun et al., 2022). Another important point is that while aspects that regard the associations between access to farmers’ markets, FV consumption, and health indicators (Pitts et al., 2013) or strategies to connect farmers with supermarkets (Moustier et al., 2010) are discussed in the literature in connection to other aspects, the lack of or reduced access of farmers’ to supermarkets as a driver of FV waste is not explored. One of the recurrent views of the CBCA workshops was the barriers to accessing large retail chains (e.g. quantity, cosmetic standards, strict delivery deadlines). Farmers generally gain advantages by supplying supermarkets. However, it is frequently challenging for small-scale farmers to access these lucrative supply chains (Andersson et al., 2015; Neven et al., 2009; Rao & Qaim, 2011). Numerous smallholders encounter a capital barrier that hinders their participation in supermarket channels. This barrier encompasses physical capital (such as irrigation and transportation), financial capital, human capital, as well as social and organizational capital (Neven et al., 2009; Rao & Qaim, 2011). Similarly, van der Heijden and Vink (2013) suggested that the supermarket model is unfriendly to small farmers. Romanian farmers considered that implementing a regulation that would require retailers to obtain around 50% of their FV from local farmers will help local farmers sell their FV and, thus, reduce FV that leave the human consumption circuit.

Summing-up, the farmers’ community of practice, within the framework of CBCA, contributed to identifying and suggesting solutions to FV waste (more precisely, FV that leave the human consumption circuit). Through collaborative learning, farmers emphasized the importance of targeting direct and indirect causes, recognizing the need for investments to address root problems. The proposed solutions included a regional collection and processing centre and training programmes to enhance knowledge. The community also highlighted challenges such as a lack of labour force and aesthetic standards, proposing consumer education, and regulatory measures. Ultimately, the farmers’ community of practice emerged as a dynamic platform for comprehensive problem-solving, offering multifaceted solutions to mitigate FV waste.

5.3. Practical implications

5.3.1. Towards harmonizing FV waste definition

In addition to addressing the geographical scope, our study significantly contributes to the international readership by shedding light on the crucial issue of harmonizing definitions and understanding of FV waste for policy development. The observed divergence in the definition of FV waste between farmers and official standards, as outlined in our study, presents a practical challenge for policy-makers globally. The discrepancy between stakeholders’ understandings, particularly regarding disposal methods, can hinder the development of effective policies to reduce FV waste. The inclusion of immature crops in the food definition by some of the interviewed farmers points to an opportunity for policy makers to adjust the concept of food to align with farmers’ perception and include halfway-to-harvest crops along with ready-to-harvest ones in the category of food and, consequently, food waste when they are wasted. Policy-makers must consider this perception gap to create regulations that align with farmers’ practices and encourage sustainable waste management strategies. Additionally, farmers’ difficulty in estimating FV waste signals the need to implement a (better) framework for reporting FV waste. For example, reporting can incorporate information about waste per production stage (harvest, manipulation, storage, packaging, etc.), allowing farmers to observe possible intervention points for FV waste reduction.

5.3.2. Towards customized educational and information initiatives

The study underscores the importance of customized educational initiatives to bridge the gap between farmers’ understanding of food waste and the existing definitions of this concept. The study’s findings emphasize the need to consider local viewpoints and situations while investigating FV waste. For example, the implications of including the concept of ‘resource efficiency’ in the definition of food waste should be explained to farmers. This concept considers the economic value for the producing company and the environmental impact of a particular use of food (such as feed, bio-based products, etc.; FUSION, 2016). Farmers’ definition of FV waste differs from the national definition, which has implications for measurement and strategies to minimize FV waste. For example, if a programme or project is meant to reduce FV waste by focusing on composting, it may not resonate with farmers who do not consider composting or plowing in to be waste. As a result, the programme may fail to address the root causes of FV waste. Therefore, understanding the local context and the viewpoints of various stakeholders is critical to establishing effective measures to reduce food waste. Programmes can be adjusted to better correspond to local practices and priorities by considering the cultural and social elements that influence perceptions of waste. This can eventually lead to more effective, long-term methods for decreasing FV waste.

Harvest to storage speed and packaging methods that lead to damage are another FV waste cause that can be reduced through knowledge and investments. Sponsored training offered by agricultural public bodies and facilitation of experience exchange between farmers from different regions or countries are practical ways of bringing the information closer to those who need it. Another concrete example extracted from farmers’ interviews is the need for greater knowledge about what treatment should be applied to each tree variety, when, how often, and how to alternate treatments. This is the key to improving the health and productivity of the orchard.

5.3.3. Towards consumer education and advertising campaigns

The emphasis placed by farmers on the role of consumers highlights the need for targeted education and advertising campaigns. Practical implications include developing campaigns that educate consumers about the consequences of discarding entire fruits and vegetables due to minor imperfections. Such initiatives should raise awareness about responsible consumption practices and encourage consumers to minimize waste using portions of edible product.

5.3.4. Towards revitalization of donation processes

Farmers expressed a willingness to donate their surplus of FV but face administrative complexities and challenges in finding timely receiving partners. Practical implications include establishing efficient networks or platforms connecting farmers with recipients. Simplifying administrative procedures and ensuring a fast and reliable system for surplus distribution could enhance the feasibility of donations, contributing to reduced food waste.

5.3.5. Towards collective solutions – Regional centres for collection and processing

The farmers’ community of practice underscored the importance of establishing regional centres for collecting, storing, distributing, and processing FV at fair prices. This solution, highly valued by the participants, allows small farmers to overcome individual challenges related to storage, processing equipment, and market access. Regional centres have the potential to enable farmers to combine resources and share facilities, thereby enhancing the economic viability of processing. Furthermore, developing such centres could effectively address the challenge individual farmers face in negotiating with large retailers due to their limited negotiation power. This practical implication fosters sustainable agricultural practices and economic viability at the local level. It also promotes international agricultural development by creating a model for collaborative resource sharing among small farmers, potentially serving as a blueprint for similar initiatives worldwide.

5.4. Limitations and future research directions

The study has some limitations that should be considered, derived from the nature of the research. In qualitative research, the collected data may not be quantifiable, making it challenging to compare the findings between different studies. Furthermore, although individual CDs have their own meanings and implications, they are, at the same time, part of the integral system, being tied to it, and solutions should acknowledge this. However, it is not realistic to expect to find solutions that address all causes simultaneously. Hence, it was necessary to discuss individual CDs to obtain a deeper understanding of the system and find adapted solutions.

Although the study offers insightful information on farmers’ perspectives on FV waste and potential intervention actions, much remains to be discovered in this area. More research is required, for example, to understand the motivations and barriers to implementing sustainable FV waste management practices at different levels, including individual, community, and institutional levels. Farmers’ perceptions can be supplemented by those of other FV supply chain members (e.g. food services) and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs, policy-makers, academia, and mass media) to expand the view of the FV waste system. Future research may investigate the use of technology, such as precision agriculture, to reduce FV waste. Although the primary focus of this paper was on applied insights derived from qualitative methods, future research could develop and test theoretical frameworks that underpin the dynamics of FV waste in agricultural settings. A more theoretical foundation may enhance the broader academic implications of the research while maintaining a practical perspective for stakeholders in the field of FV waste.

6. Conclusion

Any effort to reduce FV waste is of global relevance. Revealing the causes of FV waste and potential intervention areas enables decision-makers to develop efficient and long-lasting FV waste reduction strategies. These strategies can be customized and applied in various international contexts, using the lessons learned from specific contexts. Focusing on Romanian farmers, the paper aimed to contribute to developing a more inclusive and participatory approach to address FV waste that prioritizes local knowledge, farmers’ perspectives, and needs. Due to the multifaceted nature of the causes of FV waste, a strategy to reduce it must consider systemic factors that cause FV waste, such as the legislative-institutional context, business processes, infrastructure, communication, and education. The present study provides an illustration of farmers’ understanding of the causal system of FV waste and its connection to the solutions proposed by farmers. Thereby, it enhances the knowledge required for designing realistic and adaptive solutions to reduce FV waste and foster the sustainability of food systems.

Authors’ contribution

Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag, Dacinia Crina Petrescu: Conceptualization; Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag, Dacinia Crina Petrescu: Methodology; Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag, Dacinia Crina Petrescu, Oana Adriana Gica, Ancuta Tenter, Valentin Toader, Adina Letitia Negrusa, Nicoleta Brisan, Lucian Cuibus: Interviews/ workshops; Iulia Ajtai, Carmen Andreea Roba: Transcripts; Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag, Dacinia Crina Petrescu: Analysis; Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag, Dacinia Crina Petrescu: Writing first draft; Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag, Dacinia Crina Petrescu: Review and editing; Dacinia Crina Petrescu: Funding.

Informed consent

Participants to interviews and workshops gave their informed consent to participate.

The present research adhered to the COREQ guidelines.

Approval was obtained from the Ethics committee of Babes-Bolyai University; Research ethics approval number: 11.425/08.09.2022.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to express their gratitude to all the participants to the interviews and workshops for sharing their experiences and time. The APC for this article was paid using AGC grants from Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported by a grant of the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitization, CNCS – UEFISCDI, Romania, project number PN-III-P4-PCE-2021-0538, within PNCDI III.