Ending Food Waste Behavior: Economic and Environmental Implications on Eliciting Motivation
Gabriella Parrella, Fairleigh Dickinson University
Abstract: The issue of food waste causes concern for economic and environmental sustainability. It is important to understand why and how food waste occurs in order to manage and prevent it. Food is wasted due to a number of reasons including overprovisioning and poor shopping habits, issues with leftovers and determining edibility, and a lack of knowledge, skills, and awareness. Options to prevent food waste, including using technology and planning habits, are suggested for each of the respective categories. The aim of the current study is to investigate whether an economic or environmental approach is more effective in eliciting motivation to reduce food waste behavior in university students. A total of 66 university students were surveyed about their motivation to end their food waste behavior before and after viewing a randomly assigned infographic, either containing the environmental or economic implications of food waste. The hypothesis that students will be more invested and willing to take action after viewing the economic implications of food waste, rather than the environmental implications, was rejected. Both infographics elicited a significant increase in level of motivation to change the participants’ behavior in ending food waste, with no significant difference between the levels of motivation between the economic and environmental implication groups. Results suggest the importance of education and awareness to reduce unsustainable habits. Future research is required to examine if the participants’ feelings of motivation are short-term or long-term by tracking their food waste behavior over an extended period of time.
Keywords: food waste, economic implications, environmental implications, food waste behavior, food waste prevention, sustainability
Introduction
The topic of food waste is one of utmost importance in the world due to its threat to sustainability. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, food waste is defined as “the removal of food which is fit for human consumption from the supply chain, or removal of food which has been spoiled or expired due to economic behavior, poor stock management or neglect” (Kibler et al., 2018, p. 53). The issue of food waste is pertinent as about half of all food grown is lost or wasted before the average individual can consume it (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). This significant amount of wasted food poses large economic and environmental implications.
In terms of economic cost, global food wastage was estimated at 750 billion U.S. dollars in 2007 (Kibler et al., 2018). Nationally, American food waste translates to over 130 pounds of food, valued at over 160 billion U.S. dollars (Kibler et al., 2018). At an even smaller scale, the average value of food wasted is estimated to cost U.S. households about 936 U.S. dollars per year on food purchased, but not eaten (Stancu et al., 2016). Food losses have a direct and negative impact on farmer and consumer income. For those living on the margins of food insecurity, improving the efficiency in the food supply chain has strong potential to bring down the cost of food to the consumer and thus increase access (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014).
Environmentally, food waste poses an equally large issue. First, the negative environmental impacts of food production are abundant, including soil erosion, deforestation, and water and air pollution. Also, an estimated 2% of energy consumed in the United States is dedicated to the production of wasted food; therefore, wasting food includes wasting energy (Schanes et al., 2018). An even larger threat to the environment is what happens after food production. Food waste is often disposed in landfills, producing methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) as it decomposes. The two gases, key contributors to climate change, created from food waste accounts for approximately 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). If food waste were to be prevented, climate change could be slowed, decreasing the stress on the environment; when less food is wasted, more food is available without the need for increased agricultural production and need to manage food waste (Kibler et al., 2018). For example, up to 18.8 billion tons of CO2 could be prevented from being released in the atmosphere if 50 percent to 75 percent of food waste is reduced by 2050 (Aydin & Yildirim, 2020).
Literature Review
Key Distinctions
An article by Papargyropoulou et al. (2014) draws on multiple interviews with food waste specialists to draw key distinctions on the topic of food waste. First is the difference between waste prevention and waste management. Food waste prevention eliminates waste generation, while management deals with the waste once it has been generated. This is significant as waste prevention eliminates all economic and environmental implications that occur within the food waste hierarchy. Waste management, however, is dealing with the implications and trying to minimize its harm.
Another key distinction is made by Schanes et al. (2018) in a systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. The difference between intention versus action is highlighted, explaining that intentions and motivations do not always indicate less food being wasted; there is a weak relationship between the intention to reduce food waste and actually acting on it, demonstrating the term, ‘the attitude-behavior gap.’ For example, if an individual holds a positive environmental belief, it does not mean that they will perform a positive environmental action. The reason for this gap is unknown, which raises the question of why individuals do not follow through with their beliefs. In a survey conducted by Stancu et al. (2016) focusing on consumer behavior, it was found that injunctive norms, or what people should do, was a stronger predictor of intention over moral norms, or what they privately think they should do. This demonstrates that people act based upon what other people see as acceptable, rather than acting on their personal view of what is acceptable. This can be both harmful and beneficial as people are swayed by societal expectations; if societal expectations are set highly to promote positive environmental behaviors, people will act positively. However, the opposite can occur when society promotes negative and careless environmental behaviors.
Overprovisioning and Shopping Habits
In order to prevent food waste, it is crucial to examine why it occurs. Previous studies have analyzed the possible explanations as to why individuals contribute to food waste. A focus in current literature is the overprovisioning of food, which is one of the largest contributors to food waste (Schanes et al., 2018). Further, Schanes et al. (2018) writes that when individuals hold a ‘good provider identity’ they buy and serve an abundance of food to try to uphold the status of a good host, parent, or partner. Differences of taste can also lead to food waste, as household members buy more food to suit everyone’s preferences. Further, a ‘compensation effect’ occurs when people buy excess healthy foods to mitigate the guilt of eating unhealthy foods. However, the healthy foods that are bought often get thrown out and wasted due to the perishability of fruits and vegetables. As per distributors, promotional deals also contribute to the over purchasing of food. For example, a ‘Buy One, Get One Free’ deal encourages individuals to buy more than what is needed, leading to wasted food as households cannot eat it all before it expires. Another issue created by distributors is package size which accounts for up to 20 – 25% of food waste (Schanes et al., 2018). Consumers report that package sizes are too large and not suitable for people who live alone or as couples. Smaller packages are more expensive, motivating people to buy the larger portions and deal with the waste.
Planned shopping routines can help counter waste in shopping. For example, planning meals in advance and checking inventory before shopping allows individuals to only buy what they need and not rebuy what they already have (Stancu et al., 2016). Specifically, the use of shopping lists decreases the amount of food wasted per person by about 20% (Schanes et al., 2018). Furthermore, the use of technology such as apps to help track, manage, and plan groceries can help individuals lessen food waste.
Leftovers and Edibility
While reusing leftovers is considered one of the most effective strategies in eradicating food waste, leftovers are not often eaten due to their negative connotation. For instance, eating leftovers is seen as a sacrifice, and serving leftovers to children is accompanied with guilt for not properly caring for them (Schanes et al., 2018). Also, individuals get tired of eating the same food repeatedly, therefore, avoiding leftovers. Even when leftovers are stored for later, they are usually misplaced, forgotten, or stored for too long and thus expire. Further research has been done in procrastination, finding that people feel less guilty throwing out food that has expired than throwing out edible food, explaining why people postpone throwing out leftovers (Schanes et al., 2018). Specific prevention methods to decrease the likelihood of leftover food expiring include systematically storing, stacking, and freezing food to extend its shelf life (Schanes et al., 2018).
Another key contributor to food waste is the difficulty of assessing edibility as described by Schanes et al. (2018). Out of concern for foodborne illnesses, many individuals throw potentially edible food away. Another reason for food waste is the confusion about date labels; many individuals interpret all labels as a ‘use by date’ to determine expiration. However, there are other labels such as ‘sell by date’ that do not indicate expiration, but rather when the distributor should have sold it by. In terms of prevention, it has been found that people who use more nuanced assessments of edibility waste less food; for example, using one’s own senses, such as smelling or tasting, is a more effective strategy to determine edibility than date labels.
Knowledge, Skills, Awareness, and Motivation
Consumer knowledge and awareness are key factors in understanding food waste behavior. In an article written by Aydin and Yildirim (2020), food literacy, a term describing one’s knowledge of how to use food to best meet their needs, is discussed. While it was initially hypothesized that there would be a negative relationship between knowledge about food conservation and food waste behavior, the results of the survey found this hypothesis to be unsupported. However, there was a significant relationship between shopping habits and food waste behavior, demonstrating that knowledge has an indirect effect on food waste behavior. In other words, those who are more knowledgeable about food conservation shop more cautiously and are not tempted by promos and bulk deals.
Household skills play a critical role in food waste behavior; those with adequate household skills were significantly associated with better leftover reuse and shopping and planning routines (Stancu et al., 2016). For example, a prevention strategy called ‘food waste cooking,’ or cooking what is found in the fridge, is only possible with proper knowledge and cooking skills to effectively and creatively utilize food (Schanes et al., 2018). Campaigns, advice in booklets and websites, and cooking courses should be available within communities in order to improve people’s household skills (Stancu et al., 2016).
Additionally, a greater understanding of food production can lessen food waste. It has been found that exclusively shopping in large supermarkets lead to the highest amount of food waste; however, shopping in small shops and local markets decrease potential food waste, and food waste is lowest when individuals grow their own food (Schanes et al., 2018). For example, a qualitative study in Austria found that self-grown and harvested food was less likely to be thrown away as people were more aware of the time and effort that went into producing it (Schanes et al., 2018).
When raising awareness of food waste, it been shown that personal concerns, like saving money, create a stronger motivation to reduce food waste than environmental and social concerns (Schanes et al., 2018). In a study by Watson and Meah (2012), consumers failed to make connections between food waste and environmental concerns, and individual’s aversion to waste food were only promoted by household economic concerns. A possible explanation for this finding could be from one’s lack of knowledge about the link between food waste and environmental impact (Schanes et al., 2018). Stancu et al. (2016) also notes that households with larger incomes are found to waste more food since they can afford it.
Management Options
While focusing on disposal practices undermines knowledge for prevention, not all food waste can be prevented; therefore, management options should be implemented (Schanes et al., 2018). An article written by Kibler et al. (2018) focuses on management options including landfilling, anerobic digestion, thermal conversion, and home composting. Just as energy and water is used to produce food, the management of wasted food uses energy and water as well. Possibly the least beneficial option of food waste management is landfilling. In landfilling, energy is consumed in the collection and transportation of waste. Further, when the waste decomposes, gases (NH3, CO2, CH4) and liquid emissions (leachate) are released into the environment. Anaerobic digestion, although similar to landfilling in its organic degradation, allows for methane and carbon dioxide to be collected and utilized for a variety of energy needs. Energy in this process is used in operations and temperature control. Another management option, thermal conversion, includes incinerating food waste into ash that can be used as feedstock for agricultural production or building materials. However, thermal conversion is energy intensive, as water and energy are needed for ash quenching and cooling. A strong contender in management options is home composting which involves the degradation of organic wastes at a smaller level. Composting can be used as a soil amendment, reducing irrigation requirements, and produces far less greenhouse gases than landfilling. However, composting requires the addition of moisture during the process, where water use is a considerable factor in its efficiency.
Research Question and Hypothesis
Previous research has discovered the environmental and economic benefits of food waste prevention (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). However, research has not examined if an environmental perspective or an economic perspective of the implications of food waste is more effective in changing individuals’ food waste behavior. Therefore, the following research question is addressed: Which implication, economic or environmental, will bring more motivation to university students and lead to greater food waste prevention?
Since students do not have the financial freedom that most adults do, due to college loans and lack of full-time jobs, it is expected that their motivation regarding ending food waste behavior will be financially motivated. Thus, it is hypothesized that students will be more motivated to take action after viewing the economic implications of food waste, rather than the environmental implications of food waste.
Method
Participants and Design
There was a total of 66 randomly selected college student participants who completed the survey. These participants were part of a convenience sample in which Professors assigned the survey as class credit. Participants were randomly selected to be placed into one of two groups, either receiving an economic implication infographic or an environmental implication infographic, therefore making the study experimental. A cross-sectional design was used to require participants to complete the study in a single point of time. Pretest-Posttest design characteristics were used to measure participants’ attitudes before and after viewing their assigned infographic.
Manipulated Variable
Implications (Environmental or Economical). Participants were randomly assigned to view one of two infographics about the implications of food waste — either economic or environmental. The infographics were made using the online design software Canva. The format, font, and colors used on both infographics were the same to ensure consistency. On both infographics, data was used to demonstrate the impact food waste had on the respective topic. The data displayed simplified the implications as described in the Introduction section above. The infographics specifically included previous research from Aydin & Yildirim (2020), Kibler et al. (2018), Papargyropoulou et al. (2014), and Stancu et al. (2016). The goal of this manipulation procedure was to allow participants to learn about one kind of implication to possibly influence their motivation to end food waste. The two implications were then compared through participants’ responses to examine which had a stronger effect on motivation. See Appendix A for full infographics.
Measured Variables
Motivation. Motivation was initially measured by asking the participants “How motivated are you to implement change to reduce food waste?” using a five-point Likert scale ranging from highly motivated to highly unmotivated. After viewing one of the two infographics, participants were asked to rate their level of emotions (shock, upset, anger, concern, disappointment) on a three-point Likert scale ranging from none to very. The final two questions measuring motivation were “Do you believe contributing to food waste is morally wrong, considering the information on the infographic?” and “After viewing the infographic, how motivated are you to implement change to reduce food waste?” Both questions were based on a five-point Likert scale from definitely yes to definitely no and highly motivated to highly unmotivated, respectively.
Demographics. Participants answered questions to identify their gender, age, race/ethnicity, employment status, and annual income. Participants’ gender and race are presented in Table 1 and their age and average household annual income are presented in Table 2. See Appendix B.
Procedure
Participants completed the online survey through the software Qualtrics via mobile phone or desktop. Prior to completing the survey, participants read a disclosure statement consenting to the study. All participants were first asked if they had ever heard of the term “food waste.” Then, participants were asked if they knew what food waste was, responding with yes or no. After, the definition of food waste by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization was provided, ensuring the participants had a clear understanding to effectively answer the following survey questions. Additionally, questions were asked to determine participants’ personal knowledge of food waste and their baseline motivation to prevent waste. Participants then randomly viewed the treatment, one of the two infographics, to understand the implications of food waste, either economically or environmentally. Following each infographic, participants were required to answer an additional set of questions. To confirm whether participants were actively viewing the infographic, they were asked to identify if they viewed an environmental infographic or economic infographic. Then, following questions were used to assess how motivated participants were to act to reduce their food waste, what actions they would take to do so, and how important and likely they were to share the information provided. Finally, demographic questions were asked including age, gender, financial dependency, and race. See Appendix C for the full questionnaire.
Results
To test the hypothesis, three t-tests were conducted to evaluate motivation. First, a paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the average level of participants’ motivation to reduce food waste behavior before and after viewing an economic infographic of the implications of food waste. As shown in Figure 1, there was a significant increase in the level of motivation after viewing the economic infographic (M = 3.55; SD = 0.510), than before viewing it (M = 3.15; SD = 0.671); t(19) = -2.179, p = 0.042.
A second paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the average level of participants’ motivation to reduce food waste behavior before and after viewing an environmental infographic of the implications of food waste. Figure 2 demonstrates the significant increase in the level of motivation after viewing the environmental infographic (M = 3.576; SD = 0.502) than before viewing it (M = 3.091; SD = 0.805); t(32) = -3.076, p = 0.004.
Finally, an unpaired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the change in average level of participants’ motivation to reduce food waste behavior after viewing an economic infographic or an environmental infographic displaying the implications of food waste. Figure 3 illustrates that there was no significant change in level of motivation by the economic infographic (M = 0.4; SD = 0.821) than by the environmental infographic (M = 0.485; SD = 0.906); t(51) = -0.342, p = 0.734.
Discussion
There was a significant increase in the mean level of participants’ motivation who viewed the economic infographic as well as a significant increase in the mean level of motivation in participants who viewed the environmental infographic. In other words, once participants viewed either the economic infographic or the environmental infographic, they indicated an increased motivation to decrease their food waste behavior. The hypothesis of economic implications being more effective in eliciting motivation to end food waste behavior was rejected; both implications were equally as effective.
There was no significant difference between the change in mean level of motivation between the environmental and economic infographic groups, suggesting that economic and environmental implications are equally effective in motivating change in food waste behavior. This finding aligns with previous studies sighting the importance of both environmental and economic implications about food waste. For example, Papargyropoulou et al. (2014) writes that methane and carbon dioxide are produced in food waste decomposition, posing a threat to the environment. Likewise, Papargyropoulou et al. (2014) cites that 750 billion U.S. dollars was wasted on global food waste in 2007, acknowledging the economic threat of food waste.
Research by Kibler et al. (2018) has thoroughly examined food waste management alternatives such as composting and thermal conversion in terms of environmental and economic efficiency, but fails to examine which management methods individuals are more likely to use. Future research should focus on which food waste management methods individuals are more likely to implement into their daily lives based on factors such as accessibility and level of ease. Based on results, awareness and education can be provided to the public on food waste management methods. It is highly likely that environmental and economic implications of food waste will be a factor in food waste management methods, as the current study provided evidence for increased motivation when learning about food waste’s effect on the environment and economy.
While it is not possible to enforce prevention and management of personal food waste in individuals’ homes, it is still important that individuals are educated on preventive food waste measures to make their own decision. It is likely that individuals do not know the environmental and economic implications of food waste, and therefore, do not feel motivated to change their food waste behaviors. As demonstrated in the current study, individuals are more motivated to change their food waste behaviors once they view either environmental or economic implications. In other words, individuals are motivated to change their behaviors once they are educated. An easy way to provide food waste education to a large group of people is through the school system. Governmental education policies should include mandatory units on food waste and sustainability to inform the younger generation.
A focus should be placed on educating the younger generation, as previous research conducted by Aydin and Yildirim (2020) found that older adult individuals throw away less food than younger individuals. However, there has been no research conducted to analyze age as a factor in motivation. Future research should examine how different age groups are more or less motivated to prevent food waste. For an effective societal change in food waste behavior, all generations must be considered.
Additionally, policies should be implemented to prohibit supermarkets from throwing out edible food. Instead, the food should be sold to other companies; for example, the company Misfits Market sells edible but visibly imperfect fruits and vegetables to consumers. The government can also subsidize imperfect fruits and vegetables to help farmers sell more produce rather than disposing them.
One limitation of the current study includes a small sample size. As the study took place during COVID-19, universities were forced to shift to virtual learning, therefore, making it more difficult for individuals to participate in the study. A larger sample size would allow for more accurate results. Another limitation of the current study is the lack of generalizability. The university in which this study took place is a progressive and liberal university that emphasizes social justice issues. Therefore, results may not be replicated in other universities where demographics and progressive ideals are not similar. Thus, this study should be replicated among a variety of universities once in-person learning resumes.
The next step in research is to conduct a longitudinal study to measure if participants’ motivation is short-term or long-term. The current study focuses on immediate changes in motivation to decrease food waste behavior; however, it is plausible that this motivation does not translate into individuals making an active long-term change. The results of this study gave insight into the effectiveness of educating individuals on economic and environmental implications to motivate change in food waste behavior. To examine if individuals actively reduce food waste behavior when educated, a longitudinal study is needed track participants’ long-term food waste behavior.
References
Aydin, A. E., & Yildirim, P. (2020). Understanding food waste behavior: The role of morals, habits and knowledge. Journal of Cleaner Production, 280, 124250.
Kibler, K. M., Reinhart, D., Hawkins, C., Motlagh, A. M., & Wright, J. (2018). Food waste and the food-energy-water nexus: a review of food waste management alternatives. Waste management, 74, 52-62.
Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J. K., Wright, N., & bin Ujang, Z. (2014). The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. Journal of cleaner production, 76, 106-115.
Schanes, K., Dobernig, K., & Gözet, B. (2018). Food waste matters-A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 978-991.
Stancu, V., Haugaard, P., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2016). Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste. Appetite, 96, 7-17.
Watson, M., & Meah, A. (2012). Food, waste and safety: Negotiating conflicting social anxieties into the practices of domestic provisioning. The Sociological Review, 60, 102–120.
Food Waste Survey
Have you ever heard of the term “food waste” before?
· Yes
· No
Do you know what food waste is?
· Yes
· No
PLEASE READ: The United Nation's Food and Agricultural Organization describes food waste as: “Removal of food which is fit for human consumption from the supply chain, or removal of food which has been spoiled or expired due to economic behavior, poor stock management or neglect.”
I am conscious of my actions relating to food waste.
· Strongly Agree
· Somewhat Agree
· Neither Agree nor Disagree
· Somewhat Disagree
· Strongly Disagree
I am aware of the leftover food on my plate after eating meals.
· Strongly Agree
· Somewhat Agree
· Neither Agree nor Disagree
· Somewhat Disagree
· Strongly Disagree
Thinking over the past week, what kinds of food often end up in your garbage?
· Meal leftovers from home
· Meal leftovers from restaurants
· Fresh produce
· Meat
· Dairy products
· Non-perishable items
· Other (Please Specify) ________________________________________________
· I don't throw out food
Skip to Q8 if “I don’t throw out food” is selected.
Why do these foods end up in your garbage?
· It became spoiled or stale
· I didn't want to eat it, even though it was safe to eat
· Others in the household didn't want to eat it, even though it was safe to eat
· It was more food than I wanted to eat
· I or others in the household were cleaning out the refrigerator or pantry, even though it was safe to eat
· Other (Please Specify) ________________________________________________
What is your top concern about food waste?
· Economic concerns
· Environmental concerns
· Social concerns
· Other (Please Specify) __________________
I tell my friends and family about the implications of food waste.
· Strongly Agree
· Somewhat Agree
· Neither Agree nor Disagree
· Somewhat Disagree
· Strongly Disagree
How motivated are you to implement change to reduce food waste?
· Highly Motivated
· Slightly Motivated
· Neutral
· Slightly Unmotivated
· Highly Unmotivated
While doing the following activities, how often do you think of food waste?
PLEASE READ THE INFOGRAHIC ON THE NEXT SLIDE. Take your time as you read through the information, as your next set of questions will be based on what you see and read. (participants randomly viewed economic or environmental implications infographic)
What implications of food waste did you learn about from the previous infographic?
· Environmental
· Economic
Rate your level of emotions after viewing the infographic
Do you believe contributing to food waste is morally wrong, considering the information on the infographic?
· Definitely yes
· Probably yes
· Might or might not
· Probably not
· Definitely not
After viewing the infographic, how motivated are you to implement change to reduce food waste?
· Highly Motivated
· Slightly Motivated
· Neutral
· Slightly Unmotivated
· Highly Unmotivated
The information on the infographic is important to know.
· Strongly Agree
· Somewhat Agree
· Neither Agree nor Disagree
· Somewhat Disagree
· Strongly Disagree
· What is your top concern about food waste?
· Economic concerns
· Environmental concerns
· Social concerns
· Other (Please Specify) ________________________________________________
Which of the following behaviors are you willing to implement in your daily life to reduce food waste?
· I would not make any changes
· Reusing leftovers
· Systematically freeze and stack food
· Making a grocery list before food shopping
· Meal plan
· Use own senses to determine edibility
· Take cooking courses
· Compost
· Other (Please Specify) ________________________________________________
I will be more conscience of my actions relating to food waste.
· Strongly Agree
· Somewhat Agree
· Neither Agree nor Disagree
· Somewhat Disagree
· Strongly Disagree
I will tell my friends and family about the implications of food waste.
· Strongly Agree
· Somewhat Agree
· Neither Agree nor Disagree
· Somewhat Disagree
· Strongly Disagree
After viewing the infographic how likely are you to think about food waste in the future?
· Highly Likely
· Likely
· Not Likely nor Not Unlikely
· Unlikely
· Highly Unlikely
What is your gender?
· Male
· Female
· Other (Please Specify) _________
What is your age in years (e.g., If you are 30 years and 7 months old, you would put "30")?_________________________________________________
What is your PERSONAL annual income?
· $0 - 10,000
· $10,001 - 20,000
· $20,001 - 30,000
· $30,001 - 40,000
· $40,001 - 50,000
· $50,001 - 60,000
· $60,001 - 70,000
· $70,001- 80,000
· $80,001- 90,000
· $90,001- 100,000
· $100,001 or more
What is your household annual income?
· $0 - 10,000
· $10,001 - 20,000
· $20,001 - 30,000
· $30,001 - 40,000
· $40,001 - 50,000
· $50,001 - 60,000
· $60,001 - 70,000
· $70,001- 80,000
· $80,001- 90,000
· $90,001- 100,000
· $100,001 or more
What is your employment status?
· Unemployed / Full-time student
· Employed 20 hours or less per week
· Employed 21-30 hours per week
· Employed 31-40 hours per week
· Employed 41+ hours per week
Please indicate the racial-ethnic group that best describes you.
· American Indian or Alaska Native
· Asian or Pacific Islander
· Black, not of Hispanic origin
· Hispanic or Latino(a)
· White, not of Hispanic origin
· Multi-Racial
· Another ethnicity not listed above (please specify) _____________________
If “Hispanic or Latino(a)” is selected, display Q29.
You indicated your racial-ethnic group as "Hispanic or Latino(a)." Can you please specify your racial-ethnic sub-group (e.g., Puerto Rican, Mexican)?
· Spanish
· Mexican
· Puerto Rican
· Cuban
· Salvadorian
· Dominican
· Guatemalan
· Colombian
· Honduran
· Ecuadorian
· Peruvian
· Another sub-group not listen above