Food practices of environmentally conscientious New Zealanders

Environmental Sociology ISSN: (Print) 2325-1042 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rens20 Food practices of environmentally conscientious New Zealanders Corrina A. Tucker To cite this article: Corrina A. Tucker (2018): Food practices of environmentally conscientious New Zealanders, Environmental Sociology, DOI: 10.1080/23251042.2018.1495038 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2018.1495038 Published online: 09 Jul 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 37 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rens20 ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2018.1495038 ARTICLE Food practices of environmentally conscientious New Zealanders Corrina A. Tucker School of People, Environment and Planning Private Bag, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Practice theory as applied to consumer behaviours is an area of enquiry presently gaining momentum. In this article, I draw on practice theory as a way to understand change as it relates to environmentally conscientious (EC) food consumption. The main question asked here is: how does concern about food consumption develop and translate into practice, and what forms does this take? Also, the relationship of these practices to wider social structures is explored as a means to theorise in what ways more environmentally sustainably food practices might be more readily enabled. I turn to the experiences and practices of 51 selfidentified EC individuals, as relayed across a series of ‘go-along’ interviews. This research shows that early socialisation that incorporates a frugality ethic and food self-provisioning is most likely to habitualise EC food practice later in life, where food self-provisioning is key. It is the material infrastructural challenges that mostly thwart efforts at EC food practice: the Western global food regime is not pro-environmental, and resource limitations on a microlevel, for example with access to land for self-provisioning. Received 12 November 2017 Accepted 27 June 2018 Introduction Food is conceivably the most critical element in humanity’s contribution to environmental problems faced across the globe. Agriculture is a leading contributor of methane and nitrous oxide greenhouse gases (GHGs), while carbon dioxide emissions are associated with food production due to a range of processes from transportation to storage (CarlssonKanyama and González 2009). A report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (Foster et al. 2007) described the environmental impacts of food from production through consumption, highlighting the significant impacts of food refrigeration and transportation. An important aspect of this is food and food-related waste, particularly with the high levels of plastics used in food retail along with food waste ending up in landfill (Marsh and Bugusu 2007). Food waste contributes around 8–10% of global GHG emissions (Mavropoulus n.d.). Organic (green and food) waste constitutes the largest proportion of waste to landfill in New Zealand (Mfe 2009), while globally about one-third of food produced for human consumption is wasted or lost (FAO 2017). Food waste ‘equates to mass recklessness in terms of wasted resources’, including water, land and energy (Tucker and Farrelly 2016, 684). The resources required to produce certain foods varies widely. Most problematic from an environmental perspective are those that are most resource intensive: meats and dairy. Beef is particularly noteworthy CONTACT Corrina A. Tucker [email protected] © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group KEYWORDS Practice theory; food; environment; consumption; sociology as a very inefficient way to generate calories and nutrients, and beef production is expected to continue growing as demand continues to rise (Searchinger et al. 2013). Multiple paths can be taken toward increasing food security while minimising environmental harm. One path is looking to the individual as consumer with a view to behavioural change; however, such change is not easily achieved. In this research I seek to understand how environmentally conscientious (EC) food practices have become preeminent over more commonly understood practices in the lives of those already engaged in environmentally benign activity. A practice approach as used here looks at the reproduction of performances, how these come into being and are challenged, in order to ascertain how a greener food regime can become widespread. Practice theory Practice theory can usefully bring together what at other times have been falsely dichotomised ways of understanding the role of the consumer (Schatzki 2001). As Halkier (2009) describes, these two strands are the political consumer or consumer citizen perspective whereby agency is given primacy, and the other is a governmentality approach, which emphasises structural elements that shape or condition agency. Given that practice theory emphasises the routine and performance of action, our reliance on inferred knowledge and understandings, as well as 2 C. A. TUCKER the material nature of action and the significance of culture, it incorporates the multifarious components which shape our ‘practices’ in day-to-day life. Practice theories have their earlier roots in the work of Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens primarily (Spaargaren 2011). More recently, writers such as Warde, Halkier and Shove have taken an interest in practice theory in relation to consumption, and in its practical implementation, while incorporating posthumanist concerns. It is the work and understandings of these latter writers that I draw upon to frame this work. Warde (2005) notes that practices vary from simple to more complex, and are internally distinctive in terms of the quality and degree of commitment given over to a practice. Understanding how practices emerge and become a habit provides a way to then understand how they may change or be influenced to change in future. This is one of several propositions that posthumanist contributions have had to offer practice theory. Posthumanism firstly contributes to practice theory and to a clear distinction between social practices as entities – ‘the interrelated elements, or nexus, of a practice, as a recognisable “doing” that is relatively stable’ – and as performances – ‘the carrying out or performing of a practice, which ensures its continual reproduction’ – even though these aspects are bound together (Maller 2012, 3). It is given this continued reproduction that it becomes possible, secondly, to see trajectories and hence to theorise changes: ‘. . .practices can be said to have “trajectories” which are made up of minor modifications in past performances and the particular combination of elements at any one point in time’ (Warde 2005; as cited in Grootenboor, Edward-Groves, and Choy 2017, 5). A third point concerns objectivism and materiality, and calls into being the role of both human and non-human actors (which can include technologies and infrastructure) in codetermining one another; this is in essence an acknowledgement of the role of non-humans in constituting human sociality (Maller 2012; Schatzki 2001). And fourth is the prioritising of practices over individuals, to the extent that practices are argued to ‘displace mind as the central phenomenon in human life’, which in turn renders knowledge and truth as something that is mediated between individuals and world systems (Schatzki 2001, 21). These posthumanist contributions together are amenable to an applied practice theory; such applications can be found in a range of work oriented toward better understanding and improving matters related to consumption. Practice theory and consumption Theories of practice have been brought into the exploration of consumption by a number of theorists given the insight possibilities that practice theory can provide (Røpke 2009; Warde 2014). Spaargaren (2011, 821) argues that ‘housing, food and mobility are the key units of analysis for consumption policies everywhere in the world-system’, and takes the view that practice as the analysis unit is a fruitful way to pursue such enquiry. Consumption is closely bound to everyday social life and self-identity: what we wear, how we travel, what we entertain ourselves with, what we eat and so on. It is far more than simply buying something: Bauman (2007), for example, described it as being that which organises our lives in contemporary, Western countries. More recently, Warde (2014, 297) has suggested that ‘a start has been made in exploiting the idea that consumption is primarily a process of appropriation for multifarious and often mundane use’; in short, multiple, overlapping discourses as to the role of consumption in modern society, and in particular with consideration of environmental harm, are offered. I take the view of ‘consumers as practitioners’ (Røpke 2009, 2496), who, through ‘the performance of various practices, draw on resources’ (Røpke 2009, 2490). Røpke (2009, 2496) explains that practice theory will implicitly be at odds with any singular, causal explanation given for why it is that individuals are willing to endlessly consume, given that ‘different practices involve a wide variety of meanings and considerations’, and as such, ‘consumption must likewise be motivated by a broad array of considerations’. The term ‘consumption’ itself displays what Warde (2005) describes as a ‘chronic ambivalence between two contrasting senses, of purchase and of using-up’. Warde (2005, 137) goes on to define consumption as: a process whereby agents engage in appropriation and appreciation, whether for utilitarian, expressive or contemplative purposes, of goods, services, performances, information or ambience, whether purchased or not, over which the agent has some degree of discretion. This definition fully captures the meaning of consumption and sees consumption as ‘a moment in almost every practice’ (Warde 2005, 137). Research drawing on practice theory as a way to investigate consumption is growing in prominence and scope, including where food is concerned. Practice theory and environmentally sustainable food consumption Halkier (2009) drew on three empirical based research examples of Danes in order to better understand how food consumption might be oriented toward being more environmentally sustainable. He notes that recognition needs to be given in analysis to how environmentally friendly food consumption is a practice itself, but can also be part of wider food practices. This point is indicative of how there are different types of food practice, both alongside environmental ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY food consumption and also as that which constitutes environmental food consumption. Similar research objectives to Halkier’s (2009) are found in the work of Sahakian and Wilhite (2014) who through three case studies on food consumption sought to better understand how practices occur and how they might be influenced toward more sustainable forms. Paddock’s (2015) work on food practices sought to comprehend the dynamics involved toward investigating how policy might be used to assist with encouraging more sustainable diets. In short, a range of opportunities exist for pursuing a practice theory approach to food consumption. In this instance, it is the various food practices of the EC that are examined. As it stands, the EC food consumer – or ‘green consumer’ – has not been investigated with any frequency in terms of how they practice this, nor of how this has developed. Unsurprisingly, having environmental values is a strong precursor for EC food consumption as is familiarity or knowledge of what constitutes EC consumption (Zhu et al. 2013; Suki and Suki 2015; Sachdeva, Jordan, and Mazar 2015; Stigzelius 2017). A perception that this form of consumption is also healthier, is more natural and feels better has also been expressed, particularly with reference to organic food as part of EC consumption (Lockie et al. 2004; Smith and Paladino 2010; Lidew, Jusoh, and Sulaiman 2015). Most closely aligned to the interests of this article is Stigzelius’s (2017) work, whereby she finds that green consumers along with a multitude of sociomaterial entities are constantly rearranging practices in order to achieve their desired consumption ends, and in doing so, work to concern others about these same matters that they themselves are concerned with. Her work however is placed in the ‘here and now’, whereas this article also looks to understand how such concerns have developed and subsequently translated it to practice. Methodology The best way to ‘practicalise’ practice theory has been the subject of much discussion. Halkier, Katz-Gerro, and Martens (2011) note that a variety of data collection methods have been used, while Shove (2017) argues that there is no particular practice theory method or methodology. Shove instead argues that the method is dependent on what we want to find out. This pragmatist approach is taken here with the use of in-depth, active, ‘go-along’ interviews as the research method to probe questions around environmentally sound food practices. The ‘go-along’ aspect means being able to see and to an extent experience the material and lived aspects of the practices undertaken by research participants (Garcia et al. 2012). 3 In order to explore the research objectives, three different areas are looked at: (1) life story narratives around food (how history informs current practices); (2) food-related habits and routines (what is practiced); and (3) challenges to food habits and routines (interruptions and blockages in the routinisation of habits, and in habits becoming characteristic) (Sahakian and Wilhite 2014). Life story narratives around food historically locate current practices, allowing possible indicators for future change to be identified. Habits and routines reveal what food-related practices and ‘versions’ of EC food practice are currently undertaken. Practice challenges can help with understanding those factors that get in the way of routinisation or habit formation. As Sahakian and Wilhite (2014) note, better understanding ways that habits might be directed toward being more environmentally friendly is a critical issue in sustainable consumption research. Data This article draws on interview material taken from 47 semi-structured interviews, which included 51 individuals (four interviews were with couples), for which peer-reviewed, low-risk ethics approval was granted. Forty-five of the interviews took place face to face, and 42 were at peoples’ homes, enabling people to show as well as tell me about what they practised.1 Participants were found through earlier research that looked at how self-identified EC individuals enact their environmentalism, through an online survey. As well as asking a series of questions about their environmental and political views, values and practices, respondents were invited to put their name forward if they were interested in possible future research. I then made a shortlist from those individuals according to who ranked more highly in self-described environmental practices (this was from a series of 12 practices, which included things like ‘recycling and minimising waste’; and ‘minimising flying for leisure purposes’, whereby by respondents indicated where they were positioned on a five-point Likert scale from ‘always’ to ‘never’ doing each of the particular activities). Ultimately, 47 interviews were conducted, including five that were the result of either snowballing from recommendations made by interviewees, or through interactions arising as part of this research activity. The duration of interviews varied widely, with the shortest being 30 minutes long and the longest lasting over three hours. The mode was around one to one and a half hours each, with the couples’ C. A. TUCKER 4 interviews generally taking the longest. Interviews were audio recorded, and photographs were often taken as a visual record of the material aspects of practices and as an additional method to elicit conversation. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and then coded according to the general sequence and categories of questions asked on excel spreadsheets. Coding was done in such a manner that it was possible to read through individuals (or couples where applicable) responses, in relation to their overall transcripts using page numbers, in the manner prescribed by the qualitative ‘framework’ approach (Ritchie and Lewis 2003). Relevant to this article in accordance with the three objectives of enquiry noted above are the six spreadsheet themes (categories)2 and subthemes presented in Table 1: The themes listed in Table 1 correspond to key questions asked of the interviewees. The subthemes were developed based on responses provided by the participants. Organising themes and subthemes in spreadsheets enables responses to be compared within each theme/subtheme and enables different interviewees’ responses to be compared with one another. Data analysis To analyse practices, it is necessary that an understanding of what constitutes practice in a form that is accessible and commensurable with empirical research be used. To this end, I have drawn on the work of Maller (2012), who has modelled how eating and practice can come together and be viewed in graph form. Figure 1 shows my adaptation and extension of Maller’s (2012, 5) original figure, to represent food consumption practice: This extension of Maller’s model makes it possible to see a simplified representation of different elements of practice and hence opens the way for a practice theory analysis of food consumption – or a more practicable practice theory (Sahakian and Wilhite 2014). Furthermore, this model can be equated with Shove and Pantzar’s (2005) empirically helpful tripartite understanding of practices as 1) assemblages of images (meanings and symbols) – which can aid and inform common understandings; 2) skills (forms of competence, procedures) – or practical and tacit knowledge and skills; and 3) stuff (materials, technology) – or material infrastructures. In this analysis, I use three areas that draw on each of Maller, and Shove and Patnzar’s ideas: ‘common understandings’, ‘material/infrastructure’ and ‘knowledge and skills’. These three areas are used as a point of reference and ordering when considering practices that fall within each of the three research objective areas: life story narrative, food-related habit and challenges to developing food-related habits. Results Many EC, proactive practices were described by participants; those related to food were the most frequently discussed. Food is clearly pivotal in EC engagement. Data analysis has found that performing food practices and the associated inconspicuous consumption that this entails are diverse. Each of the three areas of research enquiry are considered in the following results section, beginning with life story narratives as they relate to food. Next, food-related practices engaged in by the EC interviewees are outlined, which includes noting the different approaches to environmentally friendly food, as part of food practice more generally. The last section looks to those factors that challenge or limit the possibilities around the development of pro-environmental food habits. Life story narratives and food EC food consumption practices must evolve in a very purposeful manner in Western society nations like New Zealand given that mainstream food provisioning is not undertaken with environmental wellbeing Table 1. Interview data themes, subthemes and analytical use. Use (1) Categories Why people care about the environment (1) Influence of upbringing on environmental awareness (1) First environmentally oriented act/practice (2,3) Environmentally conscientiousness in the home (2,3) Environmental conscientiousness in the workplace (2,3) Environmental conscientiousness and hobbies/leisure Subthemes Responsibility to care; Future care/concern; Dependency and interconnectedness with planet; Grew up awareness/care; Other. Parents; Wider family; Friends/neighbours; Natural places as places to visit/of leisure; Education (school; clubs; self-driven); Things were different years ago/changes over time; Raised with lots of outdoors/nature; Religion/spirituality; Other. Age; What caught attention?; First action: personal; First action: collective/group; Always there – raised with environmental conscientiousness; Evolved over time – not until older. Food choices (production; purchase; consumption; waste; other); Consumption (waste minimisation; recycling/upcycling/reuse; Simplicity/reduction; Efficiency/quality; Chemicals/ cosmetics; Other); Home (outdoors; dwelling; energy and heating; water; transport); Other. Use expertise in workplace; travel; change making. Outdoors: animals; Outdoors: environments; Outdoors: exercise; Creative/passive; Voluntary work; Other. Note: 1) Life story/narrative; 2) Food-related habits/routines; 3) Challenges to developing food-related habits/routines. ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY 5 Common understandings: what to eat, when, with whom, where Practice Material infrastructures: food, grocers, markets, kitchens, applicances, utensils, recycling / green waste systems, compost bins Practical & tacit knowledge & skills: how to produce, source, store, and prepare food, and dispose of waste food Figure 1. The practice of food consumption to illustrate the elements of social practice. at the fore. Countering the systemic obstructions to an EC approach to food were participant life story narratives, often developed early in life, which tended toward three areas in particular: the importance of frugality, the self-provisioning of food, and through familial education in early socialisation. The practice of frugality tended to be situated among the more senior participants. They shared memories of being raised in a post-depression environment whereby their parents had learned to not be wasteful and make the most of what you have: ‘our [Warren and wife Nancy) parents, when they were growing up, they went through the Depression and so they learned how to cope with that and they passed some of that on to us as well, you know with the garden and all that sort of stuff’ (Warren). Frugality commonly sat alongside modes of self-provisioning food, whether through gardening, hunting, fishing, gathering or some other form. Having an EC parent/close kin or family friend involved in early socialisation whereby EC food practices are performed is a significant factor too in the potential for such practices to be taken up by children. It was typical of the ‘classic kiwi’ upbringing in years gone by to have a sizable home vegetable patch and to spend time outdoors. Striving for food self-sufficiency means exposure to food in ‘nature’, and can involve group participation and an element of leisure, which for those of an early age can form an integral part of their socialisation in not just food, but in the outdoors as well, potentially fostering life-long interests and practices. Dean described how his parents, grandmother and family friends all played a role in this: My early upbringing which was very much outdoorsy, possum trapping, living in the bush, doing all sorts of things like that . . . that comes back to haunt you when you get older, and you actually really just do more and more. For me personally, my income, my way of life, everything is actually building on what I did as a kid. Indeed, Dean’s home demonstrated this very clearly: he lived in a rural location, in an off-grid home that he had built from local supplies, and was largely selfsufficient. He works in biodiversity preservation and conservation. Specific and purposeful imparting of knowledge from elders/adults to younger people was often practiced. For example, being raised in a family where vegetarianism is routinely performed means that knowledge and skills related to this mode of food preparation, as well as a having the material infrastructure and means to support it, are normalised. This in turn means that the opportunity for the routinisation of this practice to continue on in the next generation is more likely. Leah discussed how her mother could not tolerate meat during her pregnancy with her, and subsequently both her parents became vegetarian, which lead to a wider awareness of food and diet, and to Leah herself being raised into and maintaining vegetarianism throughout her life. She describes the development of their vegetarianism from: a repertoire of macaroni cheese and cauliflower cheese as their vegetarian diet started, then borrowing books from the library and joining the Vegetarian Society and reading up about it, and the more they read up on why other people were vegetarian, the more they started to shift their thinking and their diet. Leah is now in her 40s, and to this day has never eaten meat. A further example is found with exposure to nature or wildlife areas, accompanied by the direct 6 C. A. TUCKER educational efforts of a knowledgeable character regarding the various species, flora and fauna present. The practice of exposure and immersion in wildlife through bird-watching or recognition of native tree species and their characteristics are two examples. Harry described how an interest in the world around him was fostered from an early age: My father was a research scientist in soils . . . and one of my very first memories [is] we were out in the garden and he was telling me about nitrogen fixing and things . . .. Christmas presents were books about wild animals and plants and mushrooms and ‘New Zealand this’ and ‘great walks’ . . . it was definitely encouraged. The home that Harry shares with his partner is testament to the extension of these early interests into adulthood: there is no lawn – not even on the sidewalk – but rather an abundance of mainly edible along with some native plant and tree species. Integral to all the aforementioned is the significance of the early years environment and the role of parents or significant others in the socialisation of younger children, which can take place in a wide array of ways. Other than during early exposure in childhood, one other significant life event repeatedly noted as pivotal in shifting food practices toward more environmental awareness was motherhood. For Trish, it was a growing awareness and frustration about, among other things, excessive food packaging: I got involved in a thing with our local supermarket, with the whole issue of why did we have cornflakes and lots of our dry goods coming in plastic bags – in a plastic bag within a cardboard box, and you’d say to them “why?”. . . we’d write and go and talk to the manager. . . The advent of motherhood has been long recognised as a life event that can alter consumer practices substantially, a point that Burningham et al. (2014) examined in terms of possible sustainability outcomes. Di described how her concerns began when she had children: you start actually thinking about what world you’re bringing your kids into . . . I started having a veggie garden . . . it was like making sure that the food that I was eating and producing and stuff was chemical free, and not being as wasteful with stuff: I started to buy things that weren’t in packets. . .. Di continues to have an abundant vegetable garden – it was overflowing with produce at the time I visited; she limits waste and also hunts and fishes. These food habits have become routine in her everyday life. The food habits of the EC The EC food habits adopted by participants were various, with multiple strategies used. These include food selfprovisioning; minimising food waste; avoiding food- related waste (e.g. packaging); buying local – eating seasonal; avoiding chemicals/sprays and food barter/sharing/trade; and limiting/avoiding meat consumption. Each of these practices is considered in turn. I have always tried to grow my food, and the reason is that I didn’t really want to bring children into the world because I had a feeling that the world was going to suffer some incredibly difficult times in my lifetime, and when I finally agreed to have children, I kind of made a pact with the universe that there would always be a place to hunker down . . . this is my fifth food forest . . . I hope this is where I finally stay, and my son’s got his now . . . and my daughters got her own. [and] we have sheep, ducks, geese, chooks. . .. (Bob) Bob was one of the most dedicated to food provisioning of those interviewed in terms of the sheer mass of food produced, and subsequently in the time dedicated to this enterprise. The land he and his wife live on is a food forest with a vast array of edible tree varieties. Food provisioning through the practice of productive gardening was commonplace among these EC individuals who had the capacity to do so (i.e. space, time and mobility primarily). Fishing, hunting, trapping, raising animals or honey bees for food was also common practice: ‘I also hunt for wild game animals, which provide meat for our family and it all reduces the numbers of introduced game animals in the bush and mountain lands’ (Vyv). While the practice of hunting was for food, Vyv notes the beneficial side effect of it reducing potentially harmful animals in the bush. Almost hand in hand with food provisioning was minimising food and food-related waste. Composting was a common practice for utilising food scraps, while worm farming, feeding scraps to animals and using a bokashi bin3 were less frequently practiced. Limiting food packaging and avoiding plastic supermarket and other single-use plastics is a routine practice for many: . . .supermarket bags; just can’t bear them. I abhor them . . . I hate packaging too – even the bloody butcher’s packaging now. I used to go to the butcher because he didn’t use polystyrene under-plates, but he’s got half of his stuff in polystyrene plates now. It’s just a big ache. (Jude) Avoiding food-related packaging is clearly a practice that Jude very mindfully pursues, and a frustration that was shared by others as well. Part of Jan’s food purchase routine is to take her own containers to the shop in order to avoid additional packaging: ‘I shop at Bin Inn [bulk food store], and I prefer the Bin Inn to the supermarket . . . you take your own containers for quite a bit of the stuff’. A food purchase practice also deemed important was buying locally, and consequently eating seasonally. Maria and Daniel talked about how they purchase ‘seasonal and local when possible . . .. Bananas are the ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY only thing we buy from overseas [but] we don’t buy them every week’. Buying local assists with limiting food miles, and being more confident about what is and is not in the food. This involves purchasing or growing organic, free range, or spray-free food with permaculture, a widely used method for the production of food: I’ve got a keen interest in permaculture . . . I probably mainly express that in the food forests and the edible gardens which we’ve established here and up north. We have our own olive grove for domestic supply and for gifting and bartering, and we keep bees at our olive grove. (Ray) Ray uses permaculture methods and his urban garden was flourishing with more conventional through to exotic varieties of edibles when I visited. He also notes participating in gifting and bartering excess produce. The practice of sharing food as gifting or for barter is one that has clear economic and social benefits, but it also has environmental benefits in that it can avoid plastics/packaging and travel. I asked a couple who had many fruit and olive trees, along with grapes and a multitude of other edible plants, what they do with it all; their response was that they ‘mostly give it away – we never sell any’ (Wade). Sue continued: I’m always picking it, ‘cause he plants it and I have to pick it cause I think now we’ve got to do something with it. . . . I mean olives – we’ve just had them pressed for oil. Wade: Yeah, olives, we get them pressed, and it’s a bit like the honey really. You press the olives, you collect the honey, and the kids come home and you don’t have any! When asked if any of the extra produce is preserved, Sue remarked ‘yeah, which is quite nice . . . it’s quite satisfying’. A final noteworthy EC food practice involved eliminating or reducing meat consumption. Vegetarianism was widely practiced, while others reduced meat and/ or dairy as well. Di and her husband are not vegetarian, but do try to avoid farmed animals, and have also cut down on dairy: We’ve really cut down on dairy as well . . . it sort of pisses me off that the dairy industry seems to be doing so much damage in New Zealand, and I know that whatever little action I do probably doesn’t make masses of impact, but I just figure that if lots of little [mes] all over the show do that, then it becomes a cumulative thing. Limiting meat consumption to around two to three times per week is a practice deemed to satisfy the desire to consume meat, but also is seen as environmentally preferable to consuming it on a much more regular basis. 7 Challenges and limits to the development of proenvironmental food habits EC food practices require some learning, knowledge and motivation so that the opportunity for them to be habitualised can occur. Challenges to EC food consumption are near-constant, and limits to what can reasonably be achieved are ever present. An obvious challenge to habitualising EC food practices is the very nature of the global food system as experienced locally in New Zealand. To begin practicing EC food consumption involves firstly having an awareness and knowledge of what this can involve and, secondly, having the means and capacity to change practices, which links in with systemic limitations that impact on practices. Scepticism about how much change can occur due to individual practices was voiced by many, including Ross: ‘I’m not convinced that the westernised domestic arrangements are going to save the planet. The issues are far bigger than that. And while I don’t want to contribute to it, this quarter acre section isn’t where we’re going to save the planet’. Gav took a similar view but expressed that it probably is only through consumer habits changing that other changes might follow: if there’s less manufacturing then, that’s a sort of flow on because the largest polluters are always the manufacturers, not individual households. And so if consumer habits can change, that will force manufacturing habits to change as well. The extent to which practices at an individual or household level can have wider beneficial impact is certainly a point of contention, though giving up or not doing anything was not viewed as an option. With reference to more localised challenges to practices, and also reminiscent of the views of a number of others, particularly those with limited space and means, was Lin: I make my own almond milk but sometimes it’s too much effort to do things and everything comes in plastic which is really annoying. . .. If I had more space I would grow my own veggies so I just have a little herb garden. Lin lived with her partner in a small rented space upstairs, which did not allow any room for growing food. Although having a fairly substantial vegetable garden, financial limitations, living with others who do not share the same interests, and choosing not to drive (as a further environmental good) are challenges faced by Leah in her efforts to be EC: . . .we grow our own veges in the garden, and personally I’ve been working towards zero waste, but that’s limited by finance, limited by opportunity, and limited by the fact that I don’t actually do all the shopping. . . and I don’t drive. 8 C. A. TUCKER The most commonly noted challenges to habitualising EC food practices were having sufficient time (to plan shopping, or produce food) and resources (financially for purchase decisions, land availability, goods for food procurement and production). A standout feature of this group of EC individuals was that overall there was already a vast array of knowledge about EC food practices: the challenge was more the ability to implement such knowledge, particularly given that the global food system is by and large not set up to support such habits (World Economic Forum 2017). Food practices in general are the result of a multitude of things: our historical experiences, knowledge and beliefs, our ability and desire to perform certain actions, commitment to certain values, our preferences, infrastructural and resource possibilities and so on. The realms of common understandings and material infrastructure, along with practical and tacit knowledge and skills, come together in providing a full picture to this end. As indicated earlier, Halkier (2009) noted that there are different types of food consumption practice, just as there are different ways of practicing EC food consumption. A range of EC food consumption practices have emerged in these findings, each of which can be associated with a particular EC emphasis, equated with constellations of practices (Nicolini 2017): The practices listed in Table 2 are organised from the most frequently referenced to the least, with selfprovisioning being the most often discussed, followed by local/seasonal consumers, dietary, simplifiers/reducers and organic purchasers. Consumption practices that seek to reduce carbon footprint, reduce pollutants and challenge consumerism and corporatism are the key methods by which environmental conscientiousness is enacted in relation to food by research participants. Performing each of these varies in terms of the amount of knowledge, planning and skill involved – as well as in terms of resourcing and time required. In short, none of these practices is void of some level of commitment, which is oftentimes over and above what might ordinarily be undertaken – at least in terms of current social norms. The list of practices in Table 2 can furthermore be demarcated by how they are related to provisioning; self (growing, hunting, foraging, etc.) or externally (shopping for goods). As Figure 2 illustrates, in some respects, different skills and challenges are related to each mode; hence, there are variations in how self versus external provisioning is performed. For example, different skills are needed to know how to hunt or forage for food, compared with the knowledge needed to make purchase decisions that are more environmentally sustainable. Different challenges may present themselves, such as dealing with food-related waste from packaging with purchasing goods from a store versus being able to determine how to collect and store food that is self-provisioned. The following discussion looks to understand how the social phenomena of EC food consumption can aid in understanding such activity in terms of practice and the associations between practices – or constellations (Nicolini 2017). Table 2. Environmentally conscientious food practice types, descriptions and emphases. EC food practice type Description EC emphasis Self-provisioning Produce, hunt, fish, forage, raise etc as much own food as possible. Self-sufficiency – challenging consumerism; reducing Often using permaculture and/or chemical free/organic methods carbon footprint; chemical avoidance Local/seasonal Buy local, hence seasonal food; food mile awareness Reducing carbon footprint consumers Dietary Meat and/or dairy elimination or reduction Reducing carbon footprint; reducing water and land pollution Simplifiers/reducers Only buying food when have to; reducing packaging/excess; eating Reducing carbon footprint; challenging consumerism simply Organic purchasers Only buy organic produce where possible Chemical avoidance; avoiding geneticaly modified organisms (food corporatisation) Food waste Food related waste Self-provision (grow, hunt, fish, forage) Buying local External provisioning (store purchases) Eating seasonal Avoiding chemicals / sprays Food barter / gifting Limit / avoid meat consumption Figure 2. Environmentally conscientious food consumption practices in relation to two main provisioning constellations: self and external. ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY Discussion Schatzki (2012, 22) noted that ‘the best that designers of lives and institutions can do is to create contexts that, as experience and thought show, make certain activities very or more likely’. This directly infers the enabling of shifting practices by a reorientation or perhaps overhaul of existent regimes that block or inhibit further engagement in more EC food practices. To look at how EC food practices can be better encouraged, I first turn to the three-part model (Figure 1) presented earlier as a way to analyse where both opportunities and challenges lie with regard to the prominently emphasised constellations of practices: carbon footprint reduction, reducing/ avoiding pollutants/chemicals and slowing/challenging consumption and corporatism. The area of ‘common understandings’ was least problematic in terms of ‘personal’ EC food practice: participants were well informed, were clear in terms of their understandings about EC food practice and tended to have social networks in place that are aligned with their common understandings. However, being an EC consumer means that certain performances may be frowned upon or looked at curiously by others as they are not part of commonly understood practice. Take for example this excerpt from Ray’s quote cited earlier: ‘I’ve got a keen interest in permaculture . . . I probably mainly express that in the food forests and the edible gardens which we’ve established here and up north’. This statement itself is associated with a raft of practices involving performances that are not part of ‘common understandings’: having a ‘food forest’ is not usual for most people, but what is not visible here is that the ‘edible gardens’ that Ray is referring to are located in one of Auckland’s most wealthy suburbs and are full of not just commonly eaten foods but is brimming with exotic edibles as well. Moreover, he has compost bins, amid the various garden areas, and as any permaculture enthusiast will know, growing things in this way does not usually mean neat and tidy gardens. As I was walking around the garden with Ray, he told me about how his neighbours had complained about the compost bins – which had no smell and were well maintained – as the neighbours feared a rat infestation as a result, which had never occurred. In short, his garden location and style are not part of common understanding of what gardens ought to be like. Participants’ ‘practical and tacit knowledge and skills’ were also well developed and honed, particularly in terms of food production and sourcing, as well as minimising and/or disposal of food waste. Drawing on the above example with Ray, he had practical and tacit knowledge and skills associated with his gardens and food forest; both the bag of various foods (a number of which I had never seen nor heard of 9 before) that I was gifted by him and his wife when I was leaving, and the large quantity and assortment of food from their grounds in their kitchen were testament to this. Material infrastructure is where most challenges emerged for interviewees. Material infrastructures that can be incorporated directly into one’s life, such as composting bins and kitchen appliances, are not usually problematic for interviewees where they have the resources available (and given the different options around how to make or obtain these, or with what is needed and what is not, it is not too difficult); that said, Ray’s example from above shows that compost bins are not always deemed acceptable in certain places. However, it is the wider material infrastructures, including, as noted earlier, the way that food systems and distributers such as supermarkets tend to operate in economies like New Zealand that make EC food practices of all kinds (such as those oriented toward reducing carbon footprints, avoiding pollutants/chemicals and challenging the consumerism/corporatism status quo) much more perplexing to accomplish. Ray was fortunate to have had the resources available for land, trees and all required to develop a food forest and edible gardens – but for many this may never be feasible. Even with knowledge, understanding and skills, there is only so much an individual can do before a series of barriers enter the picture, meaning increasingly more time and energy is required to negotiate these. As Stigzelius (2017 has rightly argued, the constant rearranging of socio-material actors requires the efforts of many in order for consumption to be greened, and for the possibility of a wider greening of consumption practices. Conclusions Early socialisation with frugality, self-provisioning and informal education provide strong precursors to the development of EC food practices. The self-provisioning of food is itself the most critical EC food practice according to participants, but is also a challenge when material infrastructure (land and space) is limited. The dominant, western global food regime is seen as a huge obstacle to EC food practices, with those less able to self-provision being more impacted on a dayto-day basis given the greater need for external provisioning. Increasing government, NGO and business support for food self-provisioning at local and national levels, encouraging sound food waste disposal and waste minimisation, campaigns to inform and encourage meat (and dairy) consumption reduction, reducing food packaging, reducing unnecessary additives to food during production and processing, 10 C. A. TUCKER and systems whereby larger items needed for food production can be shared or borrowed at a minimal cost are all measures that can assist in improving EC food practices with the goal of their becoming habitualised rather than occasionally performed. Much of this reads like a utopian wish-list. No matter which way/s of being EC when it comes to food are undertaken – whether self and/or externally provisioned – Western society nations like New Zealand are not set up to operate in a more environmentally benign fashion, but rather are constructed to encourage growth and profit above all else: a mantra that must surely come to an end if humanity is to have any quality of life – and more equality in life – in future. The steps that need to be taken to enable a widespread shift in practices can feasibly begin in countries like New Zealand: a nation with fertile ground and space to grow a range of produce, and where citizens are mostly sufficiently fortunate materially and so have the means to make choices and change practices. To conclude, practice theory applied in keeping with Shove, Pantzar, and Watson’s (2012) custom means looking to understand how practice comes into being, drawing on empirical research. As such, this research illustrates that the vital strengths of participants’ food practice lay in both their practical and tacit knowledge and skills. While common understandings are also strong, performing certain practices as part of EC consumption can draw curiosity or worse, discord, when not in keeping with social norms. It is the agency of individuals (the capabilities of people to act, rather than just their intentions [Giddens 1984]), where strength in practice lies, as opposed to material infrastructure, which is the most challenging and variable element of food social practice. This lends credence to the argument that wider change to address material infrastructure inadequacies will surely need to be initiated by peoples’ individual and collective practices. In turn, if material infrastructural adjustments can be made ‘by design’ (to borrow from Røpke 2009) so that benevolent environmental practice is more accessible, then the less conscientious may follow suit toward a new normalisation of environmentalism. It would be a worthwhile future research task to further refine the different types of EC food practice assemblages, and then compare what different outcomes result from each. Given that there are so many ways in which EC food practice could be further encouraged, looking at what assemblage of practices elicits the most beneficial results would allow the focus of future programmes to be sharpened toward those practices that would garner the most beneficial results. Notes 1. It was not possible to conduct all interviews face to face, or at individuals’ homes; two interviews took place via Skype (internet), two interviews took place at interviewees’ work places and one at a café. 2. In total there are 15 themes; only those most relevant to this article are used here. 3. A bokashi bin is used for composting food waste more quickly than composting. For further information see: http://www.zingbokashi.co.nz/zingbokashi-compostzing-the-easiest-way-to-recycle-your-organic-waste/. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. Funding This work was supported by the Massey University Research Fund 2016 round. Notes on contributor Dr Corrina A. Tucker is an Environmental Sociologist at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Her research interests tend to coalesce around the various relationships and tensions between humans and the environment. In particular, she has an interest in meat consumption and production impacts, environmental activism and education, consumerism, green lifestyle politics, food sustainability and security, along with food waste. ORCID Corrina A. Tucker http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6430-3957 References Bauman, Z. 2007. Consuming Life. Cambridge, MA: Polity. Burningham, K., S. Venn, I. Christie, T. Jackson, and B. Gatersleben. 2014. “New Motherhood: A Moment of Change in Everyday Shopping Practices?” Young Consumers 15 (3): 211–226. doi:10.1108/YC-11-201300411. Carlsson-Kanyama, A., and A. D. González. 2009. “Potential Contributions of Food Consumption Patterns to Climate Change.” American Society of Nutrition 89 (5): 1704S–1709S. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations). 2017. “Food Loss and Food Waste.” Accessed February 2 2017. http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/en/ Foster, C., K. Green, M. Bleda, and P. Dewik. 2007. “Environmental impacts of food production and consumption: final report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).” Accessed February 2 2017. http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search. do?recordID=GB2013202568 Garcia, C. M., M. E. Eisenberg, E. A. Ferich, K. E. Lechner, and K. Lust. 2012. “Conducting Go-Along Interviews to Understand Context and Promote Health.” Qualitative Health Research 10: 1395–1403. doi:10.1177/ 1049732312452936. ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Berkeley, LA: University of California Press. Grootenboor, P., C. Edward-Groves, and S. Choy, eds. 2017. Practice Theory Perspectives and Pedagogy in Education. Praxis, Diversity and Contestation. Singapore: Springer. Halkier, B. 2009. “A Practical Theoretical Perspective on Everyday Dealings with Environmental Challenges of Food Consumption.” Anthropology of Food S5. Accessed February 2 2017. http://aof.revues.org/6405 Halkier, B., T. Katz-Gerro, and L. Martens. 2011. “Applying Practice Theory to the Study of Consumption: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations.” Journal of Consumer Culture 11 (1): 3–13. doi:10.1177/1469540510391765. Lidew, L., Z. Jusoh, and N. Sulaiman. 2015. “Factors Affecting Green Food Practices and Consumer Subjective WellBeing.” Journal of Education and Social Sciences 1: 1–7. Lockie, S., K. Lyons, G. Lawrence, and J. Grice. 2004. “Choosing Organics: A Path Analysis of Factors Underlying the Selection of Organic Food among Australian Consumers.” Appetite 43: 135–146. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2004.02.004. Maller, C. 2012. “Using Social Practice Theory to Understand Everyday Life: Outcomes for Health and Wellbeing” Accessed May 2 2017. https://www.tasa.org.au/wp-con tent/uploads/2012/11/Maller-Cecily1.pdf Marsh, K., and B. Bugusu. 2007. “Food Packaging Roles, Materials, and Environmental Issues.” Journal of Food Science 72 (3): R39–R55. doi:10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00301.x. Mavropoulus, A. n.d. “Waste Management 2030+.” Accessed February 2 2017. https://waste-management-world.com/ a/waste-management MfE (Ministry for the Environment). 2009. “Solid Waste Composition.” Environmental report card July 2009; Info 420. Accessed September 10 2013. www.mfe.govt.nz/environmen tal-reporting/waste/waste-composition-2009/index.html Nicolini, D. 2017. “Practice Theory as a Package of Theory, Method and Vocabulary: Affordances and Limitations.” In Methodological Reflections on Practice Oriented Theories, edited by M. Jonas, B. Littig and A. Wroblewski, 19–34. New York, NY: Springer. Paddock, J. 2015. “Household Consumption and Environmental Change: Rethinking the Policy Problem through Narratives of Food Practice.” Journal of Consumer Culture 17 (1): 122–139. doi:10.1177/1469540515586869. Ritchie, J., and J. Lewis. 2003. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: Sage. Røpke, I. 2009. “Theories of Practice – New Inspiration for Ecological Economic Studies.” Ecological Economics 68: 2490–2497. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.015. Sachdeva, S., J. Jordan, and N. Mazar. 2015. “Green Consumerism: Moral Motivations to a Sustainable Future.” Current Opinion in Psychology 6: 60–65. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.029. Sahakian, M., and H. Wilhite. 2014. “Making Practice Theory Practicable: Towards More Sustainable Forms of Consumption.” Journal of Consumer Culture 14 (1): 25– 44. doi:10.1177/1469540513505607. Schatzki, T. R. 2001. “Introduction: Practice Theory.” In The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, edited by T. R. 11 Schatzki, K. K. Cetina, and E. Von Savigny, 10–23. London, NY: Routledge. Schatzki, T. R. 2012. “A Primer on Practices.” In Practice-Based Education: Perspectives and Strategies, edited by J. Higgs, R. Barnett, S. Billet, M. Hutchings, and F. Trede, 13–26. Rotterdam: Sense. Searchinger, T., C. Hanson, J. Ranganathan, B. Lipinski, R. Waite, R. Winterbottom, A. Dinshaw, and R. Heimlich. 2013. “Creating a Sustainable Food Future: Interim Findings.” Accessed February 2 2017. http://www.wri. org/publication/creating-sustainable-food-future-interimfindings Shove, E. 2017. “Elizabeth Shove – Practice Theory Methodologies Do Not Exist.” Accessed February 21 2017. https://practicetheorymethodologies.wordpress. com/2017/02/15/elizabeth-shove-practice-theory-meth odologies-do-not-exist/ Shove, E., and M. Pantzar. 2005. “Consumers, Producers and Practices Understanding the Invention and Reinvention of Nordic Walking.” Journal of Consumer Culture 5 (1): 43–64. doi:10.1177/1469540505049846. Shove, E., M. Pantzar, and M. Watson. 2012. The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Smith, S., and A. Paladino. 2010. “Eating Clean & Green? Investigating Consumer Motivations Towards the Purchase of Organic Food.” Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2): 93–104. doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2010.01.001. Spaargaren, G. 2011. “Theories of Practices: Agency, Technology, and Culture. Exploring the Relevance of Practice Theories for the Governance of Sustainable Consumption Practices in the New World-Order.” Global Environmental Change 21: 813–822. doi:10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2011.03.010. Stigzelius, I. 2017. “Producing consumers. Agencing and concerning consumers to do green in everyday food practices.” PhD diss., Stockholm School of Economics. Suki, N., and N. Suki. 2015. “Does Religion Influence Consumers’ Green Food Consumption? Some Insights from Malaysia.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 32 (7): 551–563. doi:10.1108/JCM-02-2014-0877. Tucker, C., and T. Farrelly. 2016. “Household Food Waste: The Implications of Consumer Choice in Food from Purchase to Disposal.” Local Environment 21 (6): 682– 706. doi:10.1080/13549839.2015.1015972. Warde, A. 2005. “Consumption and Theories of Practice.” Journal of Consumer Culture 5 (2): 131–153. doi:10.1177/ 1469540505053090. Warde, A. 2014. “After Taste: Culture, Consumption and Theories of Practice.” Journal of Consumer Culture 14 (3): 279–303. doi:10.1177/1469540514547828. World Economic Forum. 2017. “Shaping the Future of Global Food Systems: A Scenarios Analysis” World Economic Forum, January. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/IP/2016/ NVA/WEF_FSA_FutureofGlobalFoodSystems.pdf Zhu, Q., Y. Li, Y. Geng, and Y. Qi. 2013. “Green Food Consumption Intention, Behaviors and Influencing Factors among Chinese Consumer.” Food Quality and Preference 28: 279–286. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.10.005.