What is the impact of a community smart fridge? Investigating food waste, food insecurity and food interactions

What is the impact of a community smart fridge? Investigating food waste, food insecurity and food interactions | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article What is the impact of a community smart fridge? Investigating food waste, food insecurity and food interactions Joseph Llewellyn, Romme te Velde, Titus Venverloo, Fabio Duarte, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7187885/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract In the Netherlands, approximately 2,290,000 tonnes of food is wasted each year; meanwhile, as many as 984,000 homes experience mild to severe food insecurity. In this research, we test the impact of a ‘community smart fridge’ pilot intervention. The fridge tracks food waste reductions in real-time, uses a food insecurity survey and is publicly placed next to a community centre, for 30 days total, in summer and winter. Results show the fridge saved 1465 kg of food from being wasted, equalling €13,291 in value, to feed users, 35% of whom experience minor to severe food insecurity. Moreover, stakeholder interviews tested the fridge’s feasibility, viability and desirability. Community centre managers were positive the fridge could feasibly be deployed daily. Supermarket managers state the fridge is a viable alternative to donate leftover food. Users found the fridge desirable but would always want to leave food for others too. Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology Food Waste Food Insecurity Food Interactions Community Smart Fridge Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Introduction The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (UN SDG) target 12.3 ambitiously aims to halve per capita global food waste at the consumer and retail level by 2030 1 . However, in the Netherlands, around 2,290,000 tonnes of food is wasted each year (161 kg per capita), with at least 209,805 tonnes of food contributed by supermarkets 2 . Amsterdam has circular economy targets for their food waste that align with UN SDGs 3 . Nevertheless, the city still wastes as much as 162,000 tonnes of food each year 4 . Furthermore, the contribution of food waste to greenhouse gas emissions is nearly 9 megatons of CO 2 -equivalent/year, or up to 9% of total emissions in the Netherlands 5 . Within supermarkets, grain products contribute the most to food waste (36%), then fruit and vegetables (34.2%), dairy (13%), non-perishables (11.6%) and proteins (5.3%) 6 . However, the emissions impact significantly varies between these major food groups. For kg-CO 2 -equivalent wasted, fruit and vegetables average the least (.86 kg-CO 2 e), then grains (1.5 kg-CO 2 e), dairy (13.6 kg-CO 2 e) and then proteins (31.53 kg-CO 2 e) 5 , 7 , 8 . Supermarket strategies to reduce food waste commonly include: reduced prices for nearly expired food 9 , improved forecasting demands 10 and donating to charities 11 . Paradoxically, food waste and food insecurity often exist even in the same countries 12 . The UN SDG target 2.1 aims to end hunger and ensure access to nutritious and sufficient food all year round, particularly for people in poor and vulnerable situations 13 . In Europe, income factors have become increasingly important for food insecurity 14 . The Food and Agricultural Organizations’ (FAO) Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) finds 5.5% of the population in the Netherlands experience regular food insecurity 15 . They classify mild food insecurity (an inability to eat healthy balanced meals regularly) to severe insecurity (an inability to eat enough food to prevent hunger and malnutrition). Prior research in Amsterdam states all neighbourhoods have access to healthy foods 16 . But, proximity to supermarkets does not account for the affordability of healthy foods. In disadvantaged Dutch neighbourhoods, up to 26% of homes may be food insecure 17 . Thus, local innovations need to target both access and affordability for food insecurity. Many innovations exist in rural production, with goals of reducing food waste, such as using climate smart technology for agriculture in China 18 , or reducing food insecurity, such as using rural community fruit and vegetable cooperatives in the United States 19 . In the Netherlands, social initiatives exist using community kitchens (i.e. BuurtBuik 20 ), that take leftover food from businesses to make free meals for food-insecure citizens. These initiatives depend on volunteers' working together in spare time (i.e. once a week) and may not reduce the full extent of food waste and insecurity occurring every day. Research finds consumer perception of novel food technologies requires evaluation at the earlier stages of technology adoption, if they aim for wider societal acceptance 21 . The UN FAO offers no framework to test such social or technical innovations but universal design frameworks for innovations do exist which test three main criteria; feasibility (is it technically feasible to implement?), desirability (does the solution meet the needs of users?) and viability (does it align with business objectives?) 22 , 23 . Smart fridge research focuses on real-time connections to the internet which helps track food usage with sensors and is investigated for a range of needs within homes, from improving health of occupants 24 to reduced energy consumption in kitchens 25 . Global food waste policy reviews suggest more evidence is needed on fridge cameras 26 . Insofar as we are aware, studies have been piloted in private rather than public settings. Prior research studies food waste with sensors in packaging for methane monitoring 27 . These are low cost but must be placed in every single package, using many sensors. While the above solutions can be useful inside private homes and private businesses, they do not help vulnerable homes who really struggle to pay for food in the first place. Meanwhile, most community fridge research comes from Germany 28 and the U.K. 29 , 30 , 31 . Up until now, the Netherlands has not yet adopted these community-based fridges. Thus, the social acceptability of using a community fridge in public here is unknown. Other fridges were placed in or around community centres, helping them to become socially acceptable 32 . However, these fridges were not developed and deployed with smart-technology capabilities such as sensors and cameras to track fridge usage, and measure which food types are donated more and how often the fridge is used every day. Such technologies may be disruptive to various stakeholders who interact with them. Research 21 finds the social acceptance of food technologies depends on perception, such as safety (i.e. is it feasible for community centres to maintain a fridge outdoors?), naturalness (i.e. is it viable for supermarkets to donate fresh, organic and edible food?), and trust (i.e. is it desirable for users to take food from a fridge without having to pay?). Thus, the fridge intervention requires a subjective evaluation with stakeholders too. Research Problem and Questions Technological research currently exists on smart fridges to reduce food waste in homes and social research exists on community fridges to reduce food insecurity in public. Smart fridge research mostly occurs in private places for homes to track food intake but are not climate smart, as they do not measure environmental reductions in food waste. Meanwhile, community fridges have not utilised sensors, nor measured food insecurity. Therefore, our research pilots and evaluates the impact on food waste, food insecurity and social acceptance of a ‘community smart fridge’ within a busy urban public space. The fridge is placed beside a community centre in the Jordaan area of Amsterdam (as seen in Fig. 9 in methods). The following pilot intervention asks 3 sub questions: RQ 1. What is the food waste impact of a community smart fridge? The environmental impact of food waste is often measured in kg/CO 2 -equivalent. In general, such measurements are reported annually and post-hoc by organizations. We used a Raspberry Pi camera placed inside the fridge to detect supermarket food that would have otherwise been wasted but was instead donated to the fridge (Fig. 1). This captures types/quantities of food donated to and taken from the fridge in real-time. RQ 2. What is the food insecurity impact of a community smart fridge? The FIES survey can measure the severity of food insecurity experienced by fridge users. However, it does not measure the affordability of food as spent by survey respondents. Therefore, we ask extra questions on the fridge concerning monthly spending on food. RQ 3. What is the social acceptability of a community smart fridge? The framework of feasibility, viability and desirability is evaluated when interviewing community centre managers, supermarket employees and users of the fridge. However, we use structured observations to further quantify the desirability and find out which factors are associated with the fridge interactions on the street. The fridge placement, design and framing will also influence interactions (Fig. 2 ). Results Food Waste During 16 days in summer and 14 days in winter 2024, 863.7 kg and 600.9 kg was donated, totalling 1464.6 kg. Thus, a daily average of 53.98 kg and 42.92 kg respectively. This resulted in 10,127.48 kg-CO 2 e over the 30 day period, or 337.57 kg-CO 2 e per day, using calculations from across the supply chain from land-use on farms to food loss 6 , 7 , 8 . Certain items could be readily eaten once taken (i.e. pastries, apples and chocolate) whereas others would require a kitchen to cook (i.e. raw meat and hard vegetables). All food donated came from just one organic supermarket whose weights varied daily but steadily increased during each period in both summer and winter (see Fig. 4 ). Food was donated each morning based on food they had not sold the day before. The fridge was placed in the street from 09.00 to 19:00, Monday to Saturday each week. A full list of donated food products, volumes and weights can be found in Appendix A. Food Insecurity The economic value of food donated was € 7,530 in summer and € 5,760 in winter, totalling €13,291, thus averaging € 470.66 per day in summer and € 411.49 in winter. All donated food was organic which food-insecure people could likely not afford to buy. For example, the price of one pack of 200 grams of chicken is as much as €8.00. This is expensive compared to the average price of non-organic chicken which is €3.50 33 The results of the FIES survey finds that 35% of the fridge users experience some level of persistent food insecurity. This suggests that the fridge could treat food insecurity. But it is too soon to state that it helps to reduce or alleviate persistent food insecurity. Furthermore, the FIES uses a standardised Rasch model, which gives each participant a continuous theta score, to determine their specific level of persistent food insecurity. The model means we can weight each question depending on the question's severity. But the survey only measures access to food and does not measure affordability. Therefore, each user also reported their monthly spending on food to compliment this. Figure 7 shows major differences in monthly spending between food security severity. Food-secure users spend on average €500 per month on groceries, mild food-insecure users spend €337.50 per month, moderate food-insecure users spend €312.50 per month, and severe food-insecure users spend on average €150 per month on groceries. Food Interactions Feasibility During August the temperature reached 35°C which may keep some pedestrians inside. In summer, from 12.00–16.00 each day, the fridge was not protected by building shade. In winter, temperatures reached 5°C, but the fridge temperature was kept stable at 4°C. The fridge was never mis-used, vandalised or stolen, which was a prior concern. However, feasibility was also tested with social criteria of community centre managers. Pre-deployment doubts included: the fridge causing electrical failures in the building, the safety of keeping food outside and the intervention attracting too many homeless. Yet, post-deployment, interviews with community centre managers suggest the fridge can be deployed daily and managed in different seasons, thus it is feasible year-round. They say: “ I don’t think it would be hard if we have a location where people can see it ”. Viability Viability findings show that donations of food increased steadily from day 1 to day 14. Once a donation process had been established, the managers wanted to donate more. We found that one supermarket donated a total of €13,291 of food, or € 441 per day. This may be a viable solution as the supermarket could not sell the products otherwise. Pre-deployment doubts from supermarket managers that did not donate included: safety of the use-by dates and that free food donations are not easy to redistribute. However, interviews with a manager from the donating supermarket suggest, the fridge can reduce food waste, especially as organic food is harder to store and keep fresh. They say: “Salads are vulnerable but it is great knowing the food went to a good cause” . Desirability Structured observations then classified four types of fridge interactions for pedestrians who: a) stop to look but don’t open the fridge, b) open the fridge but don’t take food, c) take food once but never again and d) take food multiple times across the weeks. Each day, 2690 people pass the fridge from the right-hand side and 3390 from the left. But, only 4.2% will stop walking to look at the fridge; of those pedestrians who do stop, 55% try to open the fridge; of those who open the fridge, 64% will take some food once; and of those who do take some food once, 25% will come back to take multiple times. The fridge was opened on average 51 times per 10-hour day, or once every 12 minutes. There were 29 frequent users of the fridge, using it multiple times across each week. Pedestrians passing from the left to the right of the fridge had a longer line of sight increasing both visibility and usage of the fridge (see Fig. 9 for view in methods). Some categories of food are completely taken out, at much greater speeds than others. For example, grain products are all taken within 4.5 hours, vegetables in 4 hours, fruit in 2.5 hours, dairy in 2 hours, proteins in 1.5 hours and chocolate in only 40 minutes. This suggests an inverted correlation between item price and the time they were taken. The fridge was used most often during the lunch time hours (12.00–14.00), which is most likely due to the greater foot traffic observed on the street during this period. Furthermore, the inside camera reports beyond desirability and into decision-making. On average, it takes a user 6.6 seconds to open the fridge but decide to not take food. However, it takes a user 13.1 seconds to open the fridge and decide to take food. This may be dependent on above factors, but we do not know which is most significant. Survey feedback from 100 users comment on desirability (supplementary material A). Summer feedback related to heat with expressed concern that food may not be fresh. For example, in the first few days, lone leftover lettuces were left exposed in the trays. However, due to feedback, all items were then placed more neatly in plastic packaging. Thus, improving the perception of ‘freshness’, despite the same inside temperature. The survey comments along with two interviews of regular fridge users suggest that they desire fridge food but will always leave some for others that may need it more. They say: “It would be nice to donate food to others too. Or give to my friends ”. Discussion ​​In 30-days, the fridge saved 1464.59 kg of food that would have otherwise been wasted. The food, although not deemed fit for sale in store, was still fit for human consumption. These results from one fridge suggest that this intervention may well contribute to reducing food waste from supermarkets spread out over multiple parts of the city. But, the store used here is much smaller in comparison to larger multi-national stores. The figure of supermarket food waste in Amsterdam and the Netherlands is unknown; if every supermarket had a fridge outlet stocked on site with items not deemed sellable, this may save edible food from being wasted, incinerated or, at best, bio digested 9 . Furthermore, interviews suggest that more supermarkets may donate food for fridges, but only if the food is safely stored, helps their own brand and goes to a good cause. However, it is unverified whether all food taken from the fridge ends up eaten at home. Amsterdam does not have a direct policy for managing food waste from households, and without tracking homes, the fridge may just divert waste from one place to another. Future research could interview users to find out if food is consumed and investigate further how community fridges could reduce larger volumes of household waste too 3 . Also, the findings only report estimates of kg/CO2-equivalent based on prior work 6 , 7 , 8 . Based on camera images alone, it is difficult to calculate emissions of certain foods, especially if lifecycle assessments depend on knowing the supermarkets supply chain. Future research could evolve the Raspberry Pi camera to configure carbon emissions, or attach sensors in the fridge which monitors in real-time as done so already 27 . Prior studies suggest that fridges can bridge gaps between food waste and insecurity 12 . Our results suggest that a community smart fridge can help to treat food insecurity too. However, what they do not prove is whether they can reduce food insecurity over time. More research is needed with pre-test/post-test measurements and control groups. The FIES finds that 35% of fridge users are mild to severely food insecure, which is far more than the national 5.5% 15 or 26% found in disadvantaged Dutch neighbourhoods 17 . This is not surprising as Amsterdam has many citizens in social housing on low income, and the community centre is well known for helping its guests in times of need 35 . However, our findings must be treated with caution as they only surveyed fridge users, rather than the Netherlands or Amsterdam population and cannot be generalized yet. Thus, there may be sampling bias, with fridge users more likely to be food insecure. Still, the findings enhance food insecurity research here which ignored affordability 16 , to show a clear relationship between decreased spending and increased food insecurity. Prior studies found that income and household size are determinants of insecurity 14 . However, our study did not measure the disposable income levels of fridge users, nor is it clear if monthly spending on food includes groceries for more people at home. More evidence for food insecurity policy is needed, to ensure that citizens can afford food they need in the supermarkets, before over relying on community fridges. Finally, the fridge was stocked daily with a variety of healthy fruits and vegetables but some items (i.e. chocolate bars) might not treat the nutritional needs of food insecurity. Future fridge and food insecurity research may study basic income and nutrition needs, to meet daily calorie requirements for whole households, or even those without homes. The fridge withstood extreme temperatures, was never misused by passers-by and was managed in alignment with the day-to-day operations of community centre employees. This aligns with prior research placing fridges in and around community centres 29 , 30 , 31 . But we expand this knowledge by redesigning a community fridge to also be ‘smart’. The inside camera showed real-time footage of food waste reductions and fridge usage. Yet, longitudinal research is needed to test how the fridge can also run autonomously. Future research could explore how such smart feedback can also help community centres stock the fridge and let users know when the fridge is full of food they need. Supermarkets said it was efficient to donate food close by, as their stock varies greatly. This was particularly helpful for organic food that is more vulnerable to decomposing. However, they still need help from fridge volunteers to transfer the food to the fridge. Managers are also motivated to donate food because of frustrations with use-by dates. They suggest that if they are legally allowed to donate all leftover food, then they would. But they did not donate to the fridge yet, because they were unsure about food laws. For example, in their own store they have control over products with security cameras, but in a fridge outside their store, they could not control for good behaviour of users. Future research could specify which Dutch food policies limit food waste reductions. Fridge users said that they frequented it, as it gave them “ expensive healthy items ”. Findings highlighted that vegetables had become too expensive and that the fresh, organic food they were getting from the fridge was not what they could usually afford. But a common reason for not taking any food at all, was to leave it for people in need. Future research could explore the motivations for not taking shared food more closely. If everyone assumes the next person is in greater need, then little food would be taken. Users that took food multiple times, also reported to do so on behalf of neighbours, who could not access the fridge as easily, due to poor health, less mobility, or no time. Therefore, future fridge research may investigate how to balance the needs of the user, with the desire to be a good neighbour, so that everyone can feel comfortable to eat. One major limitation of the study was that the fridge was not left outside overnight. Future research could investigate prolonged effects of the fridge over 24 hours a day, as this would make the fridge time accessible, especially for people working long hours. Furthermore, interviews suggest that people may feel less shame to take free food from an anonymous fridge than a person. However, rather than taking food in the daylight view of others, taking food at night under the cover of darkness may be much easier. Conclusion The community smart fridge can reduce substantial amounts of food from being wasted and potentially treat food insecurity as a feasible, viable and desirable intervention. The environmental problem of food waste is avoidable for Amsterdam, the Netherlands and other countries around the world who wish to keep on track to attain UN SDG 12.3. With the tracking of one camera inside one small fridge, we can help towards this goal. This 30 day study saved 1464.59 kg of food from being wasted by a single supermarket. The possibility of saving even greater amounts of food from being senselessly wasted, if deployed at scale, or replicated with other food retailers, can be easily evaluated. However, this will depend on the transparent disclosure of waste from businesses, backed by a specific set of policies from the government to allow food donations. Moreover, the economic problem of food insecurity is senseless too, if not inhumane. Even wealthy areas like Amsterdam and the Netherlands have not attained UN SDG 2.1. We show, how one small fridge, can help highlight hidden food access and affordability. We find that 35% of fridge users experience persistent mild to severe food insecurity. The possibility of this fridge reducing regular food insecurity may be an overstatement, as the findings are from too small a sample and are not tested over a longer period. However, if the fridge becomes a device to sense both food waste and food insecurity, community centres can take early actions on who to help feed in the neighbourhood. Finally, community centre employees think daily deployments of the fridge are feasible. This was tested under varying weather conditions from summer (35°C) to winter (5°C). Future iterations could design a smart interface to monitor the food autonomously. Next, supermarket managers believe they can donate free food in a way that is viable. They donated €442 worth of food every day, which is more than most users can afford. However, if food has passed sell-by dates and donating can increase brand reputation, then businesses have nothing to lose from food they could not sell in the first place. Lastly, fridge users want to leave food for the next person, despite finding it desirable. 64% of people who open the fridge, decide to take something in about 13.1 seconds. However, the fridge did not legally allow users to donate food, although they wanted to. But they will take more food to share amongst their neighbours who need it too. Therefore, appealing to the user needs may increase greater use of the fridge but appealing to the neighbourhood needs can inspire other acts of kindness too. Methods: Research Design, Participants, Procedure and Ethics Research Design We investigate a novel placement of a community fridge, with an exploratory approach. Design workshops were held before implementation to cover feasibility issues such as; food safety, temperature and movability of the fridge (for community centre managers), desirability issues such as; freshness perception and food placement (for fridge users), and viability issues such as: food types and timing of donations (for store managers). The primary concern was whether the fridge would be vandalised, mis-used or stolen. Fortunately, it was not. We did not measure any variables (i.e. food waste or insecurity) pre/post-intervention, nor did we have any control fridges to use, or assign the fridge to a random area. Therefore, the research design resembles more closely that of a ‘pilot intervention’. We introduced a donated fridge to a space on a busy street that was previously empty. A box was built around the fridge to protect it from outside weather, wheels to move, and designed to blend in with neighbourhood architecture associated with de Jordaan. While outside, it was connected to the inside power supply of the community centre. A community charity ( BuurtBuik ) helped implement and run the pilot intervention, therefore it became an extension of an existing and locally-known free food initiative. The front and sides of the box included a set of guidelines and messages (see Fig. 11 ). Attached was a QR code to an online page with: the FIES scale, monthly food spending, extra comments for how the fridge meets their needs and suggested improvements. Only supermarkets were allowed to give food according to EU food safety criteria. However, food was accessible to every passer-by. Therefore, it is a community fridge. The fridge itself was recycled and redesigned with the aim of becoming a ‘smart fridge’. A Raspberry Pi with a light sensor and a wide-angle camera was placed in a box and stuck on the inside of the fridge’s roof to record food flows and its usage by people. A python script was written to start recording a video every time the fridge was opened. When the door opens, outside light hits the light sensor and triggers a recording to start. When the door is closed again, the fridge is dark inside and the recording stops again. The camera was pointed downwards at the food and would capture hands reaching in. However, no faces were visible from inside, therefore maintaining the users anonymity. The videos were sent in real-time to a web interface hosted on the Raspberry Pi server. The web interface showed the number of times the fridge was opened and the duration. From this recording, we know how often food is taken, how quick users make decisions, what types of food are most used, and what times of day the fridge is being used, or not. Most importantly, it shows us how much leftover food is being donated and taken out. Therefore, the community fridge becomes a smart fridge too. Participants With the feasibility, desirability and viability framework, we had 3 fridge stakeholders. The community centre employees helping to look out for the fridge included the reception staff, whose role is to welcome the community centre guests to the building. They would help move the fridge inside when it was empty, answer questions about it from passers-by and keep an eye on it to observe any noteworthy interactions. Due to the street, it was mainly pedestrians and cyclists that would stop, not vehicles. However, the passers-by could include anyone: from local residents to global tourists, from food-secure to insecure and from regular community centre guests to first timers. Structured observations captured clear socio-demographics (i.e gender and age range) however it could not capture less visible ones (i.e. income level and nationality). Finally, supermarkets managers also participated, supplying the fridge with donations. But, due to the fridge size we could only fit the leftover food of one supermarket per day. An organic supermarket whose produce is only affordable for higher income homes, wanted to donate all their daily food products that would have otherwise been wasted. Procedure (Fridge Placement, Fridge Design and Fridge Framing) Fridge Placement The fridge was deployed in August (for 16 days) and December 2024 (for 14 days) for a total of 30 days recording data for approximately 10 hours every day from 09.00–19.00. Each morning food was collected from the store and taken to the community centre. Loose items (i.e. lettuce) were repackaged, items were grouped into trays for; fruit, vegetables, proteins, dairy and cereals and all the items were placed on two shelves. When placed out on the street, the Raspberry Pi was manually checked to record. Some days more leftover food was donated than could fit inside the fridge outside. Therefore, we kept extra food in a larger fridge inside the community centre kitchen, ready to be placed in the public fridge, if food was quickly taken by the early afternoon. For legal reasons, the fridge could not receive food donations directly from households, despite a large portion of food waste (1 million tonnes) from homes in the Netherlands 2 . The placement of the fridge on the street will very likely influence its eventual usage. Structured observations showed people who walk from the side with the ramp were more likely to use the fridge as they have a clearer line of sight when approaching here. From the ramp, they have direct sight of the fridge and can decide to use it beforehand. It took users of the ramp approximately 10 secs to walk the distance of 12 metres. Compared to those who approached from the right, they had less time and space to decide about the fridge, due to the street’s intersection with traffic from 3 directions. Structured observations also detected people crossing the street to use the fridge but this angle could not capture accurately, and we cannot infer about those distances. Figure 9 shows people travelling from the left with an unobstructed path and view of the fridge increases the likelihood that they interact with it, far greater than other factors. Choice architecture and behavioural economics 36 would suggest this is due to salience, whereby the fridge is simply more prominent here, thus affording more interactions. Furthermore, comments from the community centre managers suggested that the fridge could also be placed inside the entrance and protected from outside elements. Yet, this would only serve current community centre users and not attract new users. Fridge Design Uncertainty over the management of the fridge was reported by community centre employees who said users would pick food but go inside asking for permission to take. Concerns over freshness related to the way food was packaged inside the fridge. So, ‘food from today’ placed on the lower shelf and ‘food from yesterday’ on the top. Moreover, we wrapped unpackaged food in clear plastic bags for users to easily grab. This aligns with previous research where consumer acceptance of novel food technologies may be negatively influenced by too much exposure to human hands 18 . Initially, the fridge was designed to blend into the background of the community centre at the request of the building managers and aligned to the UNESCO heritage style. However, the wood frame mimicking traditional Amsterdam rooftops was less visible. It was also less visible due to the smaller size of the fridge, compared to ones in homes. Data from structured observations revealed that as many as 95.8% of pedestrians walked by without stopping (although eye tracking could reveal if they even noticed it). But during summer, people are wearing sunglasses making this somewhat difficult. Moreover, many passers-by would stop to take a picture or even a selfie with the fridge. Due to resource limitations, we did not track the online discourse and reactions found. However, future iterations could measure this, especially if they generate greater use. One major suggestion from users would be to have a fridge with transparent glass, therefore attracting more people and reducing the times it is opened but not then used. This can distinguish it as a working fridge from other discarded fridges seen in the city. Future iterations may therefore benefit from larger and more transparent fridge designs. Other fridge suggestions from users include: fridges that stock cold drinks on hot days, fridges that produce their own leafy greens and crops with vertical farming equipment, fridges that utilise computer vision for product recognition and recipe suggestions using large language models based on what is inside, and a series of ‘Internet of Things’ connected fridges spread throughout the city, so that users know before what is inside. Shelves were needed to stack food inside neatly and be easily removed by users. But, this meant the camera did not capture the whole fridge from the birds eye view. Therefore, the camera was placed closer to the door so all the food was recorded. Future designs could place the camera on the inside door capturing everything but would have to be timed, to not capture the faces of users when they open the door too. Fridge Framing The effects of different fridge framings were explored, using behavioural economics 36 , as we did not know which particular messages would increase consumer acceptance 20 . Early feedback from users concerned the fridge framing and poster with suggestions of; simpler messages, guidelines on all visible sides of the fridge, in Dutch and English text. This included a man sitting on a small mountain of various food types (see Fig. 11 ). If the framing and messages appeals too much to the environmental aim of food waste, then some may be deterred by associations with foods that are not fresh to eat. However, if we appeal too much to the economic reduction of food insecurity, then some people may be deterred for fear they would take food from someone in need. Based on early feedback, future messaging might thread a more nuanced needle of social appeals with taking more food for yourself, and for your neighbours also. However, as we did not have many resources to test with randomised control fridges, the pilot intervention can not state if fridge-use is due to framing, design or placement. Ethics The pilot intervention was performed in accordance with all the relevant regulations. They were first approved by the AMS Institute ethics review and given permission by the municipality of Amsterdam under controlled research purposes (Appendix B). BuurtBuik have experience with donated foods and they were responsible for the management of the fridge, and safety of the food that would not expire or go mouldy. For example, all food was manually checked and stored in accordance with the European Union health and safety standards (i.e. food must be kept below 5°C). The raspberry camera passed ethical approval as it was monitoring safety of the fridge. It was also connected to a community centre (a public government funded building) which requires cameras by the entrance for safety, security and for incident reviews. Participants were informed of the camera inside the fridge and that it was part of a research project stated in Dutch and English guidelines on both sides (Appendix C). Users who wanted to take food but did not want their hands recorded could inform the front desk if they did not consent to participate in the study but could still take the food. Thus, informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardians. The front desk only received questions from users asking if they could donate food too. Furthermore, the fridge received many passing remarks which were not recorded. Future research could implement a microphone to record verbal data, but with ethical design considerations, this could involve a button to voluntarily record their remarks. Declarations Data Availability All data generated during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary files. Funding Declaration The work was funded by a EU Horizon 2020 grant and Marie Curie Innovation Training Network for early-stage researchers, known as GECKO (grant id 95542). Author Contribution J.L: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing (Original Draft), Writing (Review and Editing)R.V: Methodology, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing (Original Draft), Writing (Review and Editing)T.V: Conceptualisation, Supervision, Writing (Review and Editing)F.D: Supervision, Writing (Review and Editing)C.K: Writing (Review and Editing)F.J: Writing (Review and Editing)D.P: Writing (Review and Editing) References United Nations. (2015). Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns . United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal12#targets_and_indicators European Commission. (2025). EU Food Loss and Waste Prevention Hub: Netherlands . Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu-food-loss-waste-prevention-hub/eu-member-state-page/show/NL City of Amsterdam. (2023). Policy: Food Strategy . Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/policy/sustainability/food-strategy/ City of Amsterdam. (2024, October). Factsheet voedselverspilling Amsterdam – oktober 2024 . Open Research Amsterdam. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://openresearch.amsterdam/nl/page/119220/factsheet-voedselverspilling-amsterdam---oktober-2024 Bos-Brouwers, H., Kok, M., & Viquez-Zamora, M. (2024, May 1). Climate footprint of food waste in the Netherlands . Wageningen University & Research. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu-food-loss-waste-prevention-hub/resource/show/7712 Wageningen University & Research. (2024, September 12). Food waste in supermarkets down to 0.89% . Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://www.wur.nl/en/research-results/research-institutes/food-biobased-research/show-fbr/food-waste-in-supermarkets-2024.htm Global Change Data Lab. (2025). Food: greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain [Data set]. Our World in Data . Retrieved July 1, 2025, from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-chain?country Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science , 360 (6392), 987-992. Albert Heijn. (2025). Minder verspillen . Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://www.ah.nl/over-ah/onze-missie/duurzaam/minder-verspillen Ekoplaza. (2025). Voedselverspilling . Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://www.ekoplaza.nl/nl/over-ekoplaza/voedselverspilling Jumbo. (2025). Voedselverspilling tegengaan . Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://www.jumbo.com/nieuws/voedselverspilling-tegengaan/ Okadera, T., Tsuchiya, K., Hanaoka, T., & Nishina, K. (2025). Synergy between SDGs 12.3 and 2.1 in lower-middle-income countries through the lens of food waste and energy imbalance. Scientific Reports , 15 (1), 17956. United Nations. (2015). Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture . United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal2#targets_and_indicators Nimko, O., Hodel, L., Chandra, A., & Garrett, R. (2025). The food security of residents and refugees of Ukraine after the Russian invasion. Scientific Reports , 15 (1), 16238. Our World in Data. (2023, July 18). End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture . Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://ourworldindata.org/sdgs/zero-hunger Helbich, M., Schadenberg, B., Hagenauer, J., & Poelman, M. (2017). Food deserts? Healthy food access in Amsterdam. Applied Geography , 83 , 1-12. Janssen, J. M., van der Velde, L. A., & Kiefte-de Jong, J. C. (2022). Food insecurity in Dutch disadvantaged neighbourhoods: a socio-ecological approach. Journal of Nutritional Science , 11 , e52. Zhao, H., Fan, X., Bai, Z., Ma, L., Wang, C., Havlík, P., ... & Chang, J. (2024). Holistic food system innovation strategies can close up to 80% of China’s domestic protein gaps while reducing global environmental impacts. Nature Food , 5 (7), 581-591. Blackstone, N. T., Battaglia, K., Rodríguez-Huerta, E., Bell, B. M., Decker Sparks, J. L., Cash, S. B., ... & Webb, P. (2024). Diets cannot be sustainable without ensuring the well-being of communities, workers and animals in food value chains. Nature Food , 5 (10), 818-824. BuurtBuik. (2025). Voedsel verbindt – gratis maaltijden van gered voedsel . Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://buurtbuik.nl/ Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2020). Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nature Food , 1 (6), 343-350. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review , 86 (6), 84. Bocken, N. M., Harsch, A., & Weissbrod, I. (2022). Circular business models for the fastmoving consumer goods industry: Desirability, feasibility, and viability. Sustainable Production and Consumption , 30 , 799-814. Luo, S., Jin, J. S., & Li, J. (2009). A smart fridge with an ability to enhance health and enable better nutrition. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering , 4 (2), 69-80. Kapici, E., Kutluay, E., & Izadi-Zamanabadi, R. (2022). A novel intelligent control method for domestic refrigerators based on user behavior. International Journal of Refrigeration , 136 , 209-218. Reynolds, C., Goucher, L., Quested, T., Bromley, S., Gillick, S., Wells, V. K., ... & Jackson, P. (2019). Consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions–What works and how to design better interventions. Food policy , 83 , 7-27. Istif, E., Mirzajani, H., Dağ, Ç., Mirlou, F., Ozuaciksoz, E. Y., Cakır, C., ... & Beker, L. (2023). Miniaturized wireless sensor enables real-time monitoring of food spoilage. Nature Food , 4 (5), 427-436. Morrow, O. (2019). Sharing food and risk in Berlin’s urban food commons. Geoforum , 99 , 202-212. Visram, S., & Brown, E. (2020). What is the role of community fridges in the UK? An exploratory mixed methods study. European Journal of Public Health , 30 (Supplement_5), ckaa165-716. Carmen, E., Fazey, I., Caniglia, G., Anthony, J., & Penny, L. (2022). The social dynamics in establishing complex community climate change initiatives: the case of a community fridge in Scotland. Sustainability Science , 17 (1), 259-273. Kiden, S., Strohmayer, A., & Yee, J. (2023, January). Before the Tech Bit: Observations on the Workings of a Scottish Community Fridge. In Companion Proceedings of the 2023 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 45-47). Edwards, F., & Davies, A. R. (2020). Connective consumptions: Mapping Melbourne’s food sharing ecosystem. In Disruptive Urbanism (pp. 84-103). Routledge. Albert Heijn B.V. (2025). Kipfilet stuk . Albert Heijn. Retrieved June 27, 2025, from https://www.ah.nl/producten/1231/kipfilet-stuk Verlaan, T., & Albers, A. (2022). From hippies to yuppies: Marginal gentrification in Amsterdam’s Jordaan and De Pijp neighbourhoods 1960–1990. City, 26 (2–3), 496–518. Stichting DOCK. (2025). Huis van de Buurt het Claverhuis. DOCK . Retrieved June 1, 2025, from https://www.dock.nl/locaties/amsterdam/centrum/huis-van-de-buurt-het-claverhuis/ Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness . Yale University Press. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementaryMaterial.xlsx Appendices.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7187885","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":500531796,"identity":"64767841-72ee-4680-99db-fd5e80b09baf","order_by":0,"name":"Joseph Llewellyn","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"KTH Royal Institute of Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Joseph","middleName":"","lastName":"Llewellyn","suffix":""},{"id":500531799,"identity":"7c857339-1e08-40c2-99c5-6ec546cc30cb","order_by":1,"name":"Romme te Velde","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Romme","middleName":"te","lastName":"Velde","suffix":""},{"id":500531800,"identity":"259584b9-5e8e-4147-b6a0-8c6867d4e218","order_by":2,"name":"Titus Venverloo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Titus","middleName":"","lastName":"Venverloo","suffix":""},{"id":500531801,"identity":"0b704561-5ca4-4630-aee0-8b573e56eae3","order_by":3,"name":"Fabio Duarte","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Fabio","middleName":"","lastName":"Duarte","suffix":""},{"id":500531802,"identity":"8faf619e-7847-4b86-9fa7-a59472c20ff0","order_by":4,"name":"Cecilia Katzeff","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"KTH Royal Institute of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Cecilia","middleName":"","lastName":"Katzeff","suffix":""},{"id":500531803,"identity":"5000698f-a30b-45d2-9253-728d17277fe2","order_by":5,"name":"Fredrik Johansson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"KTH Royal Institute of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Fredrik","middleName":"","lastName":"Johansson","suffix":""},{"id":500531804,"identity":"4bcde02d-3b4c-473c-a414-b4676ca1f4e5","order_by":6,"name":"Daniel Pargman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"KTH Royal Institute of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Daniel","middleName":"","lastName":"Pargman","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-22 14:08:15","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7187885/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7187885/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":89478792,"identity":"dee691ea-e86f-4f3d-a78b-6897465a4bc0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-20 11:23:25","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":597358,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStills from the ‘fridge cam’ capturing leftover food donated in real-time\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7187885/v1/fb7389b0242592eda0e4ec39.png"},{"id":89478422,"identity":"43fca8c9-a01c-4468-8877-38b91b43ae32","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-20 11:15:25","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1625211,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCamera placed in a box, food placed in packaging and fridge placed in street\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7187885/v1/dd4f042dd7674e810d40af53.png"},{"id":89478785,"identity":"a4d26a40-be49-4780-b3d3-665b1416bf6b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-20 11:23:25","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":45643,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAverage daily food donated by supermarkets and their carbon equivalents\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7187885/v1/1e5d142097fa9c4a5beb164f.png"},{"id":89478420,"identity":"3d4d1313-3a87-4d2f-86ee-d6f515c7f6e9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-20 11:15:25","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":40770,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFood donated to the fridge per category across both seasons\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7187885/v1/ca0544c2a15df51480d7598b.png"},{"id":89478784,"identity":"874a4a16-4531-47da-abef-a3296fc7ae52","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-20 11:23:25","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":48064,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEconomic value of food donated into the fridge each day in both seasons\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7187885/v1/77e4d19806c6eacebed24a9a.png"},{"id":89478788,"identity":"f47b34a1-8b1d-4c1b-8f82-60af2b6d4ba4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-20 11:23:25","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":32556,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePie chart of 100 survey respondents to the FIES survey on the fridge\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7187885/v1/6e2443089dba1d47264b93a2.png"},{"id":89478791,"identity":"512b4a35-4801-4af6-a951-54a286a6110d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-20 11:23:25","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56955,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBoxplots showing monthly spending on food with food insecurity categories\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7187885/v1/9c2ed0b0062ecb103811f374.png"},{"id":89478441,"identity":"18e8ae08-7ea6-4303-9cc4-3458a062c119","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-20 11:15:25","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":55863,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAverage fridge users over a 5-day period (Tuesday-Saturday 09.00-19.00)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7187885/v1/824be9771243d6d8badf2ea9.png"},{"id":89478427,"identity":"1fcfb277-ff00-4f1b-b15a-c4d290d9f46e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-20 11:15:25","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":128205,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTop-down view of fridge visibility from the left and the right-hand side\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7187885/v1/27a5cea674a24d4c62136fc9.png"},{"id":89478797,"identity":"3b08bab4-e010-4fbb-b6ad-4082d023b6dd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-20 11:23:25","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1008255,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStills from original summer design to winter and Christmas decorated fridge\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"10.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7187885/v1/160dd1720e6574270798f52b.png"},{"id":89478803,"identity":"e98c328c-d028-4fdd-b090-38059dd910ba","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-20 11:23:26","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":974925,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFeedback incorporated from users on fridge framing\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"11.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7187885/v1/04efb8c9ab1dcc2c2974c19c.png"},{"id":101819206,"identity":"31b10d43-fb68-4a1a-9b20-dd7c0f4dd5bc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-04 02:40:24","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":6066483,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7187885/v1/8e649d11-a73e-470d-a554-1bff53e67532.pdf"},{"id":89478425,"identity":"342dbc00-3b5d-453f-b521-81e9d7f874d7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-20 11:15:25","extension":"xlsx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":53422,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryMaterial.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7187885/v1/b3ec01c59cc25553907af1fc.xlsx"},{"id":89479361,"identity":"e391a447-d070-46fb-ad57-71e02f03fe33","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-20 11:31:25","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":1526254,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendices.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7187885/v1/94e2fc4f3de14edd7c9b1fcf.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"What is the impact of a community smart fridge? Investigating food waste, food insecurity and food interactions","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (UN SDG) target 12.3 ambitiously aims to halve per capita global food waste at the consumer and retail level by 2030\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e. However, in the Netherlands, around 2,290,000 tonnes of food is wasted each year (161 kg per capita), with at least 209,805 tonnes of food contributed by supermarkets\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Amsterdam has circular economy targets for their food waste that align with UN SDGs\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Nevertheless, the city still wastes as much as 162,000 tonnes of food each year\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Furthermore, the contribution of food waste to greenhouse gas emissions is nearly 9 megatons of CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e-equivalent/year, or up to 9% of total emissions in the Netherlands\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Within supermarkets, grain products contribute the most to food waste (36%), then fruit and vegetables (34.2%), dairy (13%), non-perishables (11.6%) and proteins (5.3%)\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e. However, the emissions impact significantly varies between these major food groups. For kg-CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e-equivalent wasted, fruit and vegetables average the least (.86 kg-CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003ee), then grains (1.5 kg-CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003ee), dairy (13.6 kg-CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003ee) and then proteins (31.53 kg-CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003ee)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Supermarket strategies to reduce food waste commonly include: reduced prices for nearly expired food\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, improved forecasting demands\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and donating to charities\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParadoxically, food waste and food insecurity often exist even in the same countries\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The UN SDG target 2.1 aims to end hunger and ensure access to nutritious and sufficient food all year round, particularly for people in poor and vulnerable situations\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In Europe, income factors have become increasingly important for food insecurity \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The Food and Agricultural Organizations\u0026rsquo; (FAO) Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) finds 5.5% of the population in the Netherlands experience regular food insecurity\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. They classify mild food insecurity (an inability to eat healthy balanced meals regularly) to severe insecurity (an inability to eat enough food to prevent hunger and malnutrition). Prior research in Amsterdam states all neighbourhoods have access to healthy foods\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. But, proximity to supermarkets does not account for the affordability of healthy foods. In disadvantaged Dutch neighbourhoods, up to 26% of homes may be food insecure\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Thus, local innovations need to target both access and affordability for food insecurity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMany innovations exist in rural production, with goals of reducing food waste, such as using climate smart technology for agriculture in China\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, or reducing food insecurity, such as using rural community fruit and vegetable cooperatives in the United States\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In the Netherlands, social initiatives exist using community kitchens (i.e. \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eBuurtBuik\u003c/span\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e), that take leftover food from businesses to make free meals for food-insecure citizens. These initiatives depend on volunteers' working together in spare time (i.e. once a week) and may not reduce the full extent of food waste and insecurity occurring every day. Research finds consumer perception of novel food technologies requires evaluation at the earlier stages of technology adoption, if they aim for wider societal acceptance\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The UN FAO offers no framework to test such social or technical innovations but universal design frameworks for innovations do exist which test three main criteria; feasibility (is it technically feasible to implement?), desirability (does the solution meet the needs of users?) and viability (does it align with business objectives?)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSmart fridge research focuses on real-time connections to the internet which helps track food usage with sensors and is investigated for a range of needs within homes, from improving health of occupants\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e to reduced energy consumption in kitchens\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Global food waste policy reviews suggest more evidence is needed on fridge cameras\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Insofar as we are aware, studies have been piloted in private rather than public settings. Prior research studies food waste with sensors in packaging for methane monitoring\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. These are low cost but must be placed in every single package, using many sensors. While the above solutions can be useful inside private homes and private businesses, they do not help vulnerable homes who really struggle to pay for food in the first place. Meanwhile, most community fridge research comes from Germany\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and the U.K.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Up until now, the Netherlands has not yet adopted these community-based fridges. Thus, the social acceptability of using a community fridge in public here is unknown. Other fridges were placed in or around community centres, helping them to become socially acceptable\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, these fridges were not developed and deployed with smart-technology capabilities such as sensors and cameras to track fridge usage, and measure which food types are donated more and how often the fridge is used every day. Such technologies may be disruptive to various stakeholders who interact with them. Research\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e finds the social acceptance of food technologies depends on perception, such as safety (i.e. is it feasible for community centres to maintain a fridge outdoors?), naturalness (i.e. is it viable for supermarkets to donate fresh, organic and edible food?), and trust (i.e. is it desirable for users to take food from a fridge without having to pay?). Thus, the fridge intervention requires a subjective evaluation with stakeholders too.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResearch Problem and Questions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTechnological research currently exists on smart fridges to reduce food waste in homes and social research exists on community fridges to reduce food insecurity in public. Smart fridge research mostly occurs in private places for homes to track food intake but are not climate smart, as they do not measure environmental reductions in food waste. Meanwhile, community fridges have not utilised sensors, nor measured food insecurity. Therefore, our research pilots and evaluates the impact on food waste, food insecurity and social acceptance of a \u0026lsquo;community smart fridge\u0026rsquo; within a busy urban public space. The fridge is placed beside a community centre in the Jordaan area of Amsterdam (as seen in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e in methods). The following pilot intervention asks 3 sub questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRQ 1. What is the food waste impact of a community smart fridge?\u003c/b\u003e The environmental impact of food waste is often measured in kg/CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e-equivalent. In general, such measurements are reported annually and post-hoc by organizations. We used a Raspberry Pi camera placed inside the fridge to detect supermarket food that would have otherwise been wasted but was instead donated to the fridge (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1). This captures types/quantities of food donated to and taken from the fridge in real-time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRQ 2. What is the food insecurity impact of a community smart fridge?\u003c/b\u003e The FIES survey can measure the severity of food insecurity experienced by fridge users. However, it does not measure the affordability of food as spent by survey respondents. Therefore, we ask extra questions on the fridge concerning monthly spending on food.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRQ 3. What is the social acceptability of a community smart fridge?\u003c/b\u003e The framework of feasibility, viability and desirability is evaluated when interviewing community centre managers, supermarket employees and users of the fridge. However, we use structured observations to further quantify the desirability and find out which factors are associated with the fridge interactions on the street. The fridge placement, design and framing will also influence interactions (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eFood Waste\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDuring 16 days in summer and 14 days in winter 2024, 863.7 kg and 600.9 kg was donated, totalling 1464.6 kg. Thus, a daily average of 53.98 kg and 42.92 kg respectively. This resulted in 10,127.48 kg-CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003ee over the 30 day period, or 337.57 kg-CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003ee per day, using calculations from across the supply chain from land-use on farms to food loss\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Certain items could be readily eaten once taken (i.e. pastries, apples and chocolate) whereas others would require a kitchen to cook (i.e. raw meat and hard vegetables).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll food donated came from just one organic supermarket whose weights varied daily but steadily increased during each period in both summer and winter (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Food was donated each morning based on food they had not sold the day before. The fridge was placed in the street from 09.00 to 19:00, Monday to Saturday each week. A full list of donated food products, volumes and weights can be found in Appendix A.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFood Insecurity\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe economic value of food donated was \u0026euro; 7,530 in summer and \u0026euro; 5,760 in winter, totalling \u0026euro;13,291, thus averaging \u0026euro; 470.66 per day in summer and \u0026euro; 411.49 in winter. All donated food was organic which food-insecure people could likely not afford to buy. For example, the price of one pack of 200 grams of chicken is as much as \u0026euro;8.00. This is expensive compared to the average price of non-organic chicken which is \u0026euro;3.50\u003csup\u003e33\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of the FIES survey finds that 35% of the fridge users experience some level of persistent food insecurity. This suggests that the fridge could treat food insecurity. But it is too soon to state that it helps to reduce or alleviate persistent food insecurity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the FIES uses a standardised Rasch model, which gives each participant a continuous theta score, to determine their specific level of persistent food insecurity. The model means we can weight each question depending on the question's severity. But the survey only measures access to food and does not measure affordability. Therefore, each user also reported their monthly spending on food to compliment this. Figure\u0026nbsp;7 shows major differences in monthly spending between food security severity. Food-secure users spend on average \u0026euro;500 per month on groceries, mild food-insecure users spend \u0026euro;337.50 per month, moderate food-insecure users spend \u0026euro;312.50 per month, and severe food-insecure users spend on average \u0026euro;150 per month on groceries.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFood Interactions\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFeasibility\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDuring August the temperature reached 35\u0026deg;C which may keep some pedestrians inside. In summer, from 12.00\u0026ndash;16.00 each day, the fridge was not protected by building shade. In winter, temperatures reached 5\u0026deg;C, but the fridge temperature was kept stable at 4\u0026deg;C. The fridge was never mis-used, vandalised or stolen, which was a prior concern. However, feasibility was also tested with social criteria of community centre managers. Pre-deployment doubts included: the fridge causing electrical failures in the building, the safety of keeping food outside and the intervention attracting too many homeless. Yet, post-deployment, interviews with community centre managers suggest the fridge can be deployed daily and managed in different seasons, thus it is feasible year-round. They say: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eI don\u0026rsquo;t think it would be hard if we have a location where people can see it\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eViability\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eViability findings show that donations of food increased steadily from day 1 to day 14. Once a donation process had been established, the managers wanted to donate more. We found that one supermarket donated a total of \u0026euro;13,291 of food, or \u0026euro; 441 per day. This may be a viable solution as the supermarket could not sell the products otherwise. Pre-deployment doubts from supermarket managers that did not donate included: safety of the use-by dates and that free food donations are not easy to redistribute. However, interviews with a manager from the donating supermarket suggest, the fridge can reduce food waste, especially as organic food is harder to store and keep fresh. They say: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Salads are vulnerable but it is great knowing the food went to a good cause\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDesirability\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStructured observations then classified four types of fridge interactions for pedestrians who: a) stop to look but don\u0026rsquo;t open the fridge, b) open the fridge but don\u0026rsquo;t take food, c) take food once but never again and d) take food multiple times across the weeks. Each day, 2690 people pass the fridge from the right-hand side and 3390 from the left. But, only 4.2% will stop walking to look at the fridge; of those pedestrians who do stop, 55% try to open the fridge; of those who open the fridge, 64% will take some food once; and of those who do take some food once, 25% will come back to take multiple times.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fridge was opened on average 51 times per 10-hour day, or once every 12 minutes. There were 29 frequent users of the fridge, using it multiple times across each week. Pedestrians passing from the left to the right of the fridge had a longer line of sight increasing both visibility and usage of the fridge (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e for view in methods). Some categories of food are completely taken out, at much greater speeds than others. For example, grain products are all taken within 4.5 hours, vegetables in 4 hours, fruit in 2.5 hours, dairy in 2 hours, proteins in 1.5 hours and chocolate in only 40 minutes. This suggests an inverted correlation between item price and the time they were taken. The fridge was used most often during the lunch time hours (12.00\u0026ndash;14.00), which is most likely due to the greater foot traffic observed on the street during this period. Furthermore, the inside camera reports beyond desirability and into decision-making. On average, it takes a user 6.6 seconds to open the fridge but decide to not take food. However, it takes a user 13.1 seconds to open the fridge and decide to take food. This may be dependent on above factors, but we do not know which is most significant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSurvey feedback from 100 users comment on desirability (supplementary material A). Summer feedback related to heat with expressed concern that food may not be fresh. For example, in the first few days, lone leftover lettuces were left exposed in the trays. However, due to feedback, all items were then placed more neatly in plastic packaging. Thus, improving the perception of \u0026lsquo;freshness\u0026rsquo;, despite the same inside temperature. The survey comments along with two interviews of regular fridge users suggest that they desire fridge food but will always leave some for others that may need it more. They say: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;It would be nice to donate food to others too. Or give to my friends\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e​​In 30-days, the fridge saved 1464.59 kg of food that would have otherwise been wasted. The food, although not deemed fit for sale in store, was still fit for human consumption. These results from one fridge suggest that this intervention may well contribute to reducing food waste from supermarkets spread out over multiple parts of the city. But, the store used here is much smaller in comparison to larger multi-national stores. The figure of supermarket food waste in Amsterdam and the Netherlands is unknown; if every supermarket had a fridge outlet stocked on site with items not deemed sellable, this may save edible food from being wasted, incinerated or, at best, bio digested\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Furthermore, interviews suggest that more supermarkets may donate food for fridges, but only if the food is safely stored, helps their own brand and goes to a good cause.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, it is unverified whether all food taken from the fridge ends up eaten at home. Amsterdam does not have a direct policy for managing food waste from households, and without tracking homes, the fridge may just divert waste from one place to another. Future research could interview users to find out if food is consumed and investigate further how community fridges could reduce larger volumes of household waste too\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Also, the findings only report estimates of kg/CO2-equivalent based on prior work\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Based on camera images alone, it is difficult to calculate emissions of certain foods, especially if lifecycle assessments depend on knowing the supermarkets supply chain. Future research could evolve the Raspberry Pi camera to configure carbon emissions, or attach sensors in the fridge which monitors in real-time as done so already\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrior studies suggest that fridges can bridge gaps between food waste and insecurity\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Our results suggest that a community smart fridge can help to treat food insecurity too. However, what they do not prove is whether they can reduce food insecurity over time. More research is needed with pre-test/post-test measurements and control groups. The FIES finds that 35% of fridge users are mild to severely food insecure, which is far more than the national 5.5%\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e or 26% found in disadvantaged Dutch neighbourhoods\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This is not surprising as Amsterdam has many citizens in social housing on low income, and the community centre is well known for helping its guests in times of need\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, our findings must be treated with caution as they only surveyed fridge users, rather than the Netherlands or Amsterdam population and cannot be generalized yet. Thus, there may be sampling bias, with fridge users more likely to be food insecure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStill, the findings enhance food insecurity research here which ignored affordability\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, to show a clear relationship between decreased spending and increased food insecurity. Prior studies found that income and household size are determinants of insecurity\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, our study did not measure the disposable income levels of fridge users, nor is it clear if monthly spending on food includes groceries for more people at home. More evidence for food insecurity policy is needed, to ensure that citizens can afford food they need in the supermarkets, before over relying on community fridges. Finally, the fridge was stocked daily with a variety of healthy fruits and vegetables but some items (i.e. chocolate bars) might not treat the nutritional needs of food insecurity. Future fridge and food insecurity research may study basic income and nutrition needs, to meet daily calorie requirements for whole households, or even those without homes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fridge withstood extreme temperatures, was never misused by passers-by and was managed in alignment with the day-to-day operations of community centre employees. This aligns with prior research placing fridges in and around community centres\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. But we expand this knowledge by redesigning a community fridge to also be \u0026lsquo;smart\u0026rsquo;. The inside camera showed real-time footage of food waste reductions and fridge usage. Yet, longitudinal research is needed to test how the fridge can also run autonomously. Future research could explore how such smart feedback can also help community centres stock the fridge and let users know when the fridge is full of food they need.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSupermarkets said it was efficient to donate food close by, as their stock varies greatly. This was particularly helpful for organic food that is more vulnerable to decomposing. However, they still need help from fridge volunteers to transfer the food to the fridge. Managers are also motivated to donate food because of frustrations with use-by dates. They suggest that if they are legally allowed to donate all leftover food, then they would. But they did not donate to the fridge yet, because they were unsure about food laws. For example, in their own store they have control over products with security cameras, but in a fridge outside their store, they could not control for good behaviour of users. Future research could specify which Dutch food policies limit food waste reductions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFridge users said that they frequented it, as it gave them \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eexpensive healthy items\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;. Findings highlighted that vegetables had become too expensive and that the fresh, organic food they were getting from the fridge was not what they could usually afford. But a common reason for not taking any food at all, was to leave it for people in need. Future research could explore the motivations for not taking shared food more closely. If everyone assumes the next person is in greater need, then little food would be taken. Users that took food multiple times, also reported to do so on behalf of neighbours, who could not access the fridge as easily, due to poor health, less mobility, or no time. Therefore, future fridge research may investigate how to balance the needs of the user, with the desire to be a good neighbour, so that everyone can feel comfortable to eat.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne major limitation of the study was that the fridge was not left outside overnight. Future research could investigate prolonged effects of the fridge over 24 hours a day, as this would make the fridge time accessible, especially for people working long hours. Furthermore, interviews suggest that people may feel less shame to take free food from an anonymous fridge than a person. However, rather than taking food in the daylight view of others, taking food at night under the cover of darkness may be much easier.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe community smart fridge can reduce substantial amounts of food from being wasted and potentially treat food insecurity as a feasible, viable and desirable intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe environmental problem of food waste is avoidable for Amsterdam, the Netherlands and other countries around the world who wish to keep on track to attain UN SDG 12.3. With the tracking of one camera inside one small fridge, we can help towards this goal. This 30 day study saved 1464.59 kg of food from being wasted by a single supermarket. The possibility of saving even greater amounts of food from being senselessly wasted, if deployed at scale, or replicated with other food retailers, can be easily evaluated. However, this will depend on the transparent disclosure of waste from businesses, backed by a specific set of policies from the government to allow food donations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, the economic problem of food insecurity is senseless too, if not inhumane. Even wealthy areas like Amsterdam and the Netherlands have not attained UN SDG 2.1. We show, how one small fridge, can help highlight hidden food access and affordability. We find that 35% of fridge users experience persistent mild to severe food insecurity. The possibility of this fridge reducing regular food insecurity may be an overstatement, as the findings are from too small a sample and are not tested over a longer period. However, if the fridge becomes a device to sense both food waste and food insecurity, community centres can take early actions on who to help feed in the neighbourhood.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, community centre employees think daily deployments of the fridge are feasible. This was tested under varying weather conditions from summer (35°C) to winter (5°C). Future iterations could design a smart interface to monitor the food autonomously. Next, supermarket managers believe they can donate free food in a way that is viable. They donated €442 worth of food every day, which is more than most users can afford. However, if food has passed sell-by dates and donating can increase brand reputation, then businesses have nothing to lose from food they could not sell in the first place. Lastly, fridge users want to leave food for the next person, despite finding it desirable. 64% of people who open the fridge, decide to take something in about 13.1 seconds. However, the fridge did not legally allow users to donate food, although they wanted to. But they will take more food to share amongst their neighbours who need it too. Therefore, appealing to the user needs may increase greater use of the fridge but appealing to the neighbourhood needs can inspire other acts of kindness too.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods: Research Design, Participants, Procedure and Ethics","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResearch Design\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe investigate a novel placement of a community fridge, with an exploratory approach. Design workshops were held before implementation to cover feasibility issues such as; food safety, temperature and movability of the fridge (for community centre managers), desirability issues such as; freshness perception and food placement (for fridge users), and viability issues such as: food types and timing of donations (for store managers). The primary concern was whether the fridge would be vandalised, mis-used or stolen. Fortunately, it was not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe did not measure any variables (i.e. food waste or insecurity) pre/post-intervention, nor did we have any control fridges to use, or assign the fridge to a random area. Therefore, the research design resembles more closely that of a ‘pilot intervention’. We introduced a donated fridge to a space on a busy street that was previously empty. A box was built around the fridge to protect it from outside weather, wheels to move, and designed to blend in with neighbourhood architecture associated with de Jordaan. While outside, it was connected to the inside power supply of the community centre. A community charity (\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eBuurtBuik\u003c/span\u003e) helped implement and run the pilot intervention, therefore it became an extension of an existing and locally-known free food initiative. The front and sides of the box included a set of guidelines and messages (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e). Attached was a QR code to an online page with: the FIES scale, monthly food spending, extra comments for how the fridge meets their needs and suggested improvements. Only supermarkets were allowed to give food according to EU food safety criteria. However, food was accessible to every passer-by. Therefore, it is a community fridge.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fridge itself was recycled and redesigned with the aim of becoming a ‘smart fridge’. A Raspberry Pi with a light sensor and a wide-angle camera was placed in a box and stuck on the inside of the fridge’s roof to record food flows and its usage by people. A python script was written to start recording a video every time the fridge was opened. When the door opens, outside light hits the light sensor and triggers a recording to start. When the door is closed again, the fridge is dark inside and the recording stops again. The camera was pointed downwards at the food and would capture hands reaching in. However, no faces were visible from inside, therefore maintaining the users anonymity. The videos were sent in real-time to a web interface hosted on the Raspberry Pi server. The web interface showed the number of times the fridge was opened and the duration. From this recording, we know how often food is taken, how quick users make decisions, what types of food are most used, and what times of day the fridge is being used, or not. Most importantly, it shows us how much leftover food is being donated and taken out. Therefore, the community fridge becomes a smart fridge too.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipants\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWith the feasibility, desirability and viability framework, we had 3 fridge stakeholders. The community centre employees helping to look out for the fridge included the reception staff, whose role is to welcome the community centre guests to the building. They would help move the fridge inside when it was empty, answer questions about it from passers-by and keep an eye on it to observe any noteworthy interactions. Due to the street, it was mainly pedestrians and cyclists that would stop, not vehicles. However, the passers-by could include anyone: from local residents to global tourists, from food-secure to insecure and from regular community centre guests to first timers. Structured observations captured clear socio-demographics (i.e gender and age range) however it could not capture less visible ones (i.e. income level and nationality). Finally, supermarkets managers also participated, supplying the fridge with donations. But, due to the fridge size we could only fit the leftover food of one supermarket per day. An organic supermarket whose produce is only affordable for higher income homes, wanted to donate all their daily food products that would have otherwise been wasted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProcedure (Fridge Placement, Fridge Design and Fridge Framing)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFridge Placement\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fridge was deployed in August (for 16 days) and December 2024 (for 14 days) for a total of 30 days recording data for approximately 10 hours every day from 09.00–19.00. Each morning food was collected from the store and taken to the community centre. Loose items (i.e. lettuce) were repackaged, items were grouped into trays for; fruit, vegetables, proteins, dairy and cereals and all the items were placed on two shelves. When placed out on the street, the Raspberry Pi was manually checked to record. Some days more leftover food was donated than could fit inside the fridge outside. Therefore, we kept extra food in a larger fridge inside the community centre kitchen, ready to be placed in the public fridge, if food was quickly taken by the early afternoon. For legal reasons, the fridge could not receive food donations directly from households, despite a large portion of food waste (1\u0026nbsp;million tonnes) from homes in the Netherlands\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe placement of the fridge on the street will very likely influence its eventual usage. Structured observations showed people who walk from the side with the ramp were more likely to use the fridge as they have a clearer line of sight when approaching here. From the ramp, they have direct sight of the fridge and can decide to use it beforehand. It took users of the ramp approximately 10 secs to walk the distance of 12 metres. Compared to those who approached from the right, they had less time and space to decide about the fridge, due to the street’s intersection with traffic from 3 directions. Structured observations also detected people crossing the street to use the fridge but this angle could not capture accurately, and we cannot infer about those distances. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e shows people travelling from the left with an unobstructed path and view of the fridge increases the likelihood that they interact with it, far greater than other factors. Choice architecture and behavioural economics\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e would suggest this is due to salience, whereby the fridge is simply more prominent here, thus affording more interactions. Furthermore, comments from the community centre managers suggested that the fridge could also be placed inside the entrance and protected from outside elements. Yet, this would only serve current community centre users and not attract new users.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFridge Design\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUncertainty over the management of the fridge was reported by community centre employees who said users would pick food but go inside asking for permission to take. Concerns over freshness related to the way food was packaged inside the fridge. So, ‘food from today’ placed on the lower shelf and ‘food from yesterday’ on the top. Moreover, we wrapped unpackaged food in clear plastic bags for users to easily grab. This aligns with previous research where consumer acceptance of novel food technologies may be negatively influenced by too much exposure to human hands\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Initially, the fridge was designed to blend into the background of the community centre at the request of the building managers and aligned to the UNESCO heritage style. However, the wood frame mimicking traditional Amsterdam rooftops was less visible. It was also less visible due to the smaller size of the fridge, compared to ones in homes. Data from structured observations revealed that as many as 95.8% of pedestrians walked by without stopping (although eye tracking could reveal if they even noticed it). But during summer, people are wearing sunglasses making this somewhat difficult. Moreover, many passers-by would stop to take a picture or even a selfie with the fridge. Due to resource limitations, we did not track the online discourse and reactions found. However, future iterations could measure this, especially if they generate greater use.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne major suggestion from users would be to have a fridge with transparent glass, therefore attracting more people and reducing the times it is opened but not then used. This can distinguish it as a working fridge from other discarded fridges seen in the city. Future iterations may therefore benefit from larger and more transparent fridge designs. Other fridge suggestions from users include: fridges that stock cold drinks on hot days, fridges that produce their own leafy greens and crops with vertical farming equipment, fridges that utilise computer vision for product recognition and recipe suggestions using large language models based on what is inside, and a series of ‘Internet of Things’ connected fridges spread throughout the city, so that users know before what is inside. Shelves were needed to stack food inside neatly and be easily removed by users. But, this meant the camera did not capture the whole fridge from the birds eye view. Therefore, the camera was placed closer to the door so all the food was recorded. Future designs could place the camera on the inside door capturing everything but would have to be timed, to not capture the faces of users when they open the door too.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFridge Framing\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe effects of different fridge framings were explored, using behavioural economics\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, as we did not know which particular messages would increase consumer acceptance\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Early feedback from users concerned the fridge framing and poster with suggestions of; simpler messages, guidelines on all visible sides of the fridge, in Dutch and English text. This included a man sitting on a small mountain of various food types (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e). If the framing and messages appeals too much to the environmental aim of food waste, then some may be deterred by associations with foods that are not fresh to eat. However, if we appeal too much to the economic reduction of food insecurity, then some people may be deterred for fear they would take food from someone in need. Based on early feedback, future messaging might thread a more nuanced needle of social appeals with taking more food for yourself, and for your neighbours also. However, as we did not have many resources to test with randomised control fridges, the pilot intervention can not state if fridge-use is due to framing, design or placement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEthics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe pilot intervention was performed in accordance with all the relevant regulations. They were first approved by the AMS Institute ethics review and given permission by the municipality of Amsterdam under controlled research purposes (Appendix B). BuurtBuik have experience with donated foods and they were responsible for the management of the fridge, and safety of the food that would not expire or go mouldy. For example, all food was manually checked and stored in accordance with the European Union health and safety standards (i.e. food must be kept below 5°C).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe raspberry camera passed ethical approval as it was monitoring safety of the fridge. It was also connected to a community centre (a public government funded building) which requires cameras by the entrance for safety, security and for incident reviews. Participants were informed of the camera inside the fridge and that it was part of a research project stated in Dutch and English guidelines on both sides (Appendix C). Users who wanted to take food but did not want their hands recorded could inform the front desk if they did not consent to participate in the study but could still take the food. Thus, informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardians. The front desk only received questions from users asking if they could donate food too. Furthermore, the fridge received many passing remarks which were not recorded. Future research could implement a microphone to record verbal data, but with ethical design considerations, this could involve a button to voluntarily record their remarks.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eData Availability\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data generated during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary files.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding Declaration\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe work was funded by a EU Horizon 2020 grant and Marie Curie Innovation Training Network for early-stage researchers, known as GECKO (grant id 95542). \u0026nbsp; \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eJ.L: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing (Original Draft), Writing (Review and Editing)R.V: Methodology, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing (Original Draft), Writing (Review and Editing)T.V: Conceptualisation, Supervision, Writing (Review and Editing)F.D: Supervision, Writing (Review and Editing)C.K: Writing (Review and Editing)F.J: Writing (Review and Editing)D.P: Writing (Review and Editing)\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnited Nations. (2015). \u003cem\u003eGoal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns\u003c/em\u003e. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal12#targets_and_indicators\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEuropean Commission. (2025). \u003cem\u003eEU Food Loss and Waste Prevention Hub: Netherlands\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu-food-loss-waste-prevention-hub/eu-member-state-page/show/NL\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCity of Amsterdam. (2023). \u003cem\u003ePolicy: Food Strategy\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/policy/sustainability/food-strategy/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCity of Amsterdam. (2024, October). \u003cem\u003eFactsheet voedselverspilling Amsterdam \u0026ndash; oktober 2024\u003c/em\u003e. Open Research Amsterdam. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://openresearch.amsterdam/nl/page/119220/factsheet-voedselverspilling-amsterdam---oktober-2024\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBos-Brouwers, H., Kok, M., \u0026amp; Viquez-Zamora, M. (2024, May 1). \u003cem\u003eClimate footprint of food waste in the Netherlands\u003c/em\u003e. Wageningen University \u0026amp; Research. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu-food-loss-waste-prevention-hub/resource/show/7712\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWageningen University \u0026amp; Research. (2024, September 12). \u003cem\u003eFood waste in supermarkets down to 0.89%\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://www.wur.nl/en/research-results/research-institutes/food-biobased-research/show-fbr/food-waste-in-supermarkets-2024.htm\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlobal Change Data Lab. (2025). \u003cem\u003eFood: greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain\u003c/em\u003e [Data set]. \u003cem\u003eOur World in Data\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved July 1, 2025, from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-chain?country\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePoore, J., \u0026amp; Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food\u0026rsquo;s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e360\u003c/em\u003e(6392), 987-992.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlbert Heijn. (2025). \u003cem\u003eMinder verspillen\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://www.ah.nl/over-ah/onze-missie/duurzaam/minder-verspillen\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEkoplaza. (2025). \u003cem\u003eVoedselverspilling\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://www.ekoplaza.nl/nl/over-ekoplaza/voedselverspilling\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJumbo. (2025). \u003cem\u003eVoedselverspilling tegengaan\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://www.jumbo.com/nieuws/voedselverspilling-tegengaan/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOkadera, T., Tsuchiya, K., Hanaoka, T., \u0026amp; Nishina, K. (2025). Synergy between SDGs 12.3 and 2.1 in lower-middle-income countries through the lens of food waste and energy imbalance. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 17956.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnited Nations. (2015). \u003cem\u003eGoal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture\u003c/em\u003e. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal2#targets_and_indicators\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNimko, O., Hodel, L., Chandra, A., \u0026amp; Garrett, R. (2025). The food security of residents and refugees of Ukraine after the Russian invasion. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 16238.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOur World in Data. (2023, July 18). \u003cem\u003eEnd hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://ourworldindata.org/sdgs/zero-hunger\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelbich, M., Schadenberg, B., Hagenauer, J., \u0026amp; Poelman, M. (2017). Food deserts? Healthy food access in Amsterdam. \u003cem\u003eApplied Geography\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e83\u003c/em\u003e, 1-12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJanssen, J. M., van der Velde, L. A., \u0026amp; Kiefte-de Jong, J. C. (2022). Food insecurity in Dutch disadvantaged neighbourhoods: a socio-ecological approach. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Nutritional Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e, e52.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhao, H., Fan, X., Bai, Z., Ma, L., Wang, C., Havl\u0026iacute;k, P., ... \u0026amp; Chang, J. (2024). Holistic food system innovation strategies can close up to 80% of China\u0026rsquo;s domestic protein gaps while reducing global environmental impacts. \u003cem\u003eNature Food\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(7), 581-591.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlackstone, N. T., Battaglia, K., Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-Huerta, E., Bell, B. M., Decker Sparks, J. L., Cash, S. B., ... \u0026amp; Webb, P. (2024). Diets cannot be sustainable without ensuring the well-being of communities, workers and animals in food value chains. \u003cem\u003eNature Food\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(10), 818-824.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuurtBuik. (2025). \u003cem\u003eVoedsel verbindt \u0026ndash; gratis maaltijden van gered voedsel\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://buurtbuik.nl/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSiegrist, M., \u0026amp; Hartmann, C. (2020). Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. \u003cem\u003eNature Food\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(6), 343-350.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, T. (2008). Design thinking. \u003cem\u003eHarvard business review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e86\u003c/em\u003e(6), 84.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBocken, N. M., Harsch, A., \u0026amp; Weissbrod, I. (2022). Circular business models for the fastmoving consumer goods industry: Desirability, feasibility, and viability. \u003cem\u003eSustainable Production and Consumption\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e, 799-814.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuo, S., Jin, J. S., \u0026amp; Li, J. (2009). A smart fridge with an ability to enhance health and enable better nutrition. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(2), 69-80.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKapici, E., Kutluay, E., \u0026amp; Izadi-Zamanabadi, R. (2022). A novel intelligent control method for domestic refrigerators based on user behavior. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Refrigeration\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e136\u003c/em\u003e, 209-218.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReynolds, C., Goucher, L., Quested, T., Bromley, S., Gillick, S., Wells, V. K., ... \u0026amp; Jackson, P. (2019). Consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions\u0026ndash;What works and how to design better interventions. \u003cem\u003eFood policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e83\u003c/em\u003e, 7-27.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIstif, E., Mirzajani, H., Dağ, \u0026Ccedil;., Mirlou, F., Ozuaciksoz, E. Y., Cakır, C., ... \u0026amp; Beker, L. (2023). Miniaturized wireless sensor enables real-time monitoring of food spoilage. \u003cem\u003eNature Food\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(5), 427-436.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorrow, O. (2019). Sharing food and risk in Berlin\u0026rsquo;s urban food commons. \u003cem\u003eGeoforum\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e99\u003c/em\u003e, 202-212.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVisram, S., \u0026amp; Brown, E. (2020). What is the role of community fridges in the UK? An exploratory mixed methods study. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(Supplement_5), ckaa165-716.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarmen, E., Fazey, I., Caniglia, G., Anthony, J., \u0026amp; Penny, L. (2022). The social dynamics in establishing complex community climate change initiatives: the case of a community fridge in Scotland. \u003cem\u003eSustainability Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 259-273.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKiden, S., Strohmayer, A., \u0026amp; Yee, J. (2023, January). Before the Tech Bit: Observations on the Workings of a Scottish Community Fridge. In \u003cem\u003eCompanion Proceedings of the 2023 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 45-47).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEdwards, F., \u0026amp; Davies, A. R. (2020). Connective consumptions: Mapping Melbourne\u0026rsquo;s food sharing ecosystem. In \u003cem\u003eDisruptive Urbanism\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 84-103). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlbert Heijn B.V. (2025). \u003cem\u003eKipfilet stuk\u003c/em\u003e. Albert Heijn. Retrieved June 27, 2025, from https://www.ah.nl/producten/1231/kipfilet-stuk\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVerlaan, T., \u0026amp; Albers, A. (2022).\u003c/strong\u003e From hippies to yuppies: Marginal gentrification in Amsterdam\u0026rsquo;s Jordaan and De Pijp neighbourhoods 1960\u0026ndash;1990. \u003cem\u003eCity, 26\u003c/em\u003e(2\u0026ndash;3), 496\u0026ndash;518.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStichting DOCK. (2025).\u003c/strong\u003e Huis van de Buurt het Claverhuis. \u003cem\u003eDOCK\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved June 1, 2025, from https://www.dock.nl/locaties/amsterdam/centrum/huis-van-de-buurt-het-claverhuis/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThaler, R. H., \u0026amp; Sunstein, C. R. (2008). \u003cem\u003eNudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness\u003c/em\u003e. Yale University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Food Waste, Food Insecurity, Food Interactions, Community Smart Fridge","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7187885/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7187885/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIn the Netherlands, approximately 2,290,000 tonnes of food is wasted each year; meanwhile, as many as 984,000 homes experience mild to severe food insecurity. In this research, we test the impact of a \u0026lsquo;community smart fridge\u0026rsquo; pilot intervention. The fridge tracks food waste reductions in real-time, uses a food insecurity survey and is publicly placed next to a community centre, for 30 days total, in summer and winter. Results show the fridge saved 1465 kg of food from being wasted, equalling \u0026euro;13,291 in value, to feed users, 35% of whom experience minor to severe food insecurity. Moreover, stakeholder interviews tested the fridge\u0026rsquo;s feasibility, viability and desirability. Community centre managers were positive the fridge could feasibly be deployed daily. Supermarket managers state the fridge is a viable alternative to donate leftover food. Users found the fridge desirable but would always want to leave food for others too.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"What is the impact of a community smart fridge? Investigating food waste, food insecurity and food interactions","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-20 11:15:20","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7187885/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"daeb4b55-ddf7-4ed7-8e24-caee202304a8","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 20th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":53174090,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences"},{"id":53174091,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":53174092,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-04T02:39:41+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-20 11:15:20","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7187885","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7187885","identity":"rs-7187885","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}