Food waste research often applies the Motivation–Opportunity–Ability (MOA) framework, yet conventional aggregate measures may obscure the distinct roles of physical context and cognition-related capacity. Using a macro-contextual, micro-primary dual-layer design, this study first uses World Bank data from 176 countries to provide structural context; this macro layer is not statistically linked to the student-level model. The main behavioral inference comes from matched plate-weighing and questionnaire data from 170 students across two purposively selected ordinary higher education institutions in northern and southern China. Within this exploratory and context-specific micro-level sample, the baseline three-dimensional MOA model explains only 4.1% of variance in log-transformed plate waste, whereas decomposing Opportunity into social and physical components and representing the Ability extension through behavioral ability and a two-item cognitive-capacity proxy improves model fit. The five-dimensional model explains 44.1% of variance (F=26.2, p<0.001). Johnson relative weight analysis indicates that Physical Opportunity (51.1%) and the two-item cognitive-capacity proxy (46.3%) account for most explained MOA variance in this sample. Item-level sensitivity checks further suggest that portion estimation and nutrition knowledge should be interpreted as distinct cognition-related indicators rather than as a validated latent scale. Robustness checks across raw, log-transformed, winsorized, logistic, and quantile specifications indicate consistent positive associations for Physical Opportunity and consistent negative associations for cognition-related indicators. Because the design is cross-sectional, these findings identify associations rather than causal effects; physical-environment redesign and cognitive-capacity support should therefore be treated as candidate directions for future intervention testing rather than as confirmed intervention effects. By linking objectively measured plate waste to institutional dining conditions, the study contributes to sustainability research on responsible consumption, resource efficiency, low-carbon campus operations, and practical pathways for reducing avoidable food-related environmental burdens in university settings.
Wei et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: