Exploring the role of AI in enhancing sustainability within New Zealand's hospitality industry: A study on knowledge, applicability, and perception in reducing food waste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hospitality industry in New Zealand is a noteworthy contributor towards the country’s Gross Domestic Product, however, it is also responsible for a significant amount of food waste (FW). In recent years, there has been a growing interest globally in artificial intelligence (AI) to curb FW in the hospitality industry. This study explores the role of AI in reducing FW and enhancing sustainability within New Zealand's hospitality industry, specifically, it focuses on the factors critical for its implementation - knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of hospitality stakeholders. The study adopted a mixed-methods approach involving quantitative and qualitative data collection from 131 industry professionals. The data suggests that the sample is skewed towards the lower end of FW, requiring caution due to inconsistent self-reported data with audits (Chisnall, 2017). A quarter were unsure or found it difficult to estimate avoidable food waste (AFW), potentially indicating a lack of awareness or difficulty measuring FW accurately. Inaccurate demand forecasting is the primary cause of FW in catering services and cafes/coffee shops, while portion control and plate waste are cited as the main causes of FW in fine-dining restaurants and pubs. A lack of FW awareness is the leading cause of FW in hotels/resorts and fast-food outlets. The diverse range of challenges faced by the hospitality industry provides insights into the areas where improvements can be made to increase efficiency, reduce waste, and enhance customer satisfaction. The study found a general lack of awareness and knowledge about AI among hospitality professionals, yet an openness to adopting AI-driven technologies for FW reduction. Challenges such as cost-effectiveness and proven effectiveness are key causes hindering AI adoption. Increased awareness and promotion of AI's return on investment could decrease scepticism and facilitate effective integration into FW reduction strategies. Finally, this research underlines the need for collaborative efforts among industry professionals, policymakers, and technology developers to overcome existing hurdles and leverage AI for sustainable practices in the hospitality sector in New Zealand.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".