Storage and bad roads stand out in a survey on food waste in Nigeria

Where waste enters the picture

The study received 334 approved responses, and 98.8% (330 of 334) of those responses came from people who passed a liveness check. Among respondents whose country was known, 93.4% (198 of 212) had Nigeria listed as their country. Farmers and market vendors were among the roles represented.

24.0% (80 of 333) of those who answered the food-waste frequency question said they experienced waste daily. Another 23.1% (77 of 333) chose weekly, while 34.5% (115 of 333) chose rarely. These answers show that waste was a recurring operational concern for some respondents, though its reported frequency varied. The question measured how often waste occurred, not how much food was lost.

Storage access and storage practices

56.8% (189 of 333) of those who answered the storage-access question said they did not have access to proper storage or cold rooms. In a separate question about facilities used, 62.2% (207 of 333) selected home storage and 16.5% (55 of 333) selected cold rooms. That question allowed respondents to select multiple facilities, so its shares are not mutually exclusive.

The distinction matters: using a place to store food is not necessarily the same as having access to storage respondents consider proper. The survey does not establish whether a particular storage arrangement caused food waste, but it does identify access as a concern worth examining alongside day-to-day practices.

Transport challenges

84.1% (280 of 333) of those who answered the transport-challenges question selected bad roads. Respondents could select multiple challenges; 50.2% (167 of 333) selected vehicle breakdowns. These are reported obstacles, not a measure of how much waste each obstacle produces.

48.3% (161 of 333) of respondents who rated their available transportation options chose the middle point of the scale, described as average. Among the age groups compared, the analysis found no statistically significant difference in transportation ratings or in reported access to proper storage or cold rooms. That does not mean every respondent had the same experience.

What respondents would improve

76.6% (255 of 333) of those who answered the solutions question selected better storage as something they believed could reduce food waste. Improved transportation was selected by 61.0% (203 of 333), and enhanced market access by 50.2% (167 of 333). Respondents could choose multiple solutions, so these preferences should be read as overlapping priorities rather than competing choices.

Taken together, the answers point to storage and movement of goods as practical areas for further investigation. They do not show which change would reduce losses most. Respondents opted in, so the figures describe the people who answered, not everyone working in agricultural supply chains in Nigeria.

About these figures

Every figure in this brief was computed from the study's approved responses; the AI that drafted the words could only cite those figures, not supply its own. Age, gender and country come from respondents' verified profiles, and groups too small to show safely are merged. Respondents opted in, so the figures describe the people who answered rather than a whole population. The dataset is sealed, and anyone can check its fingerprint on the Surdatics verification page.