food waste management project research paper

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 04 May 2024

Effective food waste management model for the sustainable agricultural food supply chain

• Yuanita Handayati 1   na1 &
• Chryshella Widyanata 1   na1  

Scientific Reports volume  14 , Article number:  10290 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1999 Accesses

11 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Environmental social sciences
• Sustainability

The extensive research examines the current state of agricultural food supply chains, with focus on waste management in Bandung Regency, Indonesia. The study reveals that a significant proportion of food within the agricultural supply chain goes to waste and discusses the various challenges and complexities involved in managing food waste. The research presents a conceptual model based on the ADKAR change management paradigm to promote waste utilization, increase awareness and change people's behaviors. The model emphasizes the importance of creating awareness, fostering desire, providing knowledge, implementing changes, and reinforcing and monitoring the transformation process. It also addresses the challenges, barriers, and drivers that influence waste utilization in the agricultural supply chain, highlighting the need for economic incentives and a shift in public awareness to drive meaningful change. Ultimately, this study serves as a comprehensive exploration of food waste management in Bandung Regency, shedding light on the complexities of the issue and offering a systematic approach to transition towards more sustainable waste utilization practices.

Similar content being viewed by others

Assessment and scenario hypothesis of food waste in China based on material flow analysis

A framework to quantify mass flow and assess food loss and waste in the US food supply chain

China’s food loss and waste embodies increasing environmental impacts

Introduction.

The food industry comprises roughly 30% of the world’s total energy consumption, and when there is food loss and waste, the resources invested in food production go to waste 1 . Consequently, this contributes to the depletion of natural resources. Additionally, approximately 22% of greenhouse gas emissions, which have adverse environmental effects and contribute to global warming, originate from these food sectors 2 , 3 . To address this challenge, the United Nations has integrated the problem of food wastage into the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, specifically under Sustainable Development Goal 12, which focuses on promoting responsible consumption and production. Sustainable Development Goal 12 serves as a pivotal initiative to steer away from irresponsible resource utilization and mitigate harmful effects on the planet.

Food waste management can be categorized into two main approaches: preventing the generation of waste and handling waste that has already been produced 4 . The strategies for implementing food waste management vary depending on the underlying causes of each specific food waste scenario. This is because food loss and waste can manifest differently and require distinct treatments or solutions, occurring at various stages of the supply chain, ranging from production upstream to consumption downstream 5 . Efforts to address these issues can also be observed within different stages of the supply chain. For instance, at the production stage, optimization of production factors, such as infrastructure improvements 6 or the use of forecasting to prevent overproduction 7 is emphasized. In the distribution stage, enhancing efficiency in the distribution process can be achieved by shortening the supply chain 8 or by fostering coordination among supply chain participants 9 , 10 . Similarly, at the consumption stage, efforts often focus on enhancing supply chain processes to increase efficiency by utilizing waste to create more valuable product, ultimately reducing waste, which is commonly referred to as waste prevention.

Many nations worldwide have embraced the United Nations' objectives of minimizing food waste and promoting sustainability, demonstrating a collective dedication to addressing crucial environmental and social issues. The UN's Sustainable Development Goal 12 emphasizes the importance of curbing food waste across supply chains. This has spurred countries to take tangible steps and enforce policies aimed at reducing food waste 11 . For instance, the European Union (EU) has committed to ambitious targets outlined in its Circular Economy Action Plan to slash food waste by 2030. Strategies such as standardized date labeling, awareness campaigns, and support for surplus food donation align with the UN's sustainability agenda. Similarly, nations like South Korea have implemented innovative approaches, including pricing based on waste volume, mandatory food waste separation, and promoting the conversion of food waste into compost or biogas. These initiatives not only resonate with sustainability goals but also contribute to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.

Furthermore, scholarly research available in publications such as "Resources, Conservation & Recycling" and "Waste Management" investigates the impact of diverse national policies on food waste reduction and sustainability. These studies analyze the effectiveness of specific interventions and offer insights into successful strategies adopted by different countries. By citing these examples and research outcomes, one can illustrate how nations are actively aligning themselves with the UN's aims of reducing food waste and promoting sustainability through a combination of policy frameworks and practical implementations.

In relation to that, food waste pre-treatment technologies have also been extensively developed to reduce the carbon loss as Carbon dioxide during storage/transport; improve the surface properties for easier access to microbes; (reduce the accumulation of volatile fatty acids at early stages or during storage and transport; and alter biological properties to support microbiomes from anaerobic digestion / dark fermentation 15 , 16 . This pre-treatment can be carried out either through physical and mechanical pre-treatments, Thermal pre-treatment, Chemical pre-treatment and Biological pre-treatment 16 . Nevertheless, landfilling of food waste is a very common disposal method in developing countries e.g., India, China, Thailand, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc. It is due to their national budget for waste management. Due to insufficient funding for recycling, some developing nations have attempted to introduce a system for managing food waste in their legislative frameworks. However, budgeting remains a significant problem in developing countries for handling waste 17 , 18 .

Indonesia faces significant food waste issue, with food waste accounting for 28.6% of total waste. To address this problem, the government has outlined plans in its 2020–2024 National Mid-Term Development Plan to reduce waste by up to 80% 19 , including food waste. The Ministry of Agriculture’s Strategic Plan for 2020–2024 and The Indonesia Food Sustainable System 2019 further emphasize efforts to combat food waste by following decentralized approach, giving local goverments the authority to manage related issue. This approach encourages collaboration among all stakeholders, both nationally and locally 20 . Notably, the Bandung Regency government is one local authority actively addressing food waste. 20 2019 To address this issue, Development Agency at Sub National Level is actively working on establishing a more sustainable food supply chain for the implementation in Bandung Regency. In the context of advancing food security in Bandung Regency, the government’s strategy consists of five core concepts, encompassing food supply chain efficiency, connectivity, price regulation, logistics cost reduction, enhanced production capacity, and sustainability. This sustainability aspect also encompasses initiatives related to waste processing, as outlined by Bappeda Kabupaten Bandung 21 . The latest attempt in developing a sustainable supply chain in Bandung Regency is the establishment of a food hub is an endeavor by the government to build a more efficient supply chain, which is described as an aggregator capable of integrating all parties involved, acting as a logistical service provider, marketing, agricultural product added-value development, and information hub 22 .

23 When considering the five key concepts for enhancing food security in Bandung Regency, the establishment of the food hub addresses four of these concepts, primarily focusing on waste prevention. However, there is a notable absence of detailed research or government reports that specifically address the fifth concept, which pertains to sustainability and effective management of existing food waste. As previously mentioned, one of the primary contributors to the increasing waste issue is the lack of proper handling of generated waste. Furthermore, the linear economy approach, which categorizes all unused products as waste, exacerbates the problem. Additionally, the growing population is a factor leading to increased waste, while the landfill capacity remains limited. Hence, while waste prevention is crucial, there's still a pressing need for well-planned food waste management, particularly in terms of waste utilization because waste can be utilized wisely to make it more valuable 23 . To optimize waste utilization, it is imperative to develop a comprehensive waste management strategy to avoid the oversight of waste reduction 24 . This strategic planning encompasses the crucial step of waste identification, involving the collection of data regarding the types of waste, the locations where waste is generated, and potential methods for waste utilization 19 , 24 . Understanding the composition and sources of waste will greatly facilitate effective waste management 25 .

Currently, there is no available data or research on food waste management in the Bandung Regency's Food Supply Chain. This study aims to address this gap by identifying food waste in the region's supply chain, with the goal of promoting the development of a more sustainable food supply chain. Therefore, this study aims to develop effective food waste management that can be implemented in Bandung Regency’s food supply chain. In addition, study by Nattassha et al. 26 emphasized the importance of integrating waste management actors, including scavengers, sorters, and processors, with resource suppliers and producers to facilitate the reuse of treated waste. This study collected data from these stakeholders to enhance understanding and proposed a conceptual model to improve waste management knowledge among producers. It advocates for a comprehensive approach involving all actors in food waste management, which hasn't been previously explored.

The real-world situation of food supply chain in Bandung Regency

The supply chain at Bandung Regency involves three primary participants: farmers, intermediaries, and customers. Each of these actors assumes distinct roles and responsibilities within the agricultural product supply chain. Farmers are individuals responsible for producing agricultural products. Intermediaries are entities that aid farmers in the distribution of their products to the primary consumers. These intermediary participants can be categorized into two groups: wholesalers and retailers. Wholesalers are entities that acquire these products from farmers, either directly or indirectly, and subsequently sell them to purchasers in bulk quantities. Meanwhile, retailers are parties who directly sell products to the end consumers 27 .

There are two categories of wholesalers: merchant wholesalers and agents or brokers. The distinction between a merchant wholesaler and an agent or broker is found in how they participate in the supply chain process of distributing goods. Agents or brokers primarily facilitate connections between farmers and wholesalers who have direct market or customer access. They do this through communication and negotiation without physically handling the agricultural products, a role often referred to as being intermediaries or middle-men 27 , 28 . On the other hand, supermarkets are larger, modern retailers with a self-service concept, aiming to fulfill consumers' complete grocery and household product needs 27 . Online retailers conduct transactions without the need for physical interaction between sellers and buyers, operating through online platforms.

Lastly, customers are individuals or entities that use or consume the agricultural products, either for personal use or for further distribution as different products. In the agricultural product supply chain within Bandung Regency, customers can be categorized into two groups based on how they utilize the purchased items: the consumer market and the business market 27 . Consumer markets involve individuals who use products for personal consumption, while business markets consist of customers who purchase and distribute products in bulk, often to other businesses or consumers after processing.

Figure  1 illustrates the movement of agricultural products, particularly vegetables and fruits, within the agricultural supply chain of Bandung Regency. The figure depicts that agricultural products have their source in farmers or crop producers and ultimately reach consumers, encompassing both business clients and individual end users.

Bandung Regency’s Current Agricultural Supply Chain.

Current handling of unused product during the supply chain process

While it may seem that agricultural products follow a path from farmers as producers to eventual consumers, not all of these products find buyers and are sold. According to the data gathered, a significant portion of unsold products ends up as waste. Interestingly, not all of these products are in poor condition, and some still possess quality suitable for sale in the market. These unsold products can be categorized into three broad groups based on their condition, as outlined in the matrix proposed by Teigiserova, Hamelin, and Thomsen 29 : surplus food, food waste, and food loss.

To reduce food surplus, the "reduce" principle can be applied through measures like careful production planning or the utilization of advanced storage technologies, such as cold chain management. As per the interviews, certain actors, particularly those in financially stable positions like supermarkets, exporters, and restaurants, have successfully implemented waste reduction efforts, and the outcomes have indeed assisted them in waste reduction. However, some other actors still face challenges in implementing these measures, primarily due to limited financial resources (additional obstacles can be found in Fig.  2 , the Rich picture).

Rich Picture of Bandung Regency’s Agriculture Supply Chain and Current Waste Management Practice.

The "reuse" principle, particularly for surplus edible products, is crucial alongside prevention measures. Common methods include distributing to food collection organizations, providing to local communities for free, selling at reduced prices, and processing into other food items. Selling at lower prices is the most commonly adopted. Partially edible products are often reused, while true food waste can be repurposed through recycling for animal feed, composting, insect rearing, and material recovery. However, recycling efforts are limited due to a lack of knowledge, leading some to dispose of unused products. Another option is energy generation through anaerobic digestion, but it's currently underutilized.

Meanwhile, according to government officials interviewed, it was emphasized that independent waste management efforts by the community were essential. This was seen as necessary because it would be impossible for the government alone to handle all waste-related responsibilities. A key limitation from the government's perspective is the inadequate waste management infrastructure in Bandung Regency.

As stated in the 2018 performance report of the Bandung Regency Environmental Service, with only 100 waste transport vehicles, the government was able to collect and transport a mere 16.32% of the waste, a figure that decreased further in 2019 to 12.6% due to a rise in waste generation. Consequently, the Bandung Regency government encourages residents to take a more active role in waste management.

The government has initiated various efforts to enable citizens to participate in waste reduction. However, in practice, people have been slow to embrace waste management practices. Even with organizational support, only 40% of the population actively engages in these programs, as per representatives from non-governmental organization s during telephone interviews on June 16, 2022. Additionally, when not continuously supported, people tend to discontinue their participation. Meanwhile, the organizations themselves face resource limitations, preventing them from providing ongoing assistance and monitoring to residents. The challenges faced by various actors and their competing priorities often lead them to opt for waste disposal rather than utilization. Figure  2 , the Rich Picture, illustrates the complex issues within the agricultural product supply chain in Bandung Regency and waste management.

Root definition

The Rich Picture diagram illustrates that actors have not fully embraced waste utilization. Despite the obstacles and concerns expressed in interviews, the main challenge lies in changing people's ingrained habit of disposing of anything they consider useless. Society is accustomed to discarding items, while the government aims to encourage people not to waste potentially useful items and find ways to repurpose them. This is a significant hurdle as these habits have persisted for a long time and are deeply ingrained. When asked why they don't utilize waste, some individuals couldn't provide specific reasons and considered discarding waste as an automatic and unquestioned habit.

However, other barriers contribute to people's reluctance to utilize waste. Interviews reveal that a common obstacle is the lack of public awareness about the significance and urgency of waste issues, as well as limited knowledge about waste management. Many interviewees indicated that they hadn't experienced any negative consequences from waste accumulation, and some considered littering as a normal practice driven by their circumstances.

The issue of low public awareness of waste problems is also acknowledged by government agencies and non-governmental organization’s working in the solid waste sector. The abandonment and limited success of various waste reduction programs and facilities can be attributed to this problem. As mentioned earlier, even when the government and non-governmental organization’s assisted communities in implementing waste reduction programs, these initiatives were not adopted by 100% of the residents, and often not even by half of them. This drop-off in participation occurred particularly when residents were no longer under active supervision, despite initially appearing proficient in executing the programs during mentoring periods. Consequently, the model areas or waste processing assistance efforts were not sustained, and residents reverted to their old habits. (Non-governmental organization Representatives, Telephone Interview, 16/06/2022).

Waste can be used wisely to make it more valuable. Certain agricultural products such as fruit remnants can be repurposed into other valuable products by recovering their bioactive compounds through valorization techniques 23 . Some individuals have attempted to reuse waste by processing it into fertilizer, selling it in the market, or transforming it into other products. However, the outcomes often did not justify the effort expended, leading them to revert to discarding waste. The comparison between results and effort involved revolves around the processed products' energy, time, and additional costs required for waste processing. For example, energy generated from waste processing in a biodigester was only sufficient for 1-2 nearby houses or a community meeting hall, indicating limited impact.

The economic value of waste utilization presents as second obstacle. While some individuals are willing to utilize waste for economic benefits, many view its main advantage as environmental. This perspective is especially common among economically disadvantaged individuals. Market challenges, such as distance from potential users and a lack of awareness about product benefits, also hinder waste utilization. Additionally, farmers may continue to harvest even in oversupplied markets, leading to increased costs and waste. This economic focus discourages waste processing.

The third obstacle is limited resources, such as time, funding, manpower, and technology. Time constraints are the major issue, as supply chain actors prioritize their core income-generating activities. Financials limitations, especially among unstable actors, hinder investments in technologies like cold storage or food processing tools.

Supermarkets, in particular, face space limitations for waste processing, and these constraints can lead to discontinuation of waste utilization programs in favor of waste disposal through cleaning services. Overall, changing waste management habits is challenging when immediate waste disposal is the norm, and public awareness of the government's goals is lacking. Perceived benefits, distribution challenges, and resource limitations further deter habit changes. A CATWOE analysis, aimed at shifting waste handling habits towards waste utilization, is detailed in the table below.

The Table 1 CATWOE analysis shows how the ideal system is to produce an effective transition to the habit of utilizing waste.In the CATWOE framework, the first element is the "customer," which, in this context, refers to society at large within the agricultural supply chain. The second element, the "actor," encompasses all stakeholders committed to changing food waste disposal habits. Collaboration is essential to effectively bring about this change. The third element, "transformation," aims to change habits while considering the factors driving and inhibiting change. The fourth element, "Weltanschauung," emphasizes that this change system should align with individuals' fundamental needs for achieving and sustaining change. The "owner," as the fifth element, is the government, which not only acknowledges the food waste issue but also holds the authority to influence and regulate societal behavior. The final element, the "environment," encompasses the entire agricultural product supply chain, extending beyond Bandung Regency.

Conceptual model

The CATWOE analysis indicates a need for a mechanism to enhance how people utilize waste. To address this, a conceptual model was developed in this study, utilizing the ADKAR change management paradigm, which was introduced by Prosci in 1998. The selection of the ADKAR model was based on its appropriateness for implementing changes that require acceptance from those undergoing the change, in this case, society. This choice was made considering the scope and impact of the change. Therefore, Fig.  2 , titled "The Conceptual Model," illustrates the system for altering people's behaviors to maximize waste utilization.

According to the ADKAR model in Figure 3 , the first step in facilitating change is to create awareness among those involved. This awareness should encompass an understanding of the reasons for change and the potential risks if change is not implemented. In the context of promoting waste utilization 30 , it's crucial for change agents to ensure that people comprehend the issues surrounding food waste and how utilizing waste can address these concerns. Without this understanding, people may be hesitant to change their habits. The subsequent step in driving change is to stimulate people's desire to use waste, as this motivation is what can encourage active participation in the change process. In the context of waste utilization, change agents must grasp the community's desires and needs regarding waste use to motivate them for necessary changes. However, the lack of perceived benefits from changing routines has hindered supply chain actors' embrace of waste utilization. Interviews with those who have used waste revealed a positive impact, especially on environmental aspects, but this alone wasn't enough motivation to continue, except for individuals in supermarkets who viewed environmental concerns as part of their corporate social responsibility. Their primary focus, though, was on economic aspects. In fact, most respondents indicated that they would be more interested in waste utilization if processed waste products could provide economic value by increasing income or reducing expenses.

The Conceptual Model.

The next step involves changing people's behavior by providing them with information on effective waste utilization. This goes beyond theoretical knowledge and includes practical understanding of the new tasks and responsibilities associated with these changes, along with training. Four key aspects must be addressed when influencing change knowledge: existing community knowledge, the community's learning capacity, available resources for education and training, and access to information. It's crucial to consider these factors for effective knowledge delivery. Change agents should tailor their approach to the specific audience they are addressing.

Once the community has the necessary knowledge, the next phase is to implement waste utilization. This phase includes developing strategies and action plans and evaluating the effectiveness of implementation. Putting knowledge into practice is vital because theory and practice can differ. To sustain these changes, reinforcement is essential. This can be achieved through incentives, recognition, or even government policies mandating the changes. Finally, change agents must continuously monitor and control their efforts to alter waste utilization habits, understanding that forming new habits takes time, especially in large-scale changes. Monitoring and control ensure alignment with government objectives and allow for necessary adjustments.

The ADKAR model outlined in the context of waste utilization provides a structured approach to driving change by focusing on awareness, desire, knowledge, action, and reinforcement. The applicability and effectiveness of the model in the context of waste utilization depend on its successful adaptation to local contexts, effective stakeholder engagement, practical knowledge delivery, and ongoing monitoring and reinforcement efforts. When implemented thoughtfully and comprehensively, the model can serve as a valuable framework for driving sustainable change in waste management practices.

Based on the issues outlined in the root definition and conceptual model, it's evident that those driving change must initially focus on raising awareness and fostering a desire for the intended change. However, it's crucial to emphasize that planning these efforts should not be divorced from setting specific change objectives in advance to ensure that these endeavors stay on course. The first approach to achieve this is through expansion.

Factors such as economic conditions, income levels, and the cost associated with waste disposal services significantly affect individuals' decisions about managing their waste 31 . In addition, sociocultural beliefs, societal norms, and perceptions regarding waste disposal practices also play a crucial role in waste management 32 . Moreover, individual behaviors, preferences, and levels of environmental consciousness significantly influence how people dispose of their garbage 33 .

Therefore, expansion is needed to raise awareness and shift people's perspectives about waste. The intention is to strengthen their knowledge in waste management and its impact. According to research by McCoy 34 , the role of expansion is to alter how people perceive and manage something, in this case, food waste. Collaborating with broad array of experts and stakeholders offers an opportunity to enhance education and understanding of food waste, serving as a foundation for instigating habitual changes towards its utilization.

Behavioral science research, exemplified by Cialdini's on social influence and persuasion underscores the significance of comprehending human behavior to shape attitudes and encourage the adoption of new practices. Employing principles from behavioral psychology can assist in devising interventions that advocate for the adoption of effective waste disposal methods 35 . Therefore, involving the community in decision-making processes concerning waste management interventions instills a sense of ownership. Studies like those conducted by Lockwood et al. highlight the importance of community engagement and participatory approaches in waste management initiatives, resulting in enhanced acceptance and sustainability of implemented measures 36

Efficient communication and educational campaigns are instrumental in gaining public support and comprehension. Research by Maibach et al. emphasizes the significance of targeted communication strategies in facilitating behavioral changes related to environmental issues, including waste management 37 .

Therefore, utilizing social media as a educational campaign tool to raise public awareness is one viable method to create more efficient communication. Given the continuous growth in the number of internet and social media users in Indonesia, social media can be an effective medium for disseminating information to enhance public awareness. According to research by Jenkins et al. 38 , social media has demonstrated a positive impact on raising awareness and contributing to the reduction of food waste, particularly at the consumer level. In addition to the awareness issue, it was previously noted that another challenge is the perceived lack of benefits by society. Nattassha et al.'s 26 research highlights the critical role of incentives in encouraging cassava supply chain growers to adopt a circular economy, thereby motivating them to remain engaged in the supply chain. Presently, the benefits expected by the community are linked to the economic value of waste disposal. The establishment of a circular economy represents one strategy to align people's desires with waste utilization.

Further, intelligence and digitalization play a crucial role in shaping an effective waste management model. These approaches can offer several advantages, such as real-time monitoring of waste collection, optimizing routes for garbage trucks, and improving recycling processes through data analysis 39 . Studies published in journals like "Separation and Purification Technology" often explore the realm of intelligent waste management systems. These systems utilize digital technologies such as IoT (Internet of Things), AI (Artificial Intelligence), and data analytics to streamline waste collection, recycling procedures, and resource allocation. For instance, Babaei and Basu 40 delve into the implementation of IoT and AI in waste management in their work 40 .

Additionally, research by Tao et al. 41 utilize 20-kHz ultrasound, this study extracted phenolics from Chinese chokeberry using distilled water and 50% aqueous ethanol, revealing that adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) successfully correlated extraction parameters with high total phenolic yield, while identifying the effectiveness of different solvents for extracting specific phenolic compound.

Technological progress holds a significant role in waste management. Progress in waste-to-energy technologies, recycling processes, and intelligent waste management systems profoundly affects the effectiveness and sustainability of waste management practices 42 . Therefore, continuous evolution of policies is essential, taking into account technological advancements, socio-economic changes, and environmental considerations. This flexibility and adaptability within policies are crucial to ensure the effectiveness and relevance of waste management strategies amidst changing circumstances and emerging challenges.

In conclusion, effective communication and educational campaigns, including the use of social media, can enhance public awareness and understanding of waste management. Furthermore, implementing a circular economy and integrating intelligence and digitalization into waste management systems are crucial for improving their effectiveness and sustainability. However, the study has limitations. It focuses solely on Bandung Regency, potentially limiting the generalizability of its findings. Additionally, constraints related to data availability and resources, as well as the complexity of interdisciplinary approaches to waste management, may impact the research. Future studies should address these limitations by conducting comparative studies across different regions to identify variations in waste management practices. Longitudinal studies are also needed to assess the long-term effectiveness of interventions and monitor changes in waste management behaviors over time. Additionally, exploring innovative approaches to enhance community engagement and participation in waste management initiatives is essential.

The research method employed in this study is Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), which was developed by Checkland in 1989. The choice of this methodology is based on its suitability for addressing the research questions, considering the study's context and subject matter. This research aims to identify the current management of food waste and the potential for food waste utilization in Bandung Regency, with a focus on waste flow within the agricultural supply chain. The study involves gathering insights from various stakeholders.

Given that this research utilizes the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) approach, the research process follows the steps outlined by Checkland. Checkland's SSM involves a seven-stage model, and Figure 4 illustrates how the research is conducted.

Seven Stages of SSM.

Primary data is acquired through a primary semi-structured interview conducted via purposive sampling. Interviews were carried out with a total of 27 respondents who had connections to and involvement in the agricultural product waste supply chain in Bandung Regency. These respondents represented various roles, including farmers, domestic and overseas merchant wholesalers (exporters), traditional market wholesalers, retail sellers in traditional markets, supermarket representatives, restaurant managers, small and medium-sized food business owners, cattle fattening workers, chicken farmers, private agricultural extension agents, farmer cooperation representatives, public relations personnel from non-profit organizations focused on waste, government representatives, and end-users. Secondary data is sourced from existing literature.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

FAO. Food wastage footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources. FAO (2013).

Scherhaufer, S., Moates, G., Hartikainen, H., Waldron, K. & Obersteiner, G. Environmental impacts of food waste in Europe. Waste Manag. 77 , 98–113 (2018).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Tonini, D., Albizzati, P. F. & Astrup, T. F. Environmental impacts of food waste: Learnings and challenges from a case study on UK. Waste Manag. 76 , 744–766 (2018).

Kumar, A., Mangla, S. K. & Kumar, P. An integrated literature review on sustainable food supply chains: Exploring research themes and future directions. Sci. Total Environ. 821 , 153411 (2022).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Shafiee-Jood, M. & Cai, X. Reducing food loss and waste to enhance food security and environmental sustainability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 , 8432–8443 (2016).

Chen, C. & Chen, R. Using two government food waste recognition programs to understand current reducing food loss and waste activities in the U.S.. Sustainability 10 , 2760 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ali, A. Y., Hassen, J. M. & Wendem, G. G. Forecasting as a framework for reducing food waste in Ethiopian university canteens. J. Appl. Res. Ind. Eng. 6 , 374–380 (2019).

Google Scholar  

Prusky, D. Reduction of the incidence of postharvest quality losses, and future prospects. Food Secur. 3 , 463–474 (2011).

Surucu-Balci, E. & Tuna, O. Investigating logistics-related food loss drivers: A study on fresh fruit and vegetable supply chain. J. Clean Prod. 318 , 128561 (2021).

Thapa Karki, S., Bennett, A. C. T. & Mishra, J. L. Reducing food waste and food insecurity in the UK: The architecture of surplus food distribution supply chain in addressing the sustainable development goals (Goal 2 and Goal 12.3) at a city level. Ind. Market. Manag. 93 , 563–577 (2021).

United Nations. Global Issues: Food. (2022).

Ju, M., Bae, S.-J., Kim, J. Y. & Lee, D.-H. Solid recovery rate of food waste recycling in South Korea. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 18 , 419–426 (2016).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Joshi, P. & Visvanathan, C. Sustainable management practices of food waste in Asia: Technological and policy drivers. J. Environ. Manage. 247 , 538–550 (2019).

Tsai, W.-T. Turning food waste into value-added resources: Current status and regulatory promotion in Taiwan. Resources 9 , 53 (2020).

Chong, J. W. R., Yew, G. Y., Khoo, K. S., Ho, S. H. & Show, P. L. Recent advances on food waste pretreatment technology via microalgae for source of polyhydroxyalkanoates. J. Environ. Manage. 293 , (2021).

Parthiba Karthikeyan, O. et al. Pretreatment of food waste for methane and hydrogen recovery: A review. Bioresource Technology vol. 249 1025–1039 Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.105 (2018).

Pham, T. P. T., Kaushik, R., Parshetti, G. K., Mahmood, R. & Balasubramanian, R. Food waste-to-energy conversion technologies: Current status and future directions. Waste Manag. 38 , 399–408 (2015).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lohri, C. R., Diener, S., Zabaleta, I., Mertenat, A. & Zurbrügg, C. Treatment technologies for urban solid biowaste to create value products: a review with focus on low- and middle-income settings. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 16 , 81–130 (2017).

Rahman, R. A., Badraddin, A. K., Hasan, M. & Yusof, N. Success factors for construction waste recycling in developing countries: A project management perspective. in 189–201 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76543-9_18 .

Tranggono, A., Wirman, C., Sulistiowati, A. & Avianto, T. Strategy Paper: Indonesia Sustainable Food System . (2019).

Bappeda Kabupaten Bandung. Skenario Pengembangan Ketahanan Pangan Kabupaten Bandung . (2021).

Bappeda Kabupaten Bandung. Logistik Pangan Kabupaten Bandung . (2020).

Tao, Y. et al. Parametric and phenomenological studies about ultrasound-enhanced biosorption of phenolics from fruit pomace extract by waste yeast. Ultrason Sonochem 52 , 193–204 (2019).

Sanchez, B. & Haas, C. Capital project planning for a circular economy. Constr. Manag. Econ. 36 , 303–312 (2018).

Elgie, A. R., Singh, S. J. & Telesford, J. N. You can’t manage what you can’t measure: The potential for circularity in Grenada’s waste management system. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 164 , 105170 (2021).

Nattassha, R., Handayati, Y. & Simatupang, T. M. Linear and circular supply chain: SCOR framework stages, actor analysis and the illustrative case of cassava farming. Int. J. Bus. Glob. X , 10–12 (2016).

Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. Principle of Marketing Global 7th Edition . (Pearson, 2018).

Ganeshkumar, C., Pachayappan, M. & Madanmohan, G. Agri-food supply chain management: Literature review. Intell. Inf. Manag. 09 , 68–96 (2017).

Teigiserova, D. A., Hamelin, L. & Thomsen, M. Towards transparent valorization of food surplus, waste and loss: Clarifying definitions, food waste hierarchy, and role in the circular economy. Sci. Total Environ. 706 , 136033 (2020).

Hiatt, J. ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government, and Our Community . (Prosci Learning Center Publications, 2006).

Merlino, V. M., Borra, D., Verduna, T. & Massaglia, S. Household behavior with respect to meat consumption: Differences between Households with and without Children. Vet. Sci. 4 , 53 (2017).

Wilson & McDougall. A Critical Review of the Factors Predicting Recycling Behaviour. Environ. Manag. (2007).

Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 18 , 429–434 (2007).

McCoy, L. Extension’s role in the United States’ campaign to reduce food waste. J. Ext. 57 , (2019).

Dr. Robert B. Cialdini. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion . (1993).

Lockwood et al. Community-based waste management: A participatory approach. Waste Manag. (2020).

Maibach, E. W. et al. Climate change and local public health in the United States: Preparedness, programs and perceptions of local public health department directors. PLoS One 3 , e2838 (2008).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Jenkins, E. L., Brennan, L., Molenaar, A. & McCaffrey, T. A. Exploring the application of social media in food waste campaigns and interventions: A systematic scoping review of the academic and grey literature. J. Clean. Prod. 360 , 132068 (2022).

Hossain et al. An IoT-enabled real-time waste management system. IEEE Internet Things J. (2020).

Babaei and Basu. Internet of Things in solid waste management. Sep. Purif. Technol. (2017).

Tao, Y. et al. Combined ANFIS and numerical methods to simulate ultrasound-assisted extraction of phenolics from chokeberry cultivated in China and analysis of phenolic composition. Sep. Purif. Technol. 178 , 178–188 (2017).

Hettiaratchi, J. P. Advances in solid waste management technology: The way forward. Pract. Period. Hazard., Toxic, Radioact. Waste Manag. 13 , 145–145 (2009).

Ahmadzadeh, S., Ajmal, T., Ramanathan, R. & Duan, Y. A Comprehensive review on food waste reduction based on IoT and big data technologies. Sustainability (Switzerland) 15 Preprint at https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043482 (2023).

Download references

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Yuanita Handayati and Chryshella Widyanata.

Authors and Affiliations

School of Business and Management (SBM), Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, 40116, Indonesia

Yuanita Handayati & Chryshella Widyanata

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors analyzed and reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuanita Handayati .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Handayati, Y., Widyanata, C. Effective food waste management model for the sustainable agricultural food supply chain. Sci Rep 14 , 10290 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59482-w

Download citation

Received : 05 September 2023

Accepted : 11 April 2024

Published : 04 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59482-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Sustainability assessment of food waste prevention measures: review of existing evaluation practices.

• Thünen Institute of Rural Studies, Braunschweig, Germany

The last few years, a lot of measures addressing food waste have been proposed and implemented. Recent literature reviews call for more evidence on the effectiveness or food waste reduction potential of these measures. Furthermore, very few information is available on the extent to which food waste measures have been evaluated based on their economic, environmental and social performance. This review closes this knowledge gap by looking at the methodologies currently used in literature to evaluate food waste prevention measures, using a pre-defined assessment framework with quantitative evaluation criteria. In total, evaluations were examined for 25 implemented measures with measured outcomes and 23 proposed measures with projected outcomes. The paper concludes that there is a great variety in how an evaluation is performed. Additionally, in many cases, economic, environmental, or social assessments are incomplete or missing, and efficiency is only seldom calculated. This is particularly true for implemented measures whereas proposed measures with projected outcomes tend to have a more thorough evaluation. This hampers practitioners and decision-makers to see which measures have worked in the past, and which ones to prioritize in the future. Moreover, more complete information on the effectiveness and efficiency of measures would make incentives for reducing food waste at various levels along the food chain more visible. At European level, work is ongoing on the development of a reporting framework to evaluate food waste actions. This paper complements these efforts by providing an overview of the current gaps in evaluation methodologies found in literature regarding food waste prevention measures within EU and beyond.

Introduction

Urgency of tackling food waste.

Food losses and wastes are generated throughout the food chain, from cultivation, over harvest, processing, storage and distribution up until the final consumption by private households and the food service sector. In 2011, the FAO provided a comprehensive overview of the amount of food losses and waste generated at global level ( Gustavvson et al., 2011 ). Globally, about 1.3 billion tons of edible food, or about one third of the mass of edible food produced for human consumption, is annually lost or wasted. At EU level, 88 million tons of edible and inedible food was lost or wasted in 2012. This equals about 20% of the total food produced in the EU and up to 173 kg of food waste per person per year ( FUSIONS, 2016 ).

Based on the 2011 Food Balance Sheets, the FAO estimates that the annual global volume of food wastage generated has a carbon footprint of 3.6 Gt of CO 2 eq (excluding land use change). If food wastage were a country, it would be the third largest emitter in the world, after USA and China ( FAO, 2015 ). Furthermore, 24% of freshwater resources and 23% of the cropland used to produce food in 2011, was lost throughout the food supply chain ( Kummu et al., 2012 ). At EU level, food waste has an annual climate change impact of 186 Mt CO 2 eq., representing almost 16% of the carbon footprint of the total food chain ( Scherhaufer et al., 2018 ).

Based on 2009 commodity prices at producer level, the FAO estimates the economic costs of global wastage of agricultural food products, thus excluding fish and seafood, at $750 billion ( FAO, 2013a ). In 2014, FAO adapted the figures to 2012 prices and replaced the producer prices for post-agricultural wastage with import/export market prices. This leads to a final monetary value of $936 billion for global food wastage ( FAO, 2014 ). At European level, costs of edible waste are estimated to be at around €143 billion for EU-28 in 2012, based on the value of the edible food at each specific stage along the food chain where it is lost ( FUSIONS, 2016 ). Two-thirds of these costs, or €98 billion, relates to food waste from households whereas the second largest contributor is the food service sector, with a food wastage cost of €20 billion.

Finding the Most Promising Measures to Tackle Food Waste

In order to reduce or prevent food waste, many measures have been put forward of which a great deal of them has been implemented. To know which measures provide the best opportunities and what actions are the most promising, a thorough evaluation of food waste interventions is needed.

For businesses, applying food waste prevention measures only makes sense if there is an economic incentive to do so. As preventing food waste comes at a cost, actors along the food chain could be expected to only implement a certain measure if the benefits resulting from saving food gone wasted outweigh the costs associated with the implementation of the measure ( HLPE, 2014 ; WRAP, 2015 ). At production level, not harvesting all crops may be a strategic decision in case of low market prices or in case these leftover crops positively affect the yield of the next season. At business level, transaction costs associated with food waste prevention may be so high that it becomes “rational” to let food go wasted. This could be the case for correctly matching food supply and demand or for increasing delivery frequency and buying smaller quantities. At household level as well, consumers might prefer buying more products at once to going shopping on a more frequent basis, with the risk of a part of them not being consumed in time ( FAO, 2014 ; Teuber and Jensen, 2016 ). In these cases, one might say there is an “optimal” amount of food waste ( Teuber and Jensen, 2016 ).

To overcome these challenges, players along the food chain need an economic incentive for tackling food waste. Other than economic concerns, there may be ethical, social, or ecological benefits resulting from food waste prevention measures that could for example contribute to a company's positive image or corporate social responsibility ( FAO, 2014 ; WRAP, 2015 ). For private consumers as well, ethical, social, or ecological concerns, next to economic ones, may results in generating less food waste.

A clear understanding of the net economic benefits associated with each measure, as well as its associated environmental and social effects, increases transparency, and could create incentives for (further) reducing food waste by the various players along the food chain.

The Knowledge Gap Regarding the Performance of Food Waste Measures

In its review on food waste literature, Schneider (2013) stated that “papers introducing evaluation methodology or presenting reliable results of evaluating implemented food waste prevention measures are lacking.” Rutten et al. (2013) further concluded that literature on the quantification of food waste reduction potential is scarce and that impacts of food waste prevention initiatives are often not quantified.

Since 2013, a couple of reviews were published looking into the extent to which reports or studies consider the food waste diversion potential of food waste measures. Pirani and Arafat (2014) reviewed solid waste management in the hospitality sector. For many of the food waste initiatives they collected, information on the associated food waste reduction potential is missing. Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2017) collected information on the key characteristics and success factors of 26 supply chain initiatives tackling consumer-related food waste. It is however, from this review, not clear whether these initiatives actually led to measurable food waste reduction, as “success was not defined as an actual reduction of food waste, given it was expected that few initiatives can actually measure this.” As such, actual proof of success might as well be “the extent to which information or supportive items had been distributed to consumers” (e.g., measuring cups for preparing the right amount of rice or pasta) as this is assumed to lead to food waste reduction on the long run. Stöckli et al. (2018b) and Reynolds et al. (2019) both looked at the effectiveness of food waste interventions at consumption level. Interestingly, informational interventions were found to be the most commonly used intervention type while at the same time they are seldom evaluated, resulting in a lack of proof of their effectiveness ( Stöckli et al., 2018b ). Furthermore, for some initiatives that are often reported to be effective and promising, such as cooking classes, food sharing apps, advertising and information sharing, no actual evidence could be found on whether or not they were effective ( Reynolds et al., 2019 ). From these reviews, it can be concluded that the potential of food waste measures to reduce food waste is only being evaluated to a limited extent. Stöckli et al. (2018b) and Reynolds et al. (2019) therefore specifically call for more information on the actual effectiveness of food waste measures.

Given the fact that the amount of food waste prevented by a measure is seldom taken into account, neither the ecological impacts nor monetary costs associated with food waste measures can be assessed. To our best knowledge, no reviews currently exist assessing the extent to which ecological impacts, monetary costs or savings, and efficiency of food waste measures are considered. Several authors have however stressed that, in case monetary aspects are taken into account, these tend to be restricted to the costs embodied in the food itself (based on for example retail prices), whereas disposal related costs are neglected ( Rutten et al., 2013 ; Teuber and Jensen, 2016 ; Cristóbal et al., 2018 ; Koester et al., 2018 ). Furthermore, Koester et al. (2018) concluded that costs incurred by the measure itself, namely the costs for implementing a measure, are rarely considered. Cristóbal et al. (2018) further conclude there is only “limited knowledge on the evaluation of food waste prevention and management strategies including both economic and environmental dimensions” and that data on performance of measures is scarce.

To close this knowledge gap on the evaluation of measures, the present paper reviews the methodologies applied in literature for evaluating food waste prevention measures, focussing on a wide range of factors beyond food waste diversion potential. This is done through a three-step literature search and analysis. Firstly, information is gathered on the range of prevention measures currently being proposed in literature to tackle food waste. Secondly, the search is narrowed to those sources containing an evaluation of the proposed food waste measure(s). Finally, an assessment is made on how the evaluation has been performed in the respective studies. This paper thereto proposes an assessment framework with quantitative criteria against which the evaluation methodologies are assessed.

This paper hereby builds on and complements ongoing work of the EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste 1 , and more particularly the framework for evaluating food waste prevention measures that is currently being developed by the EU Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Ispra ( EU FLW, 2017 ). The innovation in this paper therefore does not lay in the assessment framework proposed, but rather in providing an overview of recent advancements in literature and the state of art of the extent to which measures have been evaluated so far.

This paper was written within the context of the German ELoFoS research project on “Efficient Lowering of Food waste in the Out-of-home Sector” 2 . As such, focus is given to the food service or out-of-home (OoH) sector whereas other sectors along the food chain are investigated to a lesser extent. Nevertheless, as the paper focusses on methodologies for evaluating food waste prevention measures rather than the measures itself, the findings of this paper apply to all sectors along the chain.

Materials and Methods

Food waste definition and categorization of food waste measures.

The definition of food waste used within this paper follows the definition proposed by the European FUSIONS project: “Food waste is any food, and inedible parts of food, removed from the food supply chain to be recovered or disposed (including composted, crops plowed in/not harvested, anaerobic digestion, bio-energy production, co-generation, incineration, disposal to sewer, landfill or discarded to sea)” ( Östergren et al., 2014 ). The food supply chain hereby consists of a “connected series of activities used to produce, process, distribute and consume food,” starting with raw materials and products ready for harvest or slaughter ( Östergren et al., 2014 ), thus including those products that are in the end not harvested/slaughtered and for example left on the field.

Using this definition, food (or inedible parts of food) that is removed from the food supply chain and sent to animal feed, bio-material processing or other industrial uses is not considered as “food waste,” but as “valorization and conversion.”

Based on the definitional framework set out by Östergren et al. (2014) and the management hierarchy from Huber-Humer et al. (2017) , food waste measures are categorized as follows:

- Measures preventing food from becoming food waste:

° Category 1: Avoidance measures aimed at reduction of food surplus at source, such as avoiding food overproduction and avoiding purchasing more than what is needed;

° Category 2: Redistribution or donation measures such as redirecting food surplus to people in need;

° Category 3: Valorization or conversion of food and inedible parts of food removed from the food supply chain, such as redirecting food waste to the bio-based industry or to animal feed;

- Measures managing food waste:

° Category 4: Recycling (anaerobic digestion or composting) and recovery (energy recovery) of food and inedible parts of food removed from the food supply chain in order to avoid landfilling.

Literature Search

The literature search was conducted between September 2018 and February 2019 and comprised both searching gray literature as well as academic literature. The search was done using Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, Directory of Open Access Journals and Google (Scholar) search engines. For practical reasons, the academic literature search was conducted in English whereas the search for gray literature entailed publications in English and in German. No date restrictions were set.

Following the focus of the ELoFoS project, the literature search concentrates on developed regions and the OoH sector. Furthermore, this paper concentrates on those measures aimed at preventing food from leaving the food supply chain, namely avoidance measures (Category 1) and redistribution or donation measures (Category 2).

The methodology used for the literature search is based on the rapid review approach as a less time-consuming alternative to a systematic review. The search and subsequent analysis followed a three-step approach as illustrated in Figure 1 . Step 1 aimed at collecting measures dealing with food waste throughout the food chain, in order to get an insight in the measures that have been proposed in literature. In total, the search resulted in a collection of 88 sources (academic and gray literature) listing in total over 200 food waste prevention measures, with the majority of sources proposing or describing more than one measure. All found sources (with the exception of two studies) were published after 2010.

Figure 1 . Flowchart and outline of the literature search methodology.

Step 2 of the search narrowed the sources to those studies or reports containing an evaluation of implemented or proposed measures to prevent food waste. In total, 39 sources were retained containing some sort of evaluation of one single measure or of combined measures. Combined measures hereby refer to measures applied and evaluated simultaneously or grouped into for example a voluntary agreement or a large-scale campaign.

Of the 39 retained sources, 15 were peer reviewed journal articles, 2 referred to proceedings or presentations at a scientific congress, whereas the remainder are gray literature or reports (see also Supplementary Table S3 ). These 39 sources included the evaluation of in total 48 single and combined measures. For the evaluated (combined) measure(s), the following metadata was collected: life cycle stage or sector in focus, country and scale of application, and nature of evaluation results (measured vs. projected outcomes).

During Step 3 of the process, the methodologies and criteria used for evaluating food waste measures were put against a predefined framework for evaluating measures (as described in section Assessment Framework: Evaluation Criteria for Food Waste Measures). The assessment done hereby focussed on the methodologies used in literature, rather than on identifying the best performing measure. Additionally, no attempt was made to evaluate the measures ourselves; only readily available information on the performance of the food waste measures was collected. The evaluation assessment itself comprised looking at the extent to which each of the evaluation criteria was taken into account. A distinction is hereby made into (sets of combined) measures that have been implemented and for which outcomes were measured, and measures that have not been implemented but for which projected outcomes are given. In case the information available online did not allow for a conclusive answer on whether or not a certain criterion was assessed, this is indicated with a question mark (“?”). For practical reasons, these were later on in the analysis treated as “criterion not considered.”

Assessment Framework: Evaluation Criteria for Food Waste Measures

The assessment framework proposed within the context of this paper builds on publicly available information on the ongoing work within the EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste ( EC-JRC, 2018a , b , 2019 ). The framework is based on three overarching quantitative criteria that need to be considered when evaluating food waste measures. The first criterion refers to the potential of a measure to reduce food waste: its effectiveness. Secondly the extent to which all three dimensions of sustainability have been taken into account is assessed: environmental impacts or savings brought about by the measure (such as emission savings), economic costs and benefits, and resulting social effects. Lastly, we look at how the efficiency of a measure is calculated.

Figure 2 provides for a schematic overview of the criteria and their sub-criteria; a detailed description of the framework is presented in the following sections.

Figure 2 . Assessment framework—Quantitative evaluation criteria for food waste prevention measures, inspired by the reporting template developed by the EU JRC within the context of the EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste.

Effectiveness or Food Waste Reduction Potential

The effectiveness of a measure or its potential to decrease food waste requires a quantification on a mass basis of food waste prevented ( Cristóbal et al., 2018 ). An assessment of methodologies for quantifying food waste is out of scope of this paper. Guidance on how to measure food waste can be found in the global Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard developed by the Food Loss and Waste Protocol, which is a multi-stakeholder initiative ( WRI, 2016 ). A recent overview of existing methodologies for food waste accounting, as well as an identification of current challenges and opportunities can further be found in the studies from Caldeira et al. (2017) , Corrado and Sala (2018) , and Corrado et al. (2019) .

Sustainability Assessment

Secondly, the sustainability of a measure needs to be analyzed. This involves looking at the three dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic and social dimension).

Environmental dimension

Environmental impacts or savings arising from the implementation of a food waste prevention measure can be calculated using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. As food waste is being prevented, the embodied impacts associated with the food that is now no longer being wasted are avoided. These include all the impacts generated along the different stages of a product's life cycle. The further along the chain food is wasted, the higher its associated embodied impacts as these accumulate along the chain.

The prevention of food waste further means that the end-of-life (EoL) stage is being eliminated. The associated avoided disposal impact hereby depends on the formerly chosen waste management option ( FAO, 2013b ). These avoided impacts relate to both the waste collection as well as the waste treatment.

Note that for measures belonging to Category 3 (valorization/conversion) or Category 4 (recycling/recovery), the avoided disposal impacts would need to be complemented with other impacts related to what happens with food leaving the food chain. These measures are however out of scope of this paper.

Both the avoided embodied impacts as well as the avoided disposal impacts directly refer to the amount of food waste that is prevented or reduced. An additional source of environmental impacts relates to the implementation of the measure itself. This could refer to changes in logistics or transport (related to for example food redistribution to charities), changes in electricity or water usage, changes in use of packaging or additional use of paper for leaflets and brochures.

Economic dimension

In line with the approach taken in the environmental dimension, food waste prevention measures need to be assessed based on the avoided economic embodied costs, the avoided disposal costs and the implementation costs or savings.

The avoided economic value or embodied cost of food can be determined using the commodity price of a product. Commodity or market prices incorporate the (overhead) costs borne by several actors along the food chain up until the moment of sale, complemented with a certain percentage of profit gain (mark-up) between each of the actors along the chain. In the case of restaurants for example, menu prices are based on the procurement price of each ingredient complemented with operational costs (such as energy and water use, waste management, and cleaning) and personnel costs for preparing and cooking the food. Along the same lines, retail prices incorporate operational and personnel costs borne by a supermarket. As each stage adds up to the cost of food, commodity prices go up as the product moves further along the food supply chain with lowest prices at grower level and highest prices at the end of the supply chain ( Teuber and Jensen, 2016 ; Bellemare et al., 2017 ). Both menu prices and retail prices however also include a mark-up charged by the restaurant or seller in order to make profit. As a result, using menu and retail prices to estimate the value of food gone wasted, leads to an overestimation of its value ( Bellemare et al., 2017 ).

The avoided costs for food waste disposal include costs for waste sorting (such as removing bad and spoiled produce in supermarkets), waste collection and treatment, as well as all related administrative costs.

In 2013, WRAP (2013d) calculated “the true cost of food waste” in the UK hospitality sector. Food purchasing prices were found to contribute 52.2% to the total cost of food waste. The second largest contributors were labor costs for kitchen staff associated with preparation and cooking of meals (37.4%). Other cost elements referred to energy and water use for preparation and cooking of meals (excl. fixed costs such as energy costs for lighting, water costs for cleaning the restaurant), waste management, and transport costs associated with the collection of food supplies.

Another approach to calculate the costs associated with the food that is no longer being wasted (and its avoided disposal), is the Life Cycle Costing (LCC) approach which takes into account all costs associated with a product or service over its entire life cycle. Next to the obvious costs related to raw materials acquisition, manufacturing and distribution, LCC considers operating and labor costs, research expenditures and waste collection and disposal costs as well, thereby also including foreseeable costs in the future ( Hunkeler et al., 2008 ; Kim et al., 2011 ; Swarr et al., 2011 ; Asselin-Balençon and Jolliet, 2014 ; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2015 ; De Menna et al., 2016 , 2018 ). This approach is particularly important in case of Category 3 and 4 measures to fully account for by-products such as animal feed, compost, and electricity.

The third cost item refers to the implementation costs and savings associated with the food waste measure itself, covering both fixed and variable costs. Fixed costs for example include investments in new technologies or materials, investments in new logistics, expenses for printing leaflets and brochures at the start of a campaign, or expenses for personnel training. Variable costs or savings on the other hand refer to changes in daily or continuous activities such as time spent for food production, time spent for waste administration, personnel hours, daily campaign costs, or changes in electricity and water usage.

Social dimension

Next to the environmental and economic effects, there may also be social effects. Redistribution of food waste to food charities for example results in a number of meals given to people. As such, the number of meals saved and subsequently donated can serve as a social indicator.

Another indicator relates to the opportunities for job creation brought about by food waste measures. New jobs may be created in the life cycle stage where food waste is being prevented, as well as in other sectors or stages along the food chain where the food is being reused, recovered, or recycled, such as in food charities or food recycling.

Finally, the efficiency of a measure needs to be calculated using the indicators mentioned above. Evaluating the efficiency of a measure can be done by putting the costs of a measure against its economic benefits, against its waste diversion potential (the amount of food waste that was reduced or prevented), or against the resulting ecological savings such as avoided emissions ( Teuber and Jensen, 2016 ; Cristóbal et al., 2018 ).

Economic or monetary efficiency

The most common methods to calculate the efficiency of a measure are the benefit-cost ratio and the net benefits. The benefit-cost ratio is obtained through division of the benefits resulting from the implementation of a measure by the costs it took to get there ( Investopedia, 2018 ). The net benefits on the other hand are obtained by subtracting the costs from the benefits.

The investment payback period refers to the amount of time it takes to recover the cost of an investment. The return on investment (ROI) can be calculated by dividing the net benefits by the costs, and expressing this ratio as a percentage ( Investopedia, 2019a , b ).

For these calculations, only monetary data is taken into account. As such, there are no clear linkages to the food waste reduction volumes or to the ecological savings resulting from food waste reductions. However, if these reduced food waste volumes or ecological savings are expressed in monetary values (such as the economic retail value of food no longer gone wasted or the economic value of the avoided emissions), these could be included in the benefits obtained through the implementation of a food waste measure.

Food waste efficiency, ecological efficiency and social efficiency

The cost for reducing 1 ton of food waste or for abating 1 ton of carbon emissions (CO 2 eq.) through a specific measure is calculated through the ratio of the costs of this measure to its food waste reduction potential or emission savings. The most preferable measures would then be those with the lowest per unit cost for food waste reduction or for emission abatement.

A marginal abatement cost (MAC) curve facilitates the visualization of the efficiency of different measures and, more specifically, of these measures with the greatest cost efficiency in terms of reducing food waste volumes or abating carbon emissions. It is based on the costs for reducing 1 ton of food waste or 1 ton of carbon emissions as it plots the cost of each of the measures against the cumulative amount of waste saved by the various measures. The waste diversion or emissions abatement potential of each measure is hereby visualized ( Defra, 2012 ; ReFED, 2016a ).

Along the same lines as ecological or food waste efficiency, social efficiency of for example a donation measure can be calculated as the cost for donating 1 meal.

In line with the benefit-cost ratio for monetary efficiency, one could also calculate how much food waste can be reduced, how much emissions can be abated or how many meals can be donated for each euro or dollar put in.

Food Waste Measures and Their Evaluation in Literature

During Step 1 of the literature search, a wide range of measures was found, covering the various players and actors along the food chain from primary production, over storage and processing, retail and wholesale to private consumers and OoH consumption. Supplementary Table S1 gives an overview of over 200 collected measures. To deal with the multitude of measures and/or descriptions of measures found, measures were organized and grouped based on the main theme or aspect the measures focus on. The “Food service—Portion sizes and side dishes” group for example (see group 61 in Supplementary Table S1 ) contains measures related to adapting portion sizes to target groups, offering smaller portion sizes, offering customers to choose their side dishes, and providing bread or butter on demand. The grouping of the many measures found in literature resulted in 75 groups of measures: 73 groups of avoidance measures and 2 groups of redistribution/donation measures.

Supplementary Table S1 further lists which actors or sectors are, according to their literature sources, involved in each measure. Since this paper focusses on methodologies for evaluating measures rather than on evaluating the measures itself, no further analysis of the measures obtained through this exercise is done.

Step 2 of the literature search resulted in a list of 48 measures for which an evaluation could be found, as shown in Table 1 . Following the focus of this paper, those measures identified in Step 1 of the literature search for which no evaluation could be found, are not considered any further. The practical and academic interventions included in Table 1 widely differ in scale: whereas some measures were applied at society level, others were applied within one single company. Furthermore, some of the measures listed in the table, refer to a combined measures applied and evaluated simultaneously or grouped into for example a voluntary agreement or a large-scale campaign, whereas others refer to a single intervention.

Table 1 . Use of evaluation criteria in literature—Summarizing table: Degree to which effectiveness (food waste reduction), sustainability (environmental, economic and social dimension), and efficiency are considered or calculated when evaluating food waste prevention measures.

Out of the 48 (combined) measures, 25 refer to implemented single and combined measures. The other 23 cases concern single interventions that have been proposed but have not necessarily been implemented and for which the evaluation data refers to projected (not measured) food waste reductions, complemented with foreseen (not measured) environmental, economic, and social impacts where applicable.

The last few years have seen a wide range of (proposed) food waste measures, especially in the UK. Many interventions were part of (or followed from) the UK “Love Food hate Waste” campaign set up by the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) or from voluntary agreements with the retail sector (“the Courtauld Commitment”) or with the hospitality and food service (HaFS) sector (“HaFS Agreement”). Many of these measures have been evaluated and a wide range of case studies can be found on the WRAP website. In the US, the multi-stakeholder group ReFED (“Rethink Food Waste through Economics and Data”) was set up in 2015 to tackle food waste. In 2016, they presented “A Roadmap to Reduce US Food Waste by 20%” entailing 27 single solutions (12 avoidance, 7 redistribution, and 8 recycling/recovery) together with their projected outcomes for each individual proposed measure ( ReFED, 2016a ).

It can be noted that many of the evaluations found, concern interventions taking place in the UK and in the US. One important reason being the fact that the literature search was conducted in English. This does however not mean that non-English speaking countries have not evaluated food waste measures. It may merely be that these are to a lesser extent documented in English.

Assessment of Use of Evaluation Criteria in Literature

Step 3 of the literature search involved looking at the extent to which the various evaluation criteria contained in the assessment framework as visualized in Figure 2 are considered and calculated in literature.

Figure 3 summarizes the number of single and combined measures for which effectiveness, sustainability across the three dimensions and efficiency have been evaluated. Results are given for both the implemented measures with measured outcomes as well as for proposed measures with projected outcomes.

Figure 3 . Number of (combined) measures for which effectiveness, sustainability across the three dimensions and efficiency has been evaluated. Overall, 25 implemented single and combined measures, and 23 single proposed measures with projected outcomes are assessed.

Table 1 provides for a schematic summary of the findings for each (combined) measure assessed. These findings are discussed in the next sections; more details on the actual methodology applied in literature for evaluating each (combined) measure, as well as the associated results, can be found in Supplementary Table S2 .

It should be noted that all 12 avoidance measures and all 7 donation measures proposed within the ReFED Roadmap are evaluated according to the same methodology when it comes to foreseen food waste reductions, and foreseen environmental, economic, and social effects. As such, the avoidance and donation are taken up together in two single lines in Table 1 , whereas in the analysis they count as 19 separate measures with different projected outcomes.

Effectiveness

For 47 out of 48 (combined) measures listed in Table 1 , an assessment was made of the effectiveness of an intervention, thereby quantifying (projected) food waste reductions. The only measure for which no actual data on food waste reductions was given (even though it seems it was monitored), is the implemented measure using a so-called “Bin-Cam” which captures and shares images of waste on an online platform ( Thieme et al., 2012 ; Comber and Thieme, 2013 ). Focus of this measure was assessing impacts on awareness and self-reflection, as well as analyzing social influences rather than actual food waste accounting.

Sustainability Across Three Dimensions

Figures 4 , 5 show the number of single and combined measures for which environmental aspects are considered during the evaluation. Figure 4 hereby focusses on each sub-criterion on itself, whereas Figure 5 focusses on the combination of sub-criteria assessed simultaneously.

Figure 4 . Consideration of environmental aspects in the evaluation of food waste prevention measures: number of single and combined measures for which avoided embodied or product-related impacts (p), avoided disposal impacts (d), and implementation impacts (i) are assessed.

Figure 5 . Consideration of environmental aspects in the evaluation of food waste prevention measures: number of single and combined measures for which avoided embodied or product-related impacts (p), avoided disposal impacts (d), and implementation impacts (i) are simultaneously assessed.

The literature search has shown that for 16 out of 25 (combined) implemented measures, and for 1 out of 23 proposed measures, no environmental assessment whatsoever was conducted. The (expected) embodied impacts of the food that no longer goes wasted was calculated for the other 9 implemented and 22 proposed measures. For four implemented measures, the environmental savings related to avoided disposal were also taken into account, next to the embodied impacts. For the proposed measures, this was the case for 20 measures.

Only four cases consider environmental impacts directly or indirectly resulting from the implementation of measures. In three cases, implementation impacts related to electricity use from fridges or freezers were considered next to the embodied emissions of food no longer wasted. This concerns foreseen changes in electricity use from reducing storage temperature of refrigerated items and placing additional items in household fridges ( WRAP, 2013b , 2015 ; Brown et al., 2014b ), foreseen changes from freezing food by households to be consumed later on ( Brown et al., 2014a ), or changes in electricity use from reducing storage temperature at retail level ( Eriksson et al., 2016 ). Avoided disposal was not assessed in these cases.

Only one case, the “Fruta Feia” co-op in Lisbon (Portugal) which buys “ugly” produce form farmers and sells it to consumers, takes into account all three impact elements. The implementation impacts hereby consider additional transport for bringing the ugly produce from the farm to a consumer delivery point, as well as the production of bags and baskets used for distribution ( Ribeiro et al., 2018 ).

Economic costs or benefits

The literature search has shown that 9 out of 25 implemented measures did not take into account any economic aspect in their evaluation; the proposed measures with projected outcomes all performed some kind of economic evaluation ( Figure 6 ).

Figure 6 . Consideration of economic aspects in the evaluation of food waste prevention measures: number of single and combined measures for which avoided embodied or product-related costs (p), avoided disposal costs (d), and implementation costs (i) are assessed.

In 37 of the (combined) implemented and proposed measures, the cost or value of the food that no longer ends up in the bin has been calculated. This is mainly done based on market prices at producer or retail level; the exception being the proposed donation solution from the ReFED Roadmap for which the expected value of saved and donated food is based on data from the US food banks network “Feeding America.”

For six implemented (combined) measures and one proposed measure with projected outcomes, the (expected) avoided costs for waste disposal were also taken into account next to avoided embodied costs ( Figure 7 ). Note that the ReFED roadmap only considers expected avoided disposal costs for recycling/recovery solutions, not for avoidance or donation measures ( ReFED, 2016a ); hence the “–” in Table 1 .

Figure 7 . Consideration of economic aspects in the evaluation of food waste prevention measures: number of single and combined measures for which avoided embodied or product-related costs (p), avoided disposal costs (d), and implementation costs (i) are simultaneously assessed.

Costs or benefits directly or indirectly resulting from the implementation of measures have been considered in in total 33 (combined) measures. These refer to investments in logistics, website and computer hardware and recurring costs for transport and personnel ( Ribeiro et al., 2018 ); (expected) additional costs for electricity use from better use of fridges at household ( WRAP, 2013b , 2015 ; Brown et al., 2014b ) or retail level ( Eriksson et al., 2016 ); expected additional costs for electricity resulting from freezing food in households to be consumed later on ( Brown et al., 2014a ); campaign costs for the “Love Food Hate Waste” campaign in the UK ( WRAP, 2015 ; Hanson and Mitchell, 2017 ) and for the “Food: Too Good to Waste” campaign in the US ( EPA, 2016 ); expected packaging costs for novel portion packs for fresh meat ( WRAP, 2015 ); time spent for trimming second grade vegetables in commercial kitchens ( Lynnerup, 2016 ); time spent for weighting food waste using a smart scale in a business cafeteria ( City of Hillsboro, 2010 ); cost for using smart scales for measuring food waste in restaurants, hotels and catering businesses, as well as other equipment costs, costs for staff training and consulting, and costs associated with menu redesign ( Clowes et al., 2018a , b , 2019 ); personnel savings from mobile catering in hospitals ( Snels and Wassenaar, 2011 ); costs for recovery of food fit for consumption from supermarkets and redistribution to charity ( Cicatiello et al., 2016 ); and projected initial capital expenditures and annual operating expenses throughout the US society and businesses for all 19 prevention interventions proposed within the ReFED Roadmap ( ReFED, 2016a ).

Only in a limited number of cases all three cost elements of a (combined) measure were considered. This is the case for the evaluation of the UK “Love Food Hate Waste” campaign ( WRAP, 2015 ; Hanson and Mitchell, 2017 ) and the three Champions 12.3 publications entailing various measures and stressing the financial business case for reducing food waste and losses in restaurants, catering, and hotels ( Clowes et al., 2018a , b , 2019 ).

Social impacts

Social effects have been considered in only nine cases.

When it comes to implemented measures, a social life cycle assessment was performed for the Portuguese “Fruta Feia” project that commercializes imperfect produce. The assessment includes the project's contribution to local employment and community engagement, revenue for local farmers, staff working hours, and the possibility for consumers to buy produce at low prices. Finally, its awareness raising effect is mentioned, resulting in project replication in other regions ( Ribeiro et al., 2018 ). Cicatiello et al. (2016) recovered food waste in supermarkets by redistributing food that is still perfectly fit for consumption to charity. Based on the amounts of food recovered, the authors calculated the number of full meals and dessert and bread portions that could be prepared on a daily basis.

When it comes to proposed measures with projected outcomes, the ReFED roadmap calculates the projected number of meals to be recovered for each of the seven donation measures proposed in the roadmap. Additionally, the Roadmap lists the expected number of jobs that will be created for three out of seven donation measures ( ReFED, 2016a ).

Efficiency calculations were only performed for 8 out of 25 implemented (combined) measures ( Figure 8 ), even though in some cases the data needed to perform such calculations was available. For proposed measures with projected outcomes, efficiency was calculated in all but two cases.

Figure 8 . Consideration of efficiency in the evaluation of food waste prevention measures: number of single and combined measures for which economic or monetary (m), food waste (fw), ecological (e) or social (s) efficiency are simultaneously assessed.

The investment pay-back period for the Portuguese “Fruta feia” project has been calculated, and this for two scenarios, namely in case of one or three consumer delivery points ( Ribeiro et al., 2018 ). Additionally, the authors calculated the Social Return on Investment (SROI) to assess the project's contribution to society by monetizing the economic, environmental and social value created. Carbon emissions were hereby assigned a value of €52.7 per ton CO 2 . The SROI was found to be positive at all times. Thus, for every €1 invested, the social value generation is higher than €1.

Net (expected) benefits resulting from the value of foods no longer being wasted and additional costs from electricity use by fridges or freezers were calculated at household ( WRAP, 2013b , 2015 ; Brown et al., 2014a , b ) and retail level ( Eriksson et al., 2016 ). Net benefits were further also calculated for use of second grade vegetables in commercial kitchens, based on the price of the raw products and the time spent for trimming these second grade vegetables ( Lynnerup, 2016 ).

The benefit-cost ratio was applied for evaluating the Love Food Hate Waste (LFHW) campaign in the UK ( WRAP, 2015 ; Hanson and Mitchell, 2017 ). Benefits hereby referred to avoided disposal costs for local authorities and savings for households in terms of avoiding throwing away food (embodied economic retail value of food that is no longer wasted). Costs on the other hand, referred to the costs of the campaign itself, namely all expenditures by WRAP, local authorities, Courtauld Commitment signatories, and community groups. Based on this approach, they concluded that every £1 spent by the public and private sector contributed to over £250 of savings. Ecological efficiency was not calculated even though environmental impact savings calculations were made.

The benefit-cost ratio was also applied in the Champions 12.3 publications on the business case for reducing food waste and loss by hotels, catering and restaurants ( Clowes et al., 2018a , b , 2019 ). On average, every $1 spent in hotels and restaurants, realized a return of $7. In the catering business, the average return was found to be $6. Based on these data, the Return on Investment (ROI) was calculated as well as the investment payback period. Within 2 years, 95% of the hotels, 80% of the catering companies and 89% of the restaurants had their investments paid back. Since the ecological savings brought about by the food waste measures were not calculated in the first place, no linkage could be made to the ecological efficiency of the measures in each sector.

In its case study to recover food waste from an Italian supermarket and redistribute it to charity, Cicatiello et al. (2016) calculated the efficiency of the intervention by putting the investment costs against the value of the food recovered. For each € 1 invested in the project, about € 4.6 worth of food could be donated.

Based on the upfront and operating expenses (costs) and the cost savings and revenues (benefits) associated with each solution, ReFED (2016a) calculated the expected annual net economic value associated with each of the 19 proposed avoidance and donation solutions put forward. Combining these 19 prevention solutions with the 8 proposed recycling/recovery solutions, ReFED states that with a $18 billion investment, the Roadmap is expected to yield $100 billion in societal Economic Value over a decade ( ReFED, 2016a ).

Food waste efficiency, ecological efficiency, and social efficiency

Specific calculations indicating food waste efficiency in terms of costs per kilogram of food waste prevented tend to be missing even though the needed data was often available. The only exception is the ReFED roadmap which, based on per unit costs, visualizes the waste diversion potential of all solutions under study (including recycling/recovery solutions) using a MAC curve. The curve “ranks all 27 solutions based on their cost-effectiveness, or societal Economic Value generated per ton of waste reduced, while also visualizing the total diversion potential of each solution” ( ReFED, 2016a ).

In none of the cases, ecological efficiency was calculated. Following monetization of the emission savings, the study on the Fruta Feia project did however incorporate ecological impacts into its monetary efficiency calculations ( Ribeiro et al., 2018 ).

Similarly, none of the cases calculated social efficiency even though it is implicitly taken on board by Cicatiello et al. (2016) through its monetary efficiency calculations stating that each euro invested resulted in €4.6 worth of food being donated.

Multi-objective or pareto optimization

Cristóbal et al. (2018) propose a novel methodology, based on LCA and mathematical programming, to visualize efficiency and help decision makers identify the most preferable measure. The model involves multi-objective optimization (or Pareto optimization) of environmental and economic objectives. Taken into consideration are the economic costs associated with each measure, the total budget available for reducing food waste, and the total environmental impacts that can be avoided by implementing the measure (and thus by reducing food waste). The model aims at maximizing environmental savings while constraining the costs of the measures within the limited budget available. Afterwards, a Pareto front can be obtained whereby each point in the Pareto front or graph corresponds to a different combination of measures that for each budget maximizes the total environmental impact avoided.

Using a selection of the 27 solutions mentioned in the ReFED roadmap, Cristóbal et al. (2018) performed a multi-objective optimization of the total environmental impact avoided (TEIA) by each measure within the constraints of a specific budget. Doing so, the authors identified which actions to prioritize for obtaining the highest TEIA, and this for 16 scenarios with each a specific budget available.

Main Findings

The present paper has shown that a wide range of measures and activities is being proposed, both at scientific as well as at practical level, and this for all stages and actors along the food chain. In total, over 200 measures were identified through the first step of the literature search.

The second step of the second literature search showed that only for a limited number of measures, an evaluation was conducted. The measures for which an evaluation was available refer to both single measures (such as monitoring of food waste in a commercial kitchen) as well as combined actions (such as voluntary agreements or large-scale campaigns). Based on the analysis made, it seems that not all measures found during Step 1 of the literature search have been evaluated. However, this paper is based on the rapid review approach as a less time-consuming alternative to a systematic review. This resulted in non-exhaustive lists of proposed and/or evaluated food waste measures which may not capture the full spectrum of measures (and their evaluations) being available in literature. Additionally, due to language restrictions in the literature search, the results are biased toward measures and their evaluations published in English (and German). As such, no statements can be made at this point on the percentage of measures for which an evaluation has been conducted.

In total, evaluations were found for 48 (combined) measures with 25 of them referring to implemented measures and 23 to proposed measures with projected outcomes. The collected evaluations all include information on the food waste reductions achieved by the measure applied or proposed, with the exception of one measure for which monitoring of food waste reductions seemed to be present but for which no data was published.

For the purpose of this paper, no analysis was made whether or not targets were set for each (combined) measure and to what extent these targets were (or will be) achieved.

Sustainability: Environmental Dimension

When it comes to environmental evaluation of measures, avoided embodied impacts associated with food waste reductions were considered in 65% of the cases and avoided disposal impacts were calculated in 50% of the cases. Implementation impacts on the other hand were only regarded in 8% of the cases. There are however differences in how implemented and proposed measures are evaluated. In case of implemented measures, avoided embodied impacts are only assessed in 36% of the (combined) measures whereas this percentage goes up to 96% in the case of proposed measures. Similarly, avoided disposal impacts are assessed in 16% of the implemented measures and 87% of the proposed measures. Consideration of implementation impacts is comparable with 8% for implemented measures and 9% for proposed measures.

In total, only four cases considered environmental implementation impacts. We could however expect (minor) changes in environmental impacts for other measures as well in case for example operational parameters such as water and electricity use change, in case more or other packaging is applied to increase shelf life or improve portioning, or in case food is donated to charity requiring additional transport.

The lower share of implemented measures having received an environmental evaluation as compared to the proposed measures may indicate that making projections for foreseen impact reductions is easier than actually measuring and calculating impact savings for implemented measures in practice.

Looking at the combinations of environmental evaluation criteria simultaneously considered and thus at the completeness of the environmental evaluation performed, only one study had a complete environmental evaluation whereby all three environmental impact elements (product-related, avoided disposal and implementation impacts) were assessed. For 30 (combined) measures, only one or two out of the three environmental impact elements were considered (incomplete evaluation), whereas for 17 (combined) measures, the environmental assessment was missing as a whole (evaluation missing).

Sustainability: Economic Dimension

More information was found for economic costs and benefits associated with food waste measures. In 77% of the cases, the economic value of the food that is no longer being thrown away is calculated; avoided disposal costs are calculated in 15% of the cases. Specific costs associated with the implementation of measure(s) are assessed in 69% of the collected (combined) measures. We hereby note that for two of these cases, these were the only costs provided as embodied cost savings or savings from avoided waste disposal were not taken up.

Here as well, discrepancies are found in how implemented measures are evaluated as compared to proposed measures with projected outcomes. For both avoided embodied costs and implementation costs, a lower share of the implemented measures take into account these sub-criteria in their evaluation (respectively 77 and 69% as compared to twice 96% for the proposed measures). The avoided disposal costs on the other hand are more frequently addressed in the evaluation of implemented measures (24% as compared to only 4% for proposed measures) as none of the 19 prevention solutions in the ReFED roadmap takes this into consideration.

Looking at the completeness of each economic evaluation, four implemented measures were evaluated using all three economic cost elements (product-related, avoided disposal, and implementation costs), resulting in a complete evaluation. For 12 implemented and all 23 proposed measures, one or two out of three cost elements were taken into account (incomplete evaluation), whereas for nine implemented measures, the economic evaluation was missing as a whole.

In general, the “implementation costs and impacts” sub-criterion is more frequently considered in the economic evaluation than it is in the environmental evaluation. Unfortunately, our literature search did not allow for drawing conclusions on the reason behind this. One explanation may be that the (expected) environmental impacts associated with the implementation of a specific measure are harder to calculate than the economic ones. It may however also be that practitioners are less aware of the importance of including this factor in their evaluation.

Sustainability: Social Dimension

Only nine measures considered social effects, reporting job creation, number of meals saved through donation, or a combination of both.

Many studies omitted efficiency calculations even though the necessary data was available. Economic or monetary efficiency was calculated in 60% of the collected (combined) measures, mostly by calculating net benefits or the benefit-cost ratio. Again, the share of implemented measures for which monetary efficiency was calculated (32%) was lower than the share of proposed measures (91%).

None of the studies under research calculated ecological or social efficiency.

Food waste efficiency on the other hand was calculated in the ReFED roadmap, with results for all solutions being visualized in a MAC curve. This results in 40% of all measures considering this criterion, or 83% of the proposed measures (and 0% of the implemented measures).

One study provided for a novel approach in optimizing avoided environmental impacts and measure implementation costs within budget constraints using Pareto optimization.

Framework for Evaluating Food Waste Actions and Selection of Evaluation Criteria

Quantitative criteria.

The evaluation criteria considered in the present paper are limited to quantitative criteria such as effectiveness, sustainability across three dimensions, and efficiency. Both effectiveness and sustainability across three dimensions are also taken up in the JRC reporting template for evaluating food waste prevention measures under the overarching heading of the evaluation criterion “efficiency” ( EC-JRC, 2018a , b ). It is not clear if specific efficiency calculations as considered within the context of the present paper are also to be reported within the JRC reporting template. The JRC template further includes the additional aspect of “outreach impact” as one of the sub-criteria for assessing efficiency of measures ( EC-JRC, 2018a , b ).

Qualitative Evaluation Criteria Complementing Quantitative Criteria

The JRC reporting template further includes the following qualitative and descriptive criteria: quality of the action design (problem identification; setting of aims, objectives, and key performance indicators; implementation plan), sustainability over time (continuity of the action; long term strategic plans), transferability and scalability (ability to be transferred from one place/situation to another; ability to grow or to be made larger), and inter-sectorial cooperation ( EC-JRC, 2018a , b , 2019 ).

The assessment performed in the context of this paper focussed on quantitative criteria for evaluating food waste prevention measures. Some evaluations found in literature however also included qualitative aspects complementing or replacing quantitative data. In their evaluation of measures addressing food waste in schools for example, Schmidt et al. (2018) indicated the estimated time, labor, and costs that go with a selection of measures as well as staff willingness to implement these measures. Expenses, costs, or willingness to implement the measure are hereby expressed as “low,” “average,” or “high.” In 2018, ReFED published a food waste action guide specifically targeted to the restaurant sector ( ReFED, 2018 ). The guide includes a “Restaurant Solution Matrix” helping restaurants prioritize solutions based on a combination of profit potential and feasibility of each measure. Profit potential refers to the net annual business benefits and/or cost savings of a given solution, thereby excluding initial investments. Feasibility combines the level of effort (e.g., the behavior, systems, and process changes required) with the initial financial capital needed to implement a solution ( ReFED, 2018 ). The resulting feasibility matrix thus links quantitative data to qualitative data.

Such qualitative data sheds light on existing barriers for implementation and thus provides valuable information for transferring and upscaling measures addressing food waste.

Singling Out Effects

The evaluation of food waste measures is often hampered by the fact that it can be hard to single out the effects of one specific measure, as also pointed out in literature ( Stöckli et al., 2018a , b ). Multiple interventions are often ongoing at the same time, making it hard to say how much of the food waste reduction is attributable to each specific measure. This paper also identified various combined measures (with some of them being implemented together as a package), for which evaluations were done for all measures together as a whole.

The 19 promising prevention measures proposed within the ReFED Roadmap are evaluated on an individual basis, and projected outcomes are given for each measure. In practice however, it may be harder to isolate the effects of each individual measure as other (possibly less promising) measures may be applied at the same time.

Additionally, there might be societal influences. For its evaluation of the Love Food Hate Waste (LFHW) campaign for example, WRAP (2015) stressed that, next to the campaign, also deep recession and rapidly rising food prices contributed to lowering food waste during the period of evaluation.

Rebound Effect and Market Feedback Links

Next to the direct impacts and costs, some less visible or indirect feedback mechanisms take place when implementing food waste prevention measures. The first one is “the rebound effect.” The prevention of food waste in households for example, might result in less money being spent on purchasing food. The money that becomes available can then be spent on other goods or services. The way it is spent, will greatly affect the environmental benefits from preventing the food ending up as waste. In case the money is spent on more environmentally damaging food and non-food products and/or services, the final benefits from food waste reduction are offset, which is called the rebound effect ( Rutten et al., 2013 ; Bernstad Saraiva Schott and Cánovas, 2015 ; WRAP, 2015 ; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2016 ; Teuber and Jensen, 2016 ; Beretta et al., 2017 ; Salemdeeb et al., 2017 ; Cristóbal et al., 2018 ; Wunder et al., 2019 ).

A second issue relates to market feedback links: as food waste prevention measures affect the demand side for food, also the interactions between demand and supply will be affected, thereby having its repercussions on the entire food market system ( Britz et al., 2014 ). These aspects could also be considered when evaluating measures. The present paper did however not look into whether existing evaluations of food waste measures included rebound effects or market feedback links. The JRC reporting template does not consider these criteria either.

Way Forward

To get an insight in ongoing measures, the EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste (see above) asked its members and other relevant stakeholders to provide information on existing food waste prevention activities ( EU FLW, 2017 ). Using its reporting template for evaluating food waste measures, the EU JRC is currently evaluating the collected information ( EU FLW, 2017 ; EC-JRC, 2018a ). The present paper complements ongoing work at EU level by providing information on the quantitative evaluation of food waste measures (applied within the EU and beyond) available in literature, and more specifically by providing information on the evaluation methodologies applied hitherto.

This paper concludes that there is a great variety in how measures are evaluated in literature. Additionally, in many cases, economic, environmental, or social assessments are incomplete or missing, and efficiency is only seldom calculated. This hampers practitioners and decision-makers to compare food waste interventions, identify trade-offs and prioritize actions. A more aligned approach on which evaluation criteria to consider and how to calculate the associated indicators would give more insight in which actions are most promising. Moreover, more complete information on the effectiveness and efficiency of measures would make incentives for reducing food waste at various levels along the food chain more visible.

To facilitate the evaluation of food waste measures in the future, it is important to determine essential evaluation criteria and how these should be assessed, ideally before the implementation of a measure. This is exactly what the JRC reporting template is working toward to ensure that, from the early start on, the right data can be gathered at the right time, thereby avoiding data gaps.

A reflection on the various evaluation criteria across the different dimensions (effectiveness, efficiency, scalability…) at the very beginning of the development of food waste actions may create greater awareness by those in charge of defining and implementing measures. This in turn might already result in more effective and efficient measures as practitioners might pursue to perform well in all domains, whereas before, they might have only focused on for example the economic benefits of a measure.

This paper therefore calls for a thorough evaluation of proposed and implemented measures tackling food waste, using a harmonized approach based on an agreed set of evaluation criteria. The authors welcome the developments at EU level, in particular the JRC reporting template, and hope both practitioners and researchers will follow or be inspired by this approach to successfully contribute to a reduction of food waste along the entire chain.

Author Contributions

YG performed the literature search and subsequent analysis, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. AW and TS contributed to conception and design of the study, as well as to redrafting the manuscript during the review process. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

This paper was written within the context of the German ELoFoS research project on Efficient Lowering of Food waste in the Out-of-home Sector. The project ELoFoS was supported by funds of the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) based on a decision of the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany via the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE) under the innovation support programme (funding number 281A103416).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00090/full#supplementary-material

1. ^ https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu_actions/action-implementation_en

2. ^ https://elofos.de

Aschemann-Witzel, J., Hooge, I. E., de Rohm, H., Normann, A., Bossle, M. B., Grønhøj, A., et al. (2017). Key characteristics and success factors of supply chain initiatives tackling consumer-related food waste – A multiple case study. J. Clean. Prod. 155, 33–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.173

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Asselin-Balençon, A. C., and Jolliet, O. (2014). Metrics and indices to assess the life cycle costs and greenhouse gas impacts of a dairy digester. J. Clean. Prod. 79, 98–107. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.024

Bellemare, M. F., Çakir, M., Peterson, H. H., Novak, L., and Rudi, J. (2017). On the measurement of food waste. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 99, 1148–1158. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aax034

Beretta, C., Stucki, M., and Hellweg, S. (2017). Environmental impacts and hotspots of food losses: value chain analysis of swiss food consumption. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 11165–11173. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b06179

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bernstad Saraiva Schott, A., and Cánovas, A. (2015). Current practice, challenges and potential methodological improvements in environmental evaluations of food waste prevention – a discussion paper. Resour. Conserv. Recyc. 101, 132–142. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.004

Britz, W., Dudu, H., and Ferrari, E. (2014). “Economy-wide impacts of food waste reduction: a general equilibrium approach,” in Agri-Food and Rural Innovations for Healthier Societies: EAAE 2014 Congress (Ljubljana).

Google Scholar

Brown, T., Hipps, N. A., Easteal, S., Parry, A., and Evans, J. A. (2014a). Reducing domestic food waste by freezing at home. Int. J. Refrig. 40, 362–369. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2013.12.009

Brown, T., Hipps, N. A., Easteal, S., Parry, A., and Evans, J. A. (2014b). Reducing domestic food waste by lowering home refrigerator temperatures. Int. J. Refrig. 40, 246–253. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2013.11.021

Caldeira, C., Corrado, S., and Sala, S. (2017). Food Waste Accounting: Methodologies, Challenges and Opportunities: JRC Technical Reports . Ispra: EC-JRC, European Commission Joint Research Centre.

Cicatiello, C., Franco, S., Pancino, B., and Blasi, E. (2016). The value of food waste: an exploratory study on retailing. J. Retail. Consum. Services 30, 96–104. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.01.004

City of Hillsboro (2010). Food Waste Prevention Case Study: Intel Corporation's Cafés. City of Hillsboro.

Clowes, A., Hanson, C., and Swannell, R. (2019). The Business Case for Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Restaurants . Champions 12.3.

Clowes, A., Mitchell, P., and Hanson, C. (2018a). The Business Case for Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Catering . Champions 12.3.

Clowes, A., Mitchell, P., and Hanson, C. (2018b). The Business Case for Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Hotels . Champions 12.3.

Comber, R., and Thieme, A. (2013). Designing beyond habit: opening space for improved recycling and food waste behaviors through processes of persuasion, social influence and aversive affect. Pers Ubiquit Comput. 17, 1197–1210. doi: 10.1007/s00779-012-0587-1

Corrado, S., Caldeira, C., Eriksson, M., Hanssen, O. J., Hauser, H.-E., van Holsteijn, F., et al. (2019). Food waste accounting methodologies: challenges, opportunities, and further advancements. Glob. Food Secur. 20, 93–100. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2019.01.002

Corrado, S., and Sala, S. (2018). Food waste accounting along global and European food supply chains: state of the art and outlook. Waste Manage. 79, 120–131. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.032

Cristóbal, J., Castellani, V., Manfredi, S., and Sala, S. (2018). Prioritizing and optimizing sustainable measures for food waste prevention and management. Waste Manage. 72, 3–16. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11.007

De Menna, F., Dietershagen, J., Loubiere, M., and Vittuari, M. (2018). Life cycle costing of food waste: a review of methodological approaches. Waste Manage. 73, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.12.032

De Menna, F., Loubiere, M., Dietershagen, J., Unger, N., and Vittuari, M. (2016). Methodology for Evaluating LCC. Deliverable 5.2, REFRESH.

Defra (2012). Waste Prevention Actions for Priority Wastes. Economic Assessment Through Marginal Abatement Cost Curves . Final report, Defra.

Dias-Ferreira, C., Santos, T., and Oliveira, V. (2015). Hospital food waste and environmental and economic indicators–A Portuguese case study. Waste Manage. 46, 146–154. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.025

EC-JRC (2018a). “Collection and assessment of food waste prevention actions: meeting of the subgroup on action and implementation, 19.03.2018,” in EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste, 2018 (EC-JRC). Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/fw_eu-platform_20180319_sub-ai_pres-04.pdf (accessed May 08, 2019).

EC-JRC (2018b). “Framework for the assessment of food waste prevention actions: meeting of the subgroup on action and implementation,” in EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste, 2018 (EC-JRC). Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/fw_eu-platform_20181001_sub-ai_pres-05.pdf

EC-JRC (2019). “Collection and evaluation of food waste prevention actions: meeting of the subgroup on action and implementation,” in EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste, 2019 (EC-JRC). Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/fw_eu-platform_20190318_sub-ai_pres-01.pdf (accessed May 08, 2019).

Ellison, B., Nehrling, E. W., Nikolaus, C. J., and Duff, B. R. L. (2017). Evaluation of a food waste reduction campaign in a University Dining Hall. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 49, S9–S10. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2017.05.032

EPA (2016). Food: Too Good To Waste. An Evaluation Report for the Consumption Workgroup of the West Coast Climate and Materials Management Forum, EPA.

Eriksson, M., Strid, I., and Hansson, P.-A. (2016). Food waste reduction in supermarkets – net costs and benefits of reduced storage temperature. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 107, 73–81. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.022

EU FLW (2017). Roadmap for the ‘Action and Implementation' Sub-Group: Key Milestones and Deliverables . EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste (FLW).

FAO (2013a). Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources . Summary Report, FAO.

FAO (2013b). Toolkit - Reducing the Food Wastage Footprint . FAO.

FAO (2014). Food Wastage Footprint: Full-Cost Accounting . Final Report, FAO.

FAO (2015). Food Wastage Footprint & Climate Change . FAO.

FUSIONS (2016). Estimates of European Food Waste Levels . FUSIONS.

Gustavvson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., and Meybeck, A. (2011). Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention . Rome: FAO.

Hanson, C., and Mitchell, P. (2017). The Business Case for Reducing Food Loss and Waste . Champions 12.3.

HLPE (2014). Food Losses and Waste in the Context of Sustainable Food Systems . HLPE.

Huber-Humer, M., Scherhaufer, S., Obersteiner, G., and Unger, N. (2017). “Selected material stocks and flows: food waste (Section 3.9),” in Circular Economy - A Fact Book on the Circular Economy , ed C. Scharff (Vienna: Circular Economy Coalition for Europe (CEC4Europe)).

Hunkeler, D., Lichtenvort, K., and Rebitzer, G. (2008). Environmental Life Cycle Costing . Hoboken, NJ: CRC Press. doi: 10.1201/9781420054736

Investopedia (2018). Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) . Available online at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cost-benefitanalysis.asp (accessed February 20, 2019).

Investopedia (2019a). Pay-Back Period . Available online at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/paybackperiod.asp (accessed February 20, 2019).

Investopedia (2019b). Return on Investment (ROI) . Available online at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp (accessed February 20, 2019).

Kallbekken, S., and Sælen, H. (2013). ‘Nudging' hotel guests to reduce food waste as a win–win environmental measure. Econ. Lett. 119, 325–327. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2013.03.019

Kim, M.-H., Song, Y.-E., Song, H.-B., Kim, J.-W., and Hwang, S.-J. (2011). Evaluation of food waste disposal options by LCC analysis from the perspective of global warming: jungnang case, South Korea. Waste Manage. 31, 2112–2120. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.04.019

Koester, U., Loy, J.-P., and Ren, Y. (2018). Measurement and Reduction of Food Loss and Waste – Reconsidered . IAMO Policy Brief, 34.

Kranert, M., Hafner, G., Barabosz, J., Schuller, H., Leverenz, D., Kölbig, A., et al. (2012). Ermittlung der Weggeworfenen Lebensmittelmengen und Vorschläge zur Verminderung der Wegwerfrate bei Lebensmitteln in Deutschland: Projektförderung . Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (BLE).

Kummu, M., Moel, H., de Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., and Ward, P. J. (2012). Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 438, 477–489. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.092

Leverenz, D., Pilsl, P., and Hafner, G. (2016). “Entwicklung einer Anwendung zur Erfassung, Bewertung und Vermeidung von Lebensmittelabfällen in gastronomischen Einrichtungen,” in 6. Wissenschaftskongress “Abfall- und Ressourcenwirtschaft” 2016 (Berlin: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Abfallwirtschaft DGAW).

Lynnerup, D. (2016). Mindre Madspild ved Anvendelse af 2. Sorterings Grøntsager i Storkøkkener: Less Food Waste by Using 2nd Grade Vegetables in Industrial Kitchens . Copenhagen: Ministry of Evironment (Miljøstyrelsen).

Martinez-Sanchez, V., Kromann, M. A., and Astrup, T. F. (2015). Life cycle costing of waste management systems: overview, calculation principles and case studies. Waste Manage. 36, 343–355. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.10.033

Martinez-Sanchez, V., Tonini, D., Møller, F., and Astrup, T. F. (2016). Life-cycle costing of food waste management in Denmark: importance of indirect effects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 4513–4523. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03536

Navarro, D. A., Boaz, M., Krause, I., Elis, A., Chernov, K., Giabra, M., et al. (2016). Improved meal presentation increases food intake and decreases readmission rate in hospitalized patients. Clin. Nutr. 35, 1153–1158. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2015.09.012

Östergren, K., Gustavvson, J., Bos-Brouwers, H., Timmermans, T., Hanssen, O. J., Møller, H., et al. (2014). FUSIONS Definitional Framework for Food Waste: Full Report . FUSIONS (Food Use for Social Innovation by Optimising Waste Prevention Strategies), EU FP7 Project.

Pirani, S. I., and Arafat, H. A. (2014). Solid waste management in the hospitality industry: a review. J. Environ. Manage. 146, 320–336. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.038

ReFED (2016a). A Roadmap to Reduce US Food Waste by 20%. ReFED.

ReFED (2016b). A Roadmap to Reduce US Food Waste by 20% . Technical Appendix, ReFED.

ReFED (2018). Restaurant Food Waste Action Guide . ReFED.

Reynolds, C., Goucher, L., Quested, T., Bromley, S., Gillick, S., Wells, V. K., et al. (2019). Review: consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions - What works and how to design better interventions. Food Policy 83, 7–27. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.01.009

Ribeiro, I., Sobral, P., Peças, P., and Henriques, E. (2018). A sustainable business model to fight food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 177, 262–275. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.200

Rutten, M., Nowicki, P., Bogaardt, M.-J., and Aramyan, L. (2013). Reducing Food Waste by Households and in Retail in the EU – A Prioritisation Using Economic, Land Use and Food Security Impacts . LEI Wageningen UR.

Salemdeeb, R., Font Vivanco, D., Al-Tabbaa, A., and Ermgassen, E. K. H. J. (2017). A holistic approach to the environmental evaluation of food waste prevention. Waste Manage. 59, 442–450. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.042

Scherhaufer, S., Moates, G., Hartikainen, H., Waldron, K., and Obersteiner, G. (2018). Environmental Impacts of Food Waste in Europe . New York, NY: Waste Management.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Schmidt, T., Baumgartd, S., Blumenthal, A., Burdick, B., Claupein, E., Dirksmeyer, W., et al. (2018). Wege zur Reduzierung von Lebensmittelabfällen - Pathways to Reduce Food Waste (REFOWAS). Dritter Zwischenbericht zu Nr. 3.1 BNBest-BMBF 98 . Thünen Institute/REFOWAS Project.

Schneider, F. (2013). Review of food waste prevention on an international level. Proc. Instit. Civil Eng. 166, 187–203. doi: 10.1680/warm.13.00016

Snels, J., and Wassenaar, N. (2011). Maaltijdservice Máx à la Carte. Effecten van een Nieuw Maaltijdconcept Binnen Máxima Medisch Centrum . Wageningen: UR Food & Biobased Research.

Stöckli, S., Dorn, M., and Liechti, S. (2018a). Normative prompts reduce consumer food waste in restaurants. Waste Manage. 77, 532–536. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.047

Stöckli, S., Niklaus, E., and Dorn, M. (2018b). Call for testing interventions to prevent consumer food waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 136, 445–462. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.03.029

Swarr, T. E., Hunkeler, D., Klopffer, W., Pesonen, H.-L., Ciroth, A., Brent, A. C., et al. (2011). Environmental Life Cycle Costing: A Code of Practice . Pensacola, FL: Society of Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology (SETAC).

Teuber, R., and Jensen, J. D. (2016). Food Losses and Food Waste - Extent, Underlying Drivers and Impact Assessment: IFRO Report . Copenhagen: Institute of Food and Resource Economics (IFRO).

Thiagarajah, K., and Getty, V. M. (2013). Impact on plate waste of switching from a tray to a trayless delivery system in a university dining hall and employee response to the switch. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 113, 141–145. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.07.004

Thieme, A., Comber, R., Miebach, J., Weeden, J., Kraemer, N., Lawson, S., et al. (2012). ““We've bin watching you”-designing for reflection and social persuasion to promote sustainable lifestyles,” in Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '12 , eds J. A. Konstan, E. H. Chi, and K. Höök (New York, NY: ACM Press), 2337–2346. doi: 10.1145/2207676.2208394

Wansink, B., and van Ittersum, K. (2013). Portion size me: plate-size induced consumption norms and win-win solutions for reducing food intake and waste. J. Exp. Psychol. 19, 320–332. doi: 10.1037/a0035053

Whitehair, K. J., Shanklin, C. W., and Brannon, L. A. (2013). Written messages improve edible food waste behaviors in a university dining facility. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 113, 63–69. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.09.015

Williamson, S., Block, L. G., and Keller, P. A. (2016). Of waste and waists: the effect of plate material on food consumption and waste. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 1, 147–160. doi: 10.1086/684287

Winnow (2018a). Case Study: Food is Precious for IKEA Gent Which Plans to Halve Food Waste by August 2020. Winnow.

Winnow (2018b). Case Study: See How an IKEA Store in Netherlands Is Saving Over €100,000 Annually by Reducing Food Waste . Winnow.

WRAP (2010). Courtauld Commitment 1 (2005-2010) . Case studies. WRAP.

WRAP (2013a). Courtauld Commitment 2 - Household Food Waste . Technical report, WRAP.

WRAP (2013b). Impact of More Effective Use of the Fridge and Freezer . WRAP.

WRAP (2013c). The Courtauld Commitment, Phase 2. Final Results. WRAP.

WRAP (2013d). The True Cost of Food Waste within Hospitality and Food Service . WRAP.

WRAP (2014). The Hospitality and Food Service Agreement. Signatory Pack Sept . 2014. WRAP.

WRAP (2015). Strategies to Achieve Economic and Environmental Gains by Reducing Food Waste. WRAP.

WRAP (2017). The Hospitality and Food Service Agreement . Taking action on waste. WRAP.

WRI (2016). Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard (Version 1.0). WRAP.

Wunder, S., van Herpen, E., McFarland, K., Ritter, A., van Geffen, L., Stenmarck, Å., et al. (2019). Policies Against Consumer Food Waste. Policy Options for Behaviour Change Including Public Campaigns. Background Report, REFRESH Policy Brief, Reducing consumer food waste, D3.4.

Keywords: food waste, prevention, measure, evaluation, performance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability

Citation: Goossens Y, Wegner A and Schmidt T (2019) Sustainability Assessment of Food Waste Prevention Measures: Review of Existing Evaluation Practices. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 3:90. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00090

Received: 04 July 2019; Accepted: 23 September 2019; Published: 10 October 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Goossens, Wegner and Schmidt. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Yanne Goossens, yanne.goossens@thuenen.de

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A comprehensive review on food waste reduction based on iot and big data technologies.

1. Introduction

• Reducing food waste with IoT and big data-based systems.
• Machine learning algorithms that are used for FWR.
• Various types of sensors and technologies that are used to reduce the amount of food wastage and improve food quality.
• The challenges and opportunities related to using IoT and big data analysis for reducing food wastage in the supply chain.

2. IoT and Big Data

2.2. big data.

• Real-time analytics (RTA)
• Off-line analytics (OLA)

3. FWR Based on IOT and Big Data Analytics in Smart Supply-Chains: Sensing and Measurement Layer

• Proximity Sensors: The proximity sensors are intended to detect a nearby object using electromagnetic radiation such as infrared by detecting variations in the return signal. There are various types of these sensors, such as inductive, capacitive, ultrasonic, photoelectric, and magnetic [ 44 ]. These sensors are widely used in the food industry and in FWR systems [ 20 ].
• Position Sensors: The position sensor senses the motion of an object in a certain area to detect its presence. It can be used in smart agriculture and in IoT-based FWR systems [ 46 ]. There are also motion sensors that can be considered in this category that are designed to sense all kinds of kinetic movements of an object, as described by Ref. [ 56 ]. Ndraha et al. [ 57 ] apply various types of sensors including position sensors for the improvement of cold chain performance and improper handling.
• Occupancy Sensors: These sensors are used for the remote monitoring of variables such as temperature, humidity, light, and air [ 47 ].
• Motion or Kinetic Sensors: The sensor detects all kinetic and physical movement in the environment [ 56 ] and could be used in a truck to detect possible movement of fruit boxes to provide needed information to estimate the rate of food deterioration in a certain period for better decision-making.
• Velocity Sensors: The velocity sensors calculate the rate of position variation, which might be linear along a straight line or angular related to device rotation speed at known intervals [ 48 ]. These sensors can be used in crates to determine the variation of food position during food transfer. This will enable us to monitor the parameters that can affect food quality and make the appropriate decisions.
• Temperature sensors: Temperature sensors are widely used for the monitoring of environmental conditions of the surroundings [ 50 ]. This type of sensor is also widely used in FWR systems and more, especially for smart agriculture to enable farmers to increase their overall yield and product quality by getting real-time data on their land [ 51 ].
• Pressure Sensors: Pressure sensors sense the amount of force and convert it into signals. Sensors of this type can be used to measure the amount of pressure in boxes of food and send the data to the server for decision-making to avoid food waste caused by excessive pressure in boxes during transport. The sensor triggers a notification to the user as soon as the applied pressure is below a certain value that affects the quality of the food [ 52 , 58 ].
• Chemical Sensors: These types of sensors sense any chemical reaction and can be used for reducing food wastage in smart agriculture [ 53 ].
• Optical Sensors: Optical sensors are a broad class of devices for detecting light intensity. Optical sensors are suitable for IoT applications related to the environment. Therefore, they can be used for food quality control applications, in the food industry [ 55 ], and in smart agriculture [ 54 ].

4. Processing the Aggregated Data: Service Layer

4.1. ml and predictive models, 4.2. learning models.

5. Application of Machine Learning Algorithms for FWR: Application Layer

6. Wireless Communication Technologies for FWR in Smart Supply Chains: Network Layer

7. iot-based food wastage reduction challenges and opportunities, 7.1. challenges.

• Data Quality: Research on Big Data Analytics in food quality control using cloud computing technology has its own relevant challenges related to data quality, scalability, availability, and integrity.
• Lack of Standardization: These can be related to using different management systems by users and can be considered the biggest challenges related to the generated data.
• Lack of Communication Protocols: Bouzembrak et al. [ 114 ] explain that this can be considered one of the main issues that affect the data transmission quality, as it may cause delays, or some parts of the measured data might be missed due to a lack of reliable communication protocols.
• Security and Data Protection: Several issues are associated with IoT security in food quality control, such as inadequate hardware and software security. Additionally, IoT nodes that are not supported with enough security protocols can be a vulnerable point for the security of the entire IoT system along the food supply chain.
• Battery: The energy consumption issues related to the use of batteries also pose significant challenges to the success of IoT-based technologies for FWR.

7.2. Opportunities

• Networking and Collaborations: These provided access to a network in North-West Europe with wide expertise and provided an opportunity for participation in future collaboration initiatives.
• Quality Assurance: Continuously monitor food quality and signal any potential loss in quality.
• Decision support and decision-making: Using big data analytics and artificial intelligence to provide rapid decision support for food logistics.
• Sensor Technology: Providing at the forefront of sensor (traditional and advanced) technologies for monitoring food quality and big data technology developments
• Data-Driven Decision-Making: Making the right decision for food quality based on carefully analyzing real-time data.

8. Conclusions

Author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Ostojić, G.; Stankovski, S.; Tegeltija, S.; Đukić, N.; Tejić, B. Implementation of IoT for food wastage minimisation. In Proceedings of the XVII International Scientific Conference on Industrial Systems, Novi Sad, Serbia, 4–6 October 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Khan, M.A.; Shahid, M.H.; Mansoor, H.; Shafique, U.; Khan, M.B. IoT based grocery management system: Smart refrigerator and smart cabinet. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Systems of Collaboration Big Data, Internet of Things & Security (SysCoBIoTS), Casablanca, Morocco, 12–13 December 2019; pp. 1–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ali, S.M.; Moktadir, M.A.; Kabir, G.; Chakma, J.; Rumi, M.J.U.; Islam, M.T. Framework for evaluating risks in food supply chain: Implications in food wastage reduction. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 228 , 786–800. [ Google Scholar ]
• Navghane, S.; Killedar, M.; Rohokale, V. Iot based smart garbage and waste collection bin. Int. J. Adv. Res. Electron. Commun. Eng. 2016 , 5 , 1576–1578. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zeinab, K.A.M.; Elmustafa, S.A.A. Internet of things applications, challenges and related future technologies. World Sci. News 2017 , 2 , 126–148. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh, A.; Aggarwal, P.; Arora, R. IoT based waste collection system using infrared sensors. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Reliability, Infocom Technologies and Optimization (Trends and Future Directions) (ICRITO), Noida, India, 7–9 September 2016; pp. 505–509. [ Google Scholar ]
• Atlam, H.F.; Alenezi, A.; Alharthi, A.; Walters, R.J.; Wills, G.B. Integration of cloud computing with internet of things: Challenges and open issues. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing (CPSCom) and IEEE Smart Data (SmartData), Exeter, UK, 21–23 June 2017; pp. 670–675. [ Google Scholar ]
• Soma, T.; Li, B.; Maclaren, V. Food waste reduction: A test of three consumer awareness interventions. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 907. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lazarescu, M.T. Design of a WSN Platform for Long-Term Environmental Monitoring for IoT Applications. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Circuits Syst. 2013 , 3 , 45–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kelly, S.D.T.; Suryadevara, N.K.; Mukhopadhyay, S.C. Towards the implementationof IoT for environmental condition monitoring in homes. IEEE Sens. J. 2013 , 13 , 3846–3853. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Manjunath, P.; Shah, P.G. IoT based food wastage management system. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on I-SMAC (IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud) (I-SMAC), Palladam, India, 12–14 December 2019; pp. 93–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yildirim, H.; Capone, R.; Karanlik, A.; Bottalico, F.; Debs, P.; El Bilali, H. Food wastage in turkey: An exploratory survey on household food waste. J. Food Nutr. Res. 2016 , 4 , 483–489. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chalak, A.; Abou-Daher, C.; Abiad, M.G. Generation of food waste in the hospitality and food retail and wholesale sectors: Lessons from developed economies. Food Secur. 2018 , 10 , 1279–1290. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Morone, P.; Koutinas, A.; Gathergood, N.; Arshadi, M.; Matharu, A. Food waste: Challenges and opportunities for enhancing the emerging bio-economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 221 , 10–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salemdeeb, R.; Zu Ermgassen, E.K.; Kim, M.H.; Balmford, A.; Al Tabbaa, A. Environmental and health impacts of using food waste as animal feed: A comparative analysis of food waste management options. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 140 , 871–880. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scherhaufer, S.; Moates, G.; Hartikainen, H.; Waldron, K.; Obersteiner, G. Environmental impacts of food waste in Europe. Waste Manag. 2018 , 77 , 98–113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mak, T.M.; Xiong, X.; Tsang, D.C.; Iris, K.; Poon, C.S. Sustainable food waste management towards circular bioeconomy: Policy review, limitations and opportunities. Bioresour. Technol. 2020 , 297 , 122497. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ananno, A.A.; Masud, M.H.; Chowdhury, S.A.; Dabnichki, P.; Ahmed, N.; Arefin, A.M.E. Sustainable food waste management model for Bangladesh. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021 , 27 , 35–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jayalakshmi, K.; Pavithra, S.; Aarthi, C. Waste to wealth: A novel approach for food waste management. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Electrical, Instrumentation and Communication Engineering (ICEICE), Karur, India, 27–28 April 2017; pp. 1–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gull, S.; Bajwa, I.S.; Anwar, W.; Rashid, R. Smart enose food waste management system. J. Sens. 2021 , 2021 , 9931228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gayathri, N.; Divagaran, A.R.; Akhilesh, C.D.; Aswiin, V.M.; Charan, N. IOT Based Smart Waste Management System. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS), Coimbatore, India, 19–20 March 2021; Volume 1, pp. 2042–2046. [ Google Scholar ]
• Luthra, S.; Mangla, S.K.; Garg, D.; Kumar, A. Internet of things (IoT) in agriculture supply chain management: A developing country perspective. In Emerging Markets from a Multidisciplinary Perspective ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 209–220. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marjani, M.; Nasaruddin, F.; Gani, A.; Karim, A.; Hashem, I.A.T.; Siddiqa, A.; Yaqoob, I. Big iot data analytics: Architecture, opportunities, and open research challenges. IEEE Access 2017 , 5 , 5247–5261. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al Nuaimi, E.; Al Neyadi, H.; Mohamed, N.; Al Jaroodi, J. Applications of big data to smart cities. J. Internet Serv. Appl. 2015 , 6 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jagtap, S.; Rahimifard, S. The digitisation of food manufacturing to reduce waste–case study of a ready meal factory. Waste Manag. 2019 , 87 , 387–397. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kambatla, K.; Kollias, G.; Kumar, V.; Grama, A. Trends in big data analytics. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 2014 , 74 , 2561–2573. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gantz, J.; Reinsel, D. The Digital Universe in 2020: Big Data, Bigger Digital Shadows, and Biggest Growth in the Far East ; IDC iView; IDC Analyze the Future: Framingham, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gani, D.; Siddiqa, D.; Shamshirband, S.; Hanum, F. A survey on indexing techniques for big data: Taxonomy and performance evaluation. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 2016 , 46 , 241–284. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paul, A.; Chen, B.-W.; Bharanitharan, K.; Wang, J.-F. Video search and indexing with reinforcement agent for interactive multimedia services. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. 2013 , 12 , 1–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mital, R.; Coughlin, J.; Canaday, M. Using big data technologies and analytics to predict sensor anomalies. In Proceedings of the Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference, Maui, HI, USA, 15–18 September 2015; p. 84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hashem, I.A.T.; Yaqoob, I.; Anuar, N.B.; Mokhtar, S.; Gani, A.; Khan, S.U. The rise of big data on cloud computing: Review and open research issues. Inf. Syst. 2015 , 47 , 98–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, D.; Reddy, C.K. A survey on platforms for big data analytics. J. Big Data 2015 , 2 , 1–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Siddiqa, A.; Hashem, I.A.T.; Yaqoob, I.; Marjani, M.; Shamshirband, S.; Gani, A.; Nasaruddin, F. A survey of big data management: Taxonomy and state-of-the-art. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2016 , 71 , 151–166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pfaffl, M.W. A new mathematical model for relative quantification in real-time rt-pcr. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 , 29 , e45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohamed, N.; Al-Jaroodi, J. Real-time big data analytics: Applications and challenges. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on High Performance Computing & Simulation (HPCS), Bologna, Italy, 21–25 July 2014; pp. 305–310. [ Google Scholar ]
• Novak, A.; Bennett, D.; Kliestik, T. Product decision-making information systems, real-time sensor networks, and artificial intelligence driven big data analytics in sustainable industry 4.0. Econ. Manag. Financ. Mark. 2021 , 16 , 62–72. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, C.P.; Zhang, C.-Y. Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques and technologies: A survey on big data. Inf. Sci. 2014 , 275 , 314–347. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zahid, H.; Mahmood, T.; Morshed, A.; Sellis, T. Big data analytics in telecommunications: Literature review and architecture recommendations. IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sin. 2019 , 7 , 18–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rossi, J.; Bianchini, A.; Guarnieri, P. Circular economy model enhanced by intelligent assets from industry 4.0: The proposition of an innovative tool to analyze case studies. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 7147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bifet, A.; Holmes, G.; Pfahringer, B.; Kranen, P.; Kremer, H.; Jansen, T.; Seidl, T. Moa: Massive online analysis, a framework for stream classification and clustering. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Applications of Pattern Analysis, Windsor, UK, 1–3 September 2010; pp. 44–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen, T.; Li, Z.; Spiegler, V.; Ieromonachou, P.; Lin, Y. Big data analytics in supply chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. Comput. Oper. Res. 2018 , 98 , 254–264. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arora, Y.; Goyal, D. Big data: A review of analytics methods & techniques. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Informatics (IC3I), Greater Noida, India, 14–17 December 2016; pp. 225–230. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anagnostopoulos, T.; Zaslavsky, A.; Kolomvatsos, K.; Medvedev, A.; Amiria, P.; Morley, J.; Hadjieftymiades, S. Challenges and opportunities of waste management in IoT-enabled smart cities: A survey. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Comput. 2017 , 2 , 275–289. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sehrawat, D.; Gill, N.S. Smart sensors: Analysis of different types of IoT sensors. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Trends in Electronics and Informatics (ICOEI), Tirunelveli, India, 23–25 April 2019; pp. 523–528. [ Google Scholar ]
• ROBU.IN. Types of Proximity Sensors. Available online: https://robu.in/types-ofproximity-sensor/ (accessed on 1 February 2020).
• Mekala., M.S.; Viswanathan, P. A novel technology for smart agriculture based on IoT with cloud computing. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on I-SMAC (IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics, and Cloud) (I-SMAC), Palladam, India, 10–11 February 2017; pp. 75–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nesa, N.; Banerjee, I. Iot-based sensor data fusion for occupancy sensing using dempster–shafer evidence theory for smart buildings. IEEE Internet Things J. 2017 , 4 , 1563–1570. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Strohbach, M.; Ziekow, H.; Gazis, V.; Akiva, N. Towards a big data analytics framework for IoT and smart city applications. In Modeling and Processing for Next-Generation Big-Data Technologies ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 257–282. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pendor, R.B.; Tasgaonkar, P.P. An IoT framework for intelligent vehicle monitoring system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Communication and Signal Processing (ICCSP), Melmaruvathur, India, 6–8 April 2016; pp. 1694–1696. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zafar, S.; Miraj, G.; Baloch, R.; Murtaza, D.; Arshad, K. An IoT based real-time environmental monitoring system using arduino and cloud service. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2018 , 8 , 3238–3242. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nayyar, A.; Puri, V. Smart farming: IoT based smart sensors agriculture stick for live temperature and moisture monitoring using Arduino, cloud computing & solar technology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Communication and Computing Systems (ICCCS-2016), Gurgaon, India, 9–11 September 2016; p. 9781315364094-121. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nasir, H.; Aziz, W.B.; Ali, F.; Kadir, K.; Khan, S. The implementation of IoT based smart refrigerator system. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Smart Sensors and Application (ICSSA), Kuching, Malaysia, 24–26 July 2018; pp. 48–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ratnaparkhi, S.; Khan, S.; Arya, C.; Khapre, S.; Singh, P.; Diwakar, M.; Shankar, A. Smart agriculture sensors in iot: A review. Mater. Today Proc. 2020 , withdrawn article in press . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Machado, C.C.S.; da Silveira Petruci, J.F.; Silva, S.G. A iot optical sensor for photometric determination of oxalate in infusions. Microchem. J. 2021 , 168 , 106466. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cerovic, Z.; Moise, N.; Agati, G.; Latouche, G.; Ghozlen, N.B.; Meyer, S. New portable optical sensors for the assessment of winegrape phenolic maturity based on berry fluorescence. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2008 , 21 , 650–654. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ansari, A.N.; Sedky, M.; Sharma, N.; Tyagi, A. An Internet of things approach for motion detection using Raspberry Pi. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Internet of Things, Harbin, China, 17–18 January 2015; pp. 131–134. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ndraha, N.; Vlajic, J.; Chang, C.C.; Hsiao, H.I. Challenges with food waste management in the food cold chains. In Food Industry Wastes ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 467–483. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prapulla, S.; Shobha, G.; Thanuja, T. Smart refrigerator using internet of things. J. Multidiscip. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2015 , 2 , 1795–1801. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohammadi, M.; Al-Fuqaha, A.; Sorour, S.; Guizani, M. Deep learning for iot big data and streaming analytics: A survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2018 , 20 , 2923–2960. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Mahdavinejad, M.S.; Rezvan, M.; Barekatain, M.; Adibi, P.; Barnaghi, P.; Sheth, A.P. Machine learning for internet of things data analysis: A survey. Digit. Commun. Netw. 2018 , 4 , 161–175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liakos, K.G.; Busato, P.; Moshou, D.; Pearson, S.; Bochtis, D. Machine learning in agriculture: A review. Sensors 2018 , 18 , 2674. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Garre, A.; Ruiz, M.C.; Hontoria, E. Application of machine learning to support production planning of a food industry in the context of waste generation under uncertainty. Oper. Res. Perspect. 2020 , 7 , 100147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kurita, T. Principal component analysis (pca). In Computer Vision: A Reference Guide ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 1–4. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishra, P.; Nikzad-Langerodi, R. Partial least square regression versus domain invariant partial least square regression with application to near-infrared spectroscopy of fresh fruit. Infrared Phys. Technol. 2020 , 111 , 103547. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lzenman, A.J. Linear discriminant analysis. In Modern Multivariate Statistical Techniques ; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 237–280. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coderoni, S.; Perito, M.A. Sustainable consumption in the circular economy. An analysis of consumers’ purchase intentions for waste-to-value food. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 252 , 119870. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cherry, L.; Mollendor, D.; Eisenstein, B.; Hogue, T.S.; Peterman, K.; McCray, J.E. Predicting parcel-scale redevelopment using linear and logistic regression-the Berkeley neighborhood Denver, Colorado case study. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 1882. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thompson, B. Stepwise regression and stepwise discriminant analysis need not apply here: A guidelines editorial. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1995 , 55 , 525–534. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hutcheson, G.D. Ordinary least-squares regression. In The SAGE Dictionary of Quantitative Management Research ; Moutinho, L., Hutcheson, G.D., Eds.; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2011; pp. 224–228. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang, W.; Goh, A.T. Multivariate adaptive regression splines and neural network models for prediction of pile drivability. Geosci. Front. 2016 , 7 , 45–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G.; Pitts, S.C. Multiple linear regression. In Handbook of Psychology ; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003; pp. 481–507. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn, M.; Weston, S.; Keefer, C.; Coulter, N. Cubist Models for Regression , R package Vignette R package version 0.0.; The R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2012; Volume 18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman, J.H.; Stuetzle, W. Smoothing of Scatterplots ; Stanford University CA Project Orion; Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA, 1982. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumari, C.U.; Prasad, S.J.; Mounika, G. Leaf disease detection: Feature extraction with K-means clustering and classification with ANN. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computing Methodologies and Communication (ICCMC), Erode, India, 27–29 March 2019; pp. 1095–1098. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murtagh, F.; Contreras, P. Algorithms for hierarchical clustering: An overview. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 2012 , 2 , 86–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Serra, A.; Tagliaferri, R. Unsupervised learning: Clustering. In Encyclopedia of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ganjewar, P.D.; Barani, S.; Wagh, S.J.; Sonavane, S.S. Food monitoring using adaptive Naïve Bayes prediction in IoT. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications, Vellore, India, 6–8 December 2018; pp. 424–434. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ontivero-Ortega, M.; Lage-Castellanos, A.; Valente, G.; Goebel, R.; Valdes-Sosa, M. Fast Gaussian Naïve Bayes for searchlight classification analysis. Neuroimage 2017 , 163 , 471–479. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiang, L.; Wang, S.; Li, C.; Zhang, L. Structure extended multinomial naive bayes. Inf. Sci. 2016 , 329 , 346–356. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bielza, C.; Larranaga, P. Discrete bayesian network classifiers: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 2014 , 47 , 1–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bouckaert, R.R. Bayesian Belief Networks: From Construction to Inference. Ph.D. Dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arboleda, E.R.; Fajardo, A.C.; Medina, R.P. Classification of coffee bean species using image processing, artificial neural network and K nearest neighbors. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Innovative Research and Development (ICIRD), Bangkok, Thailand, 11–12 May 2018; pp. 1–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Adnan, R.M.; Jaafari, A.; Mohanavelu, A.; Kisi, O.; Elbeltagi, A. Novel ensemble forecasting of streamflow using locally weighted learning algorithm. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 5877. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bilen, T.; Canberk, B. Learning-vector-quantization-based topology sustainability for clustered-aanets. IEEE Netw. 2021 , 35 , 120–128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Belson, W.A. Matching and prediction on the principle of biological classification. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C Appl. Stat. 1959 , 8 , 65–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Loh, W.-Y. Classification and regression trees. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 2011 , 1 , 14–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hill, D.A.; Delaney, L.M.; Roncal, S. A chi-square automatic interaction detection (chaid) analysis of factors determining trauma outcomes. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 1997 , 42 , 62–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Orr, M.J. Introduction to Radial Basis Function Networks ; Technical Report; Center for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh: Edinburgh, UK, 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Albawi, S.; Mohammed, T.A.; Al-Zawi, S. Understanding of a convolutional neural network. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering and Technology (ICET), Antalya, Turkey, 21–23 August 2017; pp. 1–6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang, Y.; Yuan, G.; Cai, J.; Wei, S. Forecasting of disassembly waste generation under uncertainties using Digital twinning-based hidden markov model. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 5391. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buscema, M. Back propagation neural networks. Subst. Use Misuse 1998 , 33 , 233–270. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Han, X.; Wei, Z.; Zhang, B.; Li, Y.; Du, T.; Chen, H. Crop evapotranspiration prediction by considering dynamic change of crop coefficient and the precipitation effect in back-propagation neural network model. J. Hydrol. 2021 , 596 , 126104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Treadgold, N.K.; Gedeon, T.D. The SARPROP algorithm, a simulated annealing enhancement to resilient back propagation. In Proceedings of the International Panel Conference on Soft and Intelligent Computing, Budapest, Hungary, 30 September–3 October 1996; pp. 293–298. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahmed, S.R.; Kumar, A.K.; Prasad, M.S.; Keerthivasan, K. Smart iot based short term forecasting of power generation systems and quality improvement using resilient back propagation neural network. Rev. Geintec-Gest. Inov. Tecnol. 2021 , 11 , 1200–1211. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, J.; Wang, K.; Wang, Y.; Huang, Z.; Xue, R. Deep boltzmann machine based condition prediction for smart manufacturing. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2019 , 10 , 851–861. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuzmanovski, I.; Novič, M. Counter-propagation neural networks in Matlab. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2008 , 90 , 84–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Acakpovi, A.; Ternor, A.T.; Asabere, N.Y.; Adjei, P.; Iddrisu, A.-S. Time series prediction of electricity demand using adaptive neurofuzzy inference systems. Math. Probl. Eng. 2020 , 2020 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chou, J.S.; Tai, Y. Generalized regression neural nets in estimating the high-tech equipment project cost. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computer Engineering and Applications, Bali, Indonesia, 19–21 March 2010; Volume 2, pp. 281–284. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hua, Y.; Guo, J.; Zhao, H. Deep belief networks and deep learning. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Internet of Things, Harbin, China, 17–18 January 2015; pp. 1–4. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramsauer, H.; Schäfl, B.; Lehner, J.; Seidl, P.; Widrich, M.; Adler, T.; Gruber, L.; Holzleitner, M.; Pavlović, M.; Sandve, G.K.; et al. Hopfield networks is all you need. arXiv 2020 , arXiv:2008.02217. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vinayak, B.; Lee, H.S.; Gedem, S. Prediction of land use and land cover changes in Mumbai City, India, using remote sensing data and a multilayer perceptron neural network-based Markov chain model. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 471. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Takahashi, R.; Hashimoto, A.; Sonogashira, M.; Iiyama, M. Partially-shared variational auto-encoders for unsupervised domain adaptation with target shift. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, Glasgow, UK, 23–28 August 2020; pp. 1–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang, G.B.; Wang, D.H.; Lan, Y. Extreme learning machines: A survey. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 2021 , 2 , 107–122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pallathadka, H.; Mustafa, M.; Sanchez, D.T.; Sajja, G.S.; Gour, S.; Naved, M. Impact of machine learning on management, healthcare and agriculture. Mater. Today Proc. 2021 , in press, corrected proof . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ramos, P.; Prieto, F.A.; Montoya, E.; Oliveros, C.E. Automatic fruit count on coffee branches using computer vision. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2017 , 137 , 9–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kung, H.-Y.; Kuo, T.-H.; Chen, C.-H.; Tsai, P.-Y. Accuracy analysis mechanism for agriculture data using the ensemble neural network method. Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 735. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mehdizadeh, S.; Behmanesh, J.; Khalili, K. Using mars, svm, gep and empirical equations for estimation of monthly mean reference evapotranspiration. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2017 , 139 , 103–114. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amatya, S.; Karkee, M.; Gongal, A.; Zhang, Q.; Whiting, M.D. Detection of cherry tree branches with full foliage in planar architecture for automated sweet-cherry harvesting. Biosyst. Eng. 2016 , 146 , 3–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Grinblat, G.L.; Uzal, L.C.; Larese, M.G.; Granitto, P.M. Deep learning for plant identification using vein morphological patterns. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016 , 127 , 418–424. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feng, Y.; Peng, Y.; Cui, N.; Gong, D.; Zhang, K. Modeling reference evapotranspiration using extreme learning machine and generalized regression neural network only with temperature data. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2017 , 136 , 71–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sadowski, S.; Spachos, P. Wireless technologies for smart agricultural monitoring using internet of things devices with energy harvesting capabilities. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020 , 172 , 105338. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jin, C.; Bouzembrak, Y.; Zhou, J.; Liang, Q.; van den Bulk, L.M.; Gavai, A.; Liu, N.; van den Heuvel, L.J.; Hoenderdaal, W.; Marvin, H.J. Big data in food safety—A review. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2020 , 2020. 36 , 24–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, H.; Xu, Z.; Fujita, H.; Liu, S. Towards felicitous decision making: An overview on challenges and trends of big data. Inf. Sci. 2016 , 367 , 747–765. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bouzembrak, Y.; Klüche, M.; Gavai, A.; Marvin, H.J. Internet of things in food safety: Literature review and a bibliometric analysis. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019 , 94 , 54–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aamer, A.M.; Al-Awlaqi, M.A.; Affia, I.; Arumsari, S.; Mandahawi, N. The internet of things in the food supply chain: Adoption challenges. Benchmarking Int. J. 2021 , 28 , 2521–2541. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, R.; Dhir, A.; Talwar, S.; Kaur, P. Over-ordering and food waste: The use of food delivery apps during a pandemic. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021 , 96 , 102977. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Petrariu, R.; Sacala, M.-D.; Pistalu, M.; Dinu, M.; Deaconu, M.E.; Constantin, M. A Comprehensive Food Consumption and Waste Analysis Based on eCommerce Behaviour in the Case of the AFER Community. Transform. Bus. Econ. 2022 , 21 , 3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Talwar, S.; Kaur, P.; Ahmed, U.; Bilgihan, A.; Dhir, A. The dark side of convenience: How to reduce food waste induced by food delivery apps. Br. Food J. 2022 , 125 , 205–225. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ramanathan, R.; Duan, Y.; Ajmal, T.; Pelc, K.; Gillespie, J.; Ahmadzadeh, S.; Condell, J.; Hermens, I.; Ramanathan, U. Motivations and Challenges for food companies in using IoT sensors for reducing food waste: Insights and a road map for the future. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 1665. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Ahmadzadeh, S.; Ajmal, T.; Ramanathan, R.; Duan, Y. A Comprehensive Review on Food Waste Reduction Based on IoT and Big Data Technologies. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 3482. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043482

Ahmadzadeh S, Ajmal T, Ramanathan R, Duan Y. A Comprehensive Review on Food Waste Reduction Based on IoT and Big Data Technologies. Sustainability . 2023; 15(4):3482. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043482

Ahmadzadeh, Sahar, Tahmina Ajmal, Ramakrishnan Ramanathan, and Yanqing Duan. 2023. "A Comprehensive Review on Food Waste Reduction Based on IoT and Big Data Technologies" Sustainability 15, no. 4: 3482. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043482

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Emerald Publishing Open Access

The impact of food preservation on food waste

Wayne martindale.

1 National Centre for Food Manufacturing, Food Insights and Sustainability Service, University of Lincoln, Holbeach, UK

Walter Schiebel

2 Institute for Marketing and Innovation, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the relationship between food preservation and reducing consumer waste is of value in developing sustainable meal options. The research reports insights into Austrian marketplace for frozen and fresh foods that have been obtained from a consumer survey.

Design/methodology/approach

The consumer survey methodologies indicate how preservation can change meal planning and lower food waste across frozen and fresh and ambient food purchases using freezing preservation methods.

The results show food waste can be reduced by six-fold when frozen foods are compared with fresh foods.

Research limitations/implications

This study highlights the requirement for a greater understanding of the probability that specific foods will be wasted with respect to the frequency of purchase. This is a limitation of the current study that has been investigated by other researchers.

Practical implications

This research has enabled the identification of different food waste amounts for different food product categories. The data presented could be used to guide food product development so that less consumer waste is produced.

Social implications

The research suggests a decision matrix approach can be used to can guide new product development and a model of this matrix is presented so that it may provide fit-for-purpose food preservation options for consumers.

Originality/value

This paper will continue to highlight the overlooked value of food preservation during processing and manufacturing of foods and their preparation in households.

Introduction

Consumers produce the greatest amount of food waste and loss in the food supply chains of developing and developed economies ( Gustavsson et al. , 2011 ). A recent pan-European food waste programme has identified consumer food waste as a major challenge (COST Action TD1203, EUBIS). The COST Network, EU network on food waste valorisation has given attention to solving the amount of consumer food waste produced through technological and policy interventions ( Morone et al. , 2017 ; Privett et al. , 2016 ). Reducing all food losses will result in a more secure global food system and it is important for us to show how consumers can reduce food waste in households. This is where food preservation has an important role in facilitating this waste reducing action because it improves the utilisation of food. It has also been identified that understanding why food is wasted by consumers during meal occasions develops of waste reduction strategies that can be used for different foods and preservation methods ( Martindale, 2014 ).

Previous food waste reduction initiatives have typically focussed outside of this consumer arena and they have focussed on manufacturing and retail food losses. They have been successful at designing out food waste using the right-weighting of food products (portion control) and light-weighting of packaging (material resource efficiency). Their success has been made possible through cooperative actions across the food industry that have developed joint responsibility for food waste. It is essential that these initiatives now act to reduce the food that consumers purchase but do not eat ( Mena et al. , 2011 ). Furthermore, FAO reported Food Balance statistics show supply chain losses for food groups such as meat, fruit and vegetables to be below 5 per cent of production or domestic supply quantities ( Martindale, 2017 ). While these food losses remain incredibly important it is reported by national agencies and government departments that consumers’ food waste regularly reaches 20 per cent or more of food purchased ( Defra, 2017 ).

There has been an emergence of re-distribution schemes and community focussed actions that have been successful at removing food waste from supply chains. Redistribution of foods that are close to shelf-life limits and schemes that facilitate providing food to consumers such as “community fridges” have an exceptionally important role to play in waste reduction particularly where communities experience limited accessibility and affordability of foods. The redistribution of foods from retailers and manufacturers that are close to shelf life limits or charitable donations has also seen the impact of using on-line communication technologies that connect providers with consumers of redistributed foods ( Aschemann-Witzel et al. , 2017 ; Aschemann-Witzel et al. , 2015 ). What has become evident in this arena is the reduction of food wastes from the food supply chain to the point of consumer sale is dependent on the application of many actions. That is, there is no single solution here and many actions that redistribute, involve communities and use on-line technologies will help to reduce food waste and create awareness of responsible use of foods. The study reported here highlights the value of preservation technologies and the need for food category models that take account of differing shelf life and quality considerations because these will help to guide food policy. Previous studies of fresh and frozen shelf life of foods have shown a reduction in household waste associated with frozen food use ( Martindale, 2014 ). A more recent study in the Netherlands has developed a stochastic model to show the influence of ambient, frozen and fresh preservation on household food waste ( Janssen et al. , 2017 ). This study is critically important because it shows how food preservation methods that extend shelf life of foods in the home can reduce food waste over annual time periods. These studies also suggest that knowledge of food preparation and the best use of foods in households are critical in waste reduction.

Schemes that engage and redistribute resources to reduce food waste do not fully address the issue of food and drink products being wasted by consumers because they are not designed to reduce food waste. They redistribute food that would otherwise be waste; the study reported here focusses on reducing the wastage of food that is purchased with the intention of using it. The preservation of foods and types of food preservation methods available to consumers can facilitate this because it reduces food degradation and improves the utilisation of food in the domestic environment. This is a principle that has remained largely unconsidered even though the production of food waste increases greenhouse gas emissions or the carbon footprint of food consumption ( Garnett, 2013 ; O’Rourke, 2014 ). It is crucial to consider food waste reduction as an outcome of using preserved foods because research carried out previously demonstrated it can help us to define the sustainability of meals that consumers prepare ( Martindale, 2017 ).

In this study, it is demonstrated how frozen preservation can provide greater utilisation of food by consumers and reduce household food waste. It is not intended to show frozen is the only option for reducing consumer food waste. It is hoped that the research will highlight the use of preservation methods in reducing consumer food waste and that there are several factors that must work together in food waste reduction is to be successful. Previous research carried out in the UK market compared fresh and frozen food use in households and the amount of consumer food waste was dependent on food preservation method. The study showed a 47 per cent reduction in household food waste for frozen products compared to fresh products ( Martindale, 2014 ).

Frozen food in this study is defined by all food that is frozen via quick freezing; this ensures the cell intactness and preserves the nutritional value of the food. The process of freezing food in this household focussed study is defined as non-frozen food which gets frozen via a standard freezer (at home), as such this is slow freezing where cell structure is not maintained and it is less beneficial than quick freezing but adds to shelf life significantly. The definition of fresh food in this study is all non-frozen and non-freezing food.

Working with frozen foods not only gives us an opportunity to consider the value of food preservation in households but we must also consider manufacturing factories providing efficient use of resources and continual availability ( Tukker, 2015 ). This provides us with the opportunity to develop models of food preservation that identify control points in the supply chain that can maximise food waste reduction. Frozen and freezing foods define this requirement more effectively than many other food supply chains that do not preserve foods. The consideration of frozen or freezing foods in this study has provided an opportunity to investigate these wider impacts on food resource use by consumers. For example, freezing foods provides availability of out-of-season produce which can be included in the sustainability assessments of frozen and fresh produce ( Foster et al. , 2014 ). While these benefits of food preservation are important it is the impact on consumer food waste that is investigated here. The value of localising food supply is important in the sustainability arena if it can provide what consumers demand and increased resilience. There are studies that show localising food supply can achieve this, particularly where there are strong regional food identities and a cultural preference of using food service ( Caputo et al. , 2017 ). Localisation and the value of it to the food system are not within the scope of this current study even though it is important to consider food preservation has enabled the supply of foods that are out of season to consumers. Indeed, this was why preservation of fruits and vegetables using pickling and osmotic preserving emerged traditionally ( Martindale, 2017 ).

Frozen foods have played a pivotal role in enabling the global food supply chain to evolve and without that food losses would be increased in agriculture and processing. Many of the food supply chain issues highlighted in current food loss and food waste research do not exist with frozen foods because quick freezing leads to the extended shelf life gains that many waste reduction initiatives seek ( Parfitt et al. , 2010 ). Furthermore, freezing keeps within the conditions of “clean label” labelled trends and often provides greater portion control in the home ( Shove and Southerton, 2000 ). The “clean label” trend is now clearly identified in retail environments where there are demands for ingredient labelling that clarifies ingredients and communicates any potential allergens introduced in processing and manufacturing ( Asioli et al. , 2017 ).

The Austrian market research reported in this paper allows us to extend current understanding of the utilisation of frozen foods. It also leads us to consider the broader issue of what incentivises consumers to eat a more sustainable diet. Austrian households currently produce around 369,000 tons of packed and unpacked food waste each year and there is over 23.4 million tonnes of food waste produced by households across the EC member nations ( Bräutigam et al. , 2014 ; Stenmarck et al. , 2016 ). A sustainable diet must eliminate this food waste, the Austrian food waste volume is equivalent to 300€ of food thrown away per household year ( Lebersorger and Schneider, 2011 ; Penker and Wytrzens, 2005 ). The data presented here shows both frozen food purchases and household freezing decrease food waste significantly and this has important implications for providing sustainable meals and diets.

Research method

The Austrian market data was collected via an online survey carried out by the Institute of Marketing & Innovation, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU) and Gesellschaft für Konsumforschung (GfK SE) during July 2015 ( GfK, 2016 ). The survey questionnaire obtained data from 2,800 participants on the frequency of their food purchases for fresh and frozen foods.

The survey participants were selected to represent the typical Austrian population with regard to age and educational level. The selection made for geographic distribution across the Federal States was proportional to the population in each Federal State. The selection to the panel of 2,800 was made using the GfK market survey methods used for market research. GfK are a commercial and international company that provided the survey panel of 2,800 households. GfK’s services are routinely used by the food sector by manufacturers and retailers to develop business activities and identify food and drink trends. The participants used in this survey bought food and drink for their household and were asked how much food they wasted across six food groups as a percentage of the total amount of the food they purchased. The six food groups were selected because they were important food categories in Austria that have both frozen and fresh options. Notably this included bread where the offer and purchasing of frozen bread rolls is typical for Austrian consumers.

The participants of the survey were asked to consider their household food waste in a week from the food they purchased, partly utilised food, leftovers (plate waste) and preparation residues. The core questions of the survey that asked participants to report their proportion of food purchased that was wasted as a percentage were as follows:

• What percentage of fresh food from your household purchases do you throw away?
• What percentage of the frozen food from your household purchases do you throw away?
• What percentage of fresh food from your household purchases do you throw away per following product groups?
• What percentage of frozen food from your household purchases do you throw away per following product groups?

The food groups were fruit; vegetables (including specific questions for potatoes and spinach); bread (fresh only); pasta; meat; and, fish (fish sticks also known as fish fingers for frozen foods). The core questions were developed in terms of what food product groups were wasted in households. The survey also collected demographic information so that the 2,800 participants reflected a typical sample of the Austrian population and this was determined using GfK’s demographic methods.

Research results

The amount of food waste produced in the sample of 2,800 Austrian households is shown in Figure 1 . The data show that participants reported wasted 9.3 per cent of total fresh food purchased and 1.6 per cent of total frozen food purchased. Thus, the amount of reported food waste derived from the fresh foods is 5.8-fold greater than that of frozen foods in the 2,800 households assessed. This means that the six fresh food groups have a reported food waste that is 5.8-fold greater than comparable frozen food groups (see, Figure 1 ).

The amount of food waste associated with the total purchases of fresh and frozen foods in Austrian households

Figure 2 , shows the food waste for fresh and comparable frozen food groups assessed in the Austrian study of 2,800 households. The food groups are fruits, vegetables, bread, pasta, meat and fish. Data obtained for the vegetable group were also specifically obtained for potatoes and spinach because of the importance of these products in the frozen categories. A similar approach was taken for fish products where fish sticks (also known as fish fingers) are an important frozen product category.

The percentage of food purchases wasted for the fresh and frozen food product categories assessed

Figure 2 , shows the amount of food waste derived from fresh food purchases is greater than frozen food purchases across the six food groups assessed apart from fish which is assessed as “other fish” in the reported frozen products here. These data are summarised in Table I where the ratio of fresh to frozen food waste is provided.

The ratio of fresh to frozen food group waste for 2,800 Austrian households for the food product groups assessed

Research analysis

The goal of the research reported is to show how food waste behaviours connect many sustainability issues across the complex food choices consumers make when meals are prepared. Our research shows food manufacturers and food retailers occupy critical points in supply that can determine how these food consumption behaviours can be transformed into more sustainable ones. An important way of achieving this is through reducing the food waste associated with every meal.

Figure 1 , shows fresh foods purchased have a reported 5.8-fold greater food waste compared to frozen food purchases in a survey of 2,800 Austrian households. The assessment of waste from different food groups provides important insights into how households utilise fresh and frozen foods ( Figure 2 ). Table I , shows the ratio of fresh to frozen food waste across the food groups shown in Figure 2 . It can be seen that fresh food is wasted in greater amounts than frozen food in every category except fish where fresh food waste is 0.9 of frozen food waste. The ratios show that the greatest differences between fresh and frozen food groups are seen for fruit where fresh is 10.3-fold greater than frozen and potatoes where fresh is 7.8-fold greater than frozen.

Notably, the fresh to frozen ratio of specific food products ( Figure 2 ), include fresh vegetables and frozen spinach which is 13.8; and, for fresh fish and frozen fish sticks (also known as fish fingers) it is 2.0 in Austrian households. Spinach and fish sticks are specifically tested here because they are extremely popular for meal purchases in the Austrian and other European marketplaces. The 13.8-fold greater fresh vegetable waste than frozen spinach waste; and 2.0-fold greater fresh fish waste than fish stick waste is important because these products are developed to be directly placed into meals. They emphasise the impact of food product development when it is aligned to the portioning of food in meal preparation and if this is made to be optimal there is less food waste. This relationship between method of food preservation and portioning is also apparent with other food groups such as potatoes and pasta ( Table I ).

The reduction of food waste and correct meal portioning of specific food products are important because when they align and work together they can reduce food waste. This means data collected from consumers regarding what they consider to be the correct portion size in a meal is exceptionally valuable in waste reduction actions and it is rarely done. Obtaining such data is a challenge future research into food waste will need to address so that it can be transferred to food product development operations for maximum impact. The data collected here does not consider correct portion size data specifically but it does indicate its importance. The Austrian research reported here has shown that the fresh food thrown away per household per person for this sample was 37.48 kg each year while the frozen food thrown away per household per person was 6.46 kg and per year. The nutritional losses associated with food waste have yet to be fully characterised but they are an important component of food waste projections ( Halloran et al. , 2014 ).

While we can determine the environmental impact of consuming foods in terms of their carbon footprint, it is the impact of wasting foods as an outcome of consumption that concerns us here. This is important because assessment of the environmental value of foods requires considerable investment of finance, knowledge and skills. It seems futile to make this investment if the assessed foods are wasted downstream in the food supply chain as they are prepared and consumed. New supply chain models are required to promote the value of reducing food waste and guide processes such as freezing that can reduce food waste. The data presented in Figure 1 , clearly demonstrate a means to reduce the environmental impact of the food we choose to eat by reducing waste if frozen and freezing options are considered. The difficulty is that consumers choose foods based on what they like and this frequently changes, the choices made will rarely consider the impact of high level issues such as climate change but food waste reduction will be considered. This is because there is a very clear financial benefit to eliminating household food waste.

Current carbon footprinting methods show us that agri-production and global distribution can be the least of our problems because food wastage can be up to 20 per cent of food purchases and food losses across the supply chain can be far greater than this ( Foster et al. , 2014 ). It is difficult to communicate such sustainability trade-offs in consumer arenas because debates are too complex to be made at the point of purchase. This is partly because carbon footprinting results are extremely variable due to the diversity of different food production systems and this has been tackled by developing certifications that target many sustainability goals. These have changed consumption of food by highlighting specific issues so that more ethical purchases are made such as those concerned with sustainable fishing, rainforest produce and so on. But it is day-to-day food waste at home and in supply chains that can make any diet unsustainable regardless of food certification used. Different preservation formats can reduce food waste and in the case of frozen food we know it can be reduced with respect to fresh foods because less of it is thrown away. There is no evidence that the nutritional values of frozen foods are any different to fresh foods if robust quality standards are in place from farm to fork. The nutritional losses resulting from food waste are significant and it is important to develop a food supply chain that is not losing these resources through wastage. There is not currently a certification that shows food produced with less waste or the use of food products that result in less waste and it is evident that there is a requirement to at least highlight the value of reducing consumer food waste. Food certification schemes that take household food waste reduction into account must be a future consideration in food and drink fast-moving consumer goods.

These ideas lead us to summarise the research presented here as a decision matrix model ( Table II ). The decision matrix highlights the major themes of consumer food waste reduction using frozen foods or freezing foods in households. It is proposed that such a matrix can be used to help food technologists guide the development of products with respect to preservation format and household food waste reduction. What is evident from the decision matrix analysis is a requirement to highlight the value of food preservation in reducing household food waste in the consumer space. This can be achieved by communicating through food companies’ Corporate Social Responsibility programmes as well as interventions that improve culinary knowledge in households. There are several emerging methods for achieving these interventions including digital applications that aim to reduce food waste and social media communications by creating consumer interest movements. It is important that food waste reduction initiatives integrate with these communication methods that consumers use ( Martindale, 2017 ).

The decision matrix used to define the use of food preservation to reduce consumer food waste

Research conclusion

The research reported here shows purchased fresh foods have a six-fold greater food waste compared to purchased frozen food in a survey of 2,800 Austrian households. The research supports previous research conducted in the UK where a 47 per cent food waste reduction was demonstrated for frozen foods compared to fresh foods. This relationship shows maximal resource use is achieved for frozen food products that are manufactured for the convenience of being included in meals. The conclusion is that food manufacturers, food retailers and policy makers must consider the role of food preservation in delivering a sustainable diet. The decision matrix approach here provides initial guidance in new product development a basis for doing this and it is supported by data sets that have now been obtained in the Austrian and UK markets.

Acknowledgments

The APC has been sponsored by MPC Research Ltd.

Biographies

Dr Wayne Martindale is a Project Director for the Food Insights and Sustainability Service at the National Centre for Food Manufacturing, University of Lincoln. He is CSIRO McMaster and OECD Fellow directing a diverse folio of consumer focussed research in food and drink.

Professor Walter Schiebel is a University Professor of Agricultural Marketing and Nutritional Economics with extensive experience in International Academic and Consulting Projects in Western and Eastern Europe.

• Aschemann-Witzel J., De Hooge I.E., Rohm H., Normann A., Bossle M.B., Grønhøj A. and Oostindjer M. (2017), “ Key characteristics and success factors of supply chain initiatives tackling consumer-related food waste – a multiple case study ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 155 No. 2 , pp. 33-45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aschemann-Witzel J., de Hooge I., Amani P., Bech-Larsen T. and Oostindjer M. (2015), “ Consumer-related food waste: causes and potential for action ”, Sustainability , Vol. 7 No. 6 , pp. 6457-6477. [ Google Scholar ]
• Asioli D., Aschemann-Witzel J., Caputo V., Vecchio R., Annunziata A., Næs T. and Varela P. (2017), “ Making sense of the ‘clean label’ trends: a review of consumer food choice behavior and discussion of industry implications ”, Food Research International , Vol. 99 No. 1 , pp. 58-71. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bräutigam K.-R., Jörissen J. and Priefer C. (2014), “ The extent of food waste generation across EU-27: different calculation methods and the reliability of their results ”, Waste Management & Research , Vol. 32 No. 8 , pp. 683-694. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caputo P., Clementi M., Ducoli C., Corsi S. and Scudo G. (2017), “ Food chain evaluator, a tool for analyzing the impacts and designing scenarios for the institutional catering in Lombardy (Italy) ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 140 No. 2 , pp. 1014-1026. [ Google Scholar ]
• Defra (2017), “ Food statistics pocketbook: office of national statistics ”, available at: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/553390/foodpocketbook-2016report-rev-15sep16.pdf (accessed 10 March 2017).
• Foster C., Guében C., Holmes M., Wiltshire J. and Wynn S. (2014), “ The environmental effects of seasonal food purchase: a raspberry case study ”, in van der Werf H.M.G., Garnett T., Corson M.S., Hayashi K. and Cederberg C. (Eds), Towards Eco-Efficient Agriculture and Food Systems: Selected Papers from the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Food Conference, 2012 , Vol. 73 , Saint Malo, pp. 269-274. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garnett T. (2013), “ Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions ”, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , Vol. 72 No. 1 , pp. 29-39. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• GfK (2016), “ We are GfK ”, available at: www.gfk.com/de-at/ (accessed 24 February 2017).
• Gustavsson J., Cederberg C., Sonesson U., Van Otterdijk R. and Meybeck A. (2011), Global Food Losses and Food Waste , Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halloran A., Clement J., Kornum N., Bucatariu C. and Magid J. (2014), “ Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark ”, Food Policy , Vol. 49 , pp. 294-301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Janssen A.M., Nijenhuis-de Vries M.A., Boer E.P. and Kremer S. (2017), “Fresh, frozen, or ambient food equivalents and their impact on food waste generation in Dutch households”, Waste Management , Vol. 67 , New York, NY, pp. 298-307. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lebersorger S. and Schneider F. (2011), “ Discussion on the methodology for determining food waste in household waste composition studies ”, Waste Management , Vol. 31 No. 9 , pp. 1924-1933. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martindale W. (2014), “ Using consumer surveys to determine food sustainability ”, British Food Journal , Vol. 116 No. 7 , pp. 1194-1204, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2013-0242 [ Google Scholar ]
• Martindale W. (2017), “ The potential of food preservation to reduce food waste ”, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, Vol. 76 No. 1 , pp. 28-33. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mena C., Adenso-Diaz B. and Yurt O. (2011), “ The causes of food waste in the supplier – retailer interface: evidences from the UK and Spain ”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling , Vol. 55 No. 6 , pp. 648-658. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morone P., Papendiek F. and Tartiu V.E. (2017), Food Waste Reduction and Valorisation: Sustainability Assessment and Policy Analysis , Springer International Publishing AG. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Rourke D. (2014), “ The science of sustainable supply chains ”, Science , Vol. 344 No. 6188 , pp. 1124-1127. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parfitt J., Barthel M. and Macnaughton S. (2010), “ Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050 ”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , Vol. 365 No. 1554 , pp. 3065-3081. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Penker M. and Wytrzens H.K. (2005), “ Scenarios for the Austrian food chain in 2020 and its landscape impacts ”, Landscape and Urban Planning , Vol. 71 No. 2 , pp. 175-189. [ Google Scholar ]
• Privett K., Clark J.H., Arshadi M., Koutinas A., Gathergood N., Morone P. and Luque R. (2016), “ Food supply chain waste: emerging opportunities ”, Chemicals and Fuels from Bio-based Building Blocks , pp. 667-680. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shove E. and Southerton D. (2000), “ Defrosting the freezer: from novelty to convenience a narrative of normalization ”, Journal of Material Culture , Vol. 5 No. 3 , pp. 301-319. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stenmarck A., Jensen C., Quested T., Moates G., Buksti M., Cseh B. and Redlingshofer B. (2016), “Estimates of European Food Waste Levels”, IVL, Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Stockholm.
• Tukker A. (2015), “ Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy – a review ”, in Vezzoli C., Ceschin F., Diehl J.C. and Kohtala C. (Eds), Why have Sustainable Product-Service Systems’ not been Widely Implemented? , Vol. 97 , pp. 76-91. [ Google Scholar ]

Systematic literature review of food waste in educational institutions: setting the research agenda

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management

ISSN : 0959-6119

Article publication date: 29 January 2021

Issue publication date: 6 May 2021

In the recent past, academic researchers have noted the quantity of food wasted in food service establishments in educational institutions. However, more granular inputs are required to counter the challenge posed. The purpose of this study is to undertake a review of the prior literature in the area to provide a platform for future research.

Design/methodology/approach

Towards this end, the authors used a robust search protocol to identify 88 congruent studies to review and critically synthesize. The research profiling of the selected studies revealed limited studies conducted on food service establishments in universities. The research is also less dispersed geographically, remaining largely focused on the USA. Thereafter, the authors performed content analysis to identify seven themes around which the findings of prior studies were organized.

The key themes of the reviewed studies are the drivers of food waste, quantitative assessment of food waste, assessment of the behavioural aspects of food waste, operational strategies for reducing food waste, interventions for inducing behavioural changes to mitigate food waste, food diversion and food waste disposal processes and barriers to the implementation of food waste reduction strategies.

Research limitations/implications

This study has key theoretical and practical implications. From the perspective of research, the study revealed various gaps in the extant findings and suggested potential areas that can be examined by academic researchers from the perspective of the hospitality sector. From the perspective of practice, the study recommended actionable strategies to help managers mitigate food waste.

Originality/value

The authors have made a novel contribution to the research on food waste reduction by identifying theme-based research gaps, suggesting potential research questions and proposing a framework based on the open-systems approach to set the future research agenda.

• Plate waste
• School cafeteria
• University cafeteria
• Out-of-home consumption
• Consumer behaviour
• Food waste cause

Kaur, P. , Dhir, A. , Talwar, S. and Alrasheedy, M. (2021), "Systematic literature review of food waste in educational institutions: setting the research agenda", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1160-1193. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2020-0672

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2020, Puneet Kaur, Amandeep Dhir, Shalini Talwar and Melfi Alrasheedy.

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

unavoidable food waste: expired or spoiled ingredients, food scraps such as meat scraps (e.g. end pieces of baked ham after slicing, meat pieces after trimming) and vegetable scraps (e.g. tomato ends, outer leaves of lettuce, potato peels, vegetable stems); and

avoidable food waste: meal scraps such as peeling or trimming waste arising from the less proficient handling of food items; overproduction for banquets, events and catering; poor ordering procedures; poor food rotation practices, causing food spoilage; and poor inventory systems, leading to food and plate waste such as unconsumed pasta ( Derqui and Fernandez, 2017 ).

Academics categorize food waste based on the stages of waste generation, such as pre- and post-consumer food waste ( Prescott et al. , 2019b ). Pre-consumer waste occurs at the production level, and post-consumption waste occurs at the consumer level. Scholars argue they associate different factors with food waste generation at these stages. Accordingly, various mitigation approaches perhaps can reduce such waste ( Papargyropoulou et al. , 2016 ). Furthermore, thorough diagnoses of food waste generated at various stages are crucial for ensuring the effective management of waste ( Dhir et al. , 2020 ).

Food waste is an important concern because it threatens the environment and sustainability. In fact, it is a serious concern in the hospitality and tourism domain (Okumus et al. , 2020). Close to 1.3 billion tonnes of edible food is wasted annually, leading to severe financial, environmental and health outcomes ( Gustavsson, 2011 ). Past research has identified several adverse outcomes of food waste, such as threats to food security ( Wang et al. , 2018 ), climate change and greenhouse gas emissions ( Kallbekken and Sælen, 2013 ; Katajajuuri et al. , 2014 ) and monetary loss (Hennchen, 2019). For instance, the annual emissions because of food waste in Finland constitute more than 1% of the country’s yearly greenhouse gas emissions ( Katajajuuri et al. , 2014 ). Similarly, scientists found the ecological impact of food waste in hotels, cafés and restaurants nearly twice the size of the arable land in Lhasa ( Wang et al. , 2018 ). Notably, sustainability has come under intense focus in the hospitality industry in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic (Jones and Comfort, 2020). In addition, studies have underscored the nutritional loss associated with food waste. For instance, Blondin et al. (2017) revealed that, in the USA, fluid milk waste results in 27% and 41% losses, respectively, of the vitamin D and calcium required under school breakfast programme meals. Consequently, scholars argue that reducing food waste is critical from financial (e.g. food cost) and non-financial (e.g. sustainability) standpoints ( Okumus, 2019 ). In fact, research reports suggest that, by saving one-fourth of the food being wasted, we can feed 870 million hungry people ( Khadka, 2017 ). Similarly, the sustainable development goals of the United Nations (UN) have also emphasized responsible production and consumption, underscoring the importance of mitigating food waste ( Gustavsson, 2011 ).

Regarding food waste generation, prior studies have indicated that a large amount of food waste is generated at the consumption stage, which includes both out-of-home and at-home dining ( Martin-Rios et al. , 2018 ). Households represent at-home dining, whereas the food service sector represents out-of-home dining. The food service sector includes both non-commercial and commercial establishments ( Betz et al. , 2015 ), such as restaurants, hotels, health-care companies, educational institutions and staff catering.

An important subdomain where out-of-home dining takes place is food service establishments at educational institutions. In this context, prior studies have observed that school cafeterias are a major source of unconsumed food ( Smith and Cunningham-Sabo, 2014 ; Adams et al. , 2016 ). For instance, in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) in the USA, more than 30% of the food served is wasted ( Byker Shanks et al. , 2017 ). In fact, food waste in educational settings is a significant issue ( Yui and Biltekoff, 2020 ). What is most worrying in this context is that, in spite of the acknowledgement of such a high quantity of waste generated, the authorities in educational institutions, food service managers in schools and university food service companies’ staff are not intent on reducing food waste ( Wilkie et al. , 2015 ). Furthermore, the academic research in this area is limited, with most studies in educational settings (particularly in the context of schools) skewed towards using food waste as a measure to estimate the amount of nutrients lost. Food waste does not hold a central place in the existing debate. Other studies have focused on aspects such as the composition of waste generated in the food service operations in schools (Hollingsworth et al. , 1995) and the monetary implications of various waste disposal strategies (Wie et al. , 2003).

the substantial volume of meals that educational institutions handle at a single location ( Wilkie et al. , 2015 ); and

the opportunity that such research presents for creating a culture of sustainability and for reinforcing the pro-environment habits of future consumers by making them ecologically aware of the food system and its importance ( Derqui et al. , 2018 ).

analyze the research profile of studies on food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions (RO1);

identify, comprehend and evaluate the thematic foci of the existing research on food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions (RO2);

critically assess emergent themes to highlight gaps in the extant literature and suggest potential research questions (RO3); and

develop a framework that multiple stakeholders can use as a reference to understand the contours of food waste in the food service establishments in educational institutions (RO4).

To achieve the ROs of the study, we used the systematic literature review (SLR) approach to identify, analyze and synthesize past studies in the area in consonance with recent studies ( Kushwah et al. , 2019 ; Dhir et al. , 2020 ; Ruparel et al. , 2020 ; Seth et al. , 2020 ). Towards this end, we conducted the following steps. First, we defined the extraction method of congruent studies concerning the conceptual boundary, database identification, keyword choice and actual search and shortlisting of relevant studies. We formulated a robust search protocol based on 18 keywords as well as comprehensive inclusion criteria (IC) and exclusion criteria (EC). We also conducted a peer review of shortlisted studies to finalize the total number of studies to be included in the review (88). Second, we conducted a research profiling of selected studies to present the summary statistics related to publication frequency, publication sources, geographical scope of each study, type of educational institution investigated and theoretical framework. Third, we performed a manual content analysis of the congruent studies to delineate the thematic foci of such studies. This helped us identify seven distinct themes. The emergent themes were critically analyzed to identify the gaps in the extant research and to suggest theme-based potential research questions and future research avenues. Fourth, we developed a framework (the food waste ecosystem) for presenting a systems view of food waste in the food service establishments in educational institutions by building on the key findings of the review that we conducted (i.e. research themes, research gaps and avenues of future research). Fifth, we discuss herein the theoretical and practical implications of the study, followed by the study limitations, which should be kept in mind while implementing the results of this study.

2. Research method

Step I. Planning the review: Setting the conceptual boundary and identifying the relevant keywords and databases to identify the congruent studies.

Step II. Specification of the study screening criteria: Defining the IC and EC.

Step III. Data extraction: Using multiple levels of screening to identify congruent studies.

Step IV. Data execution: Presenting the research profile and the thematic foci of the congruent studies uncovered through content analysis.

2.1 Planning the review

We proposed to review studies on food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions. These institutions include pre-schools, schools (primary, secondary and upper secondary), tertiary education centres, colleges and universities. Furthermore, we distinguished between food waste and food loss. Some prior studies used the terms “food loss” and “food waste” interchangeably ( Betz et al. , 2015 ). However, many scholars have treated them as two different concepts. They described food loss as food gone to waste in the initial stage of the value-added chain and food waste as food lost at the end of the food supply chain ( Parfitt et al. , 2010 ). Our understanding is that “food loss” pertains to food leaving the supply chain initially. “Food waste”, though, pertains to the food that is not consumed at the point of food consumption. Therefore, in this SLR study, we treated food waste and food loss as distinct concepts. Accordingly, we identified an initial set of keywords for use in searching the studies to be reviewed, as follows: pre-schools, schools, tertiary education centres, colleges and universities. We searched for these keywords on Google Scholar, and we analyzed the first 100 results to update the keywords list. Afterward, we examined leading journals from the areas of nutrition, food waste and hospitality to confirm if the list of keywords was exhaustive. We selected the final list of 18 keywords after consultation with three experts from the area of hospitality and food waste (two professors and one practitioner; Table 1 ). Finally, in consonance with Mariani et al. (2018) , we selected Scopus and Web of Science as the two academic databases from which to retrieve the relevant studies. These two are the most comprehensive databases of social science and hospitality academic studies, with extensive disciplinary coverage ( Mongeon and Paul-Hus, 2016 ).

2.2 Specification of study screening criteria

We specified ( Table 2 ) the IC and EC at this stage to screen the studies found using pre-specified keywords.

2.3 Data extraction

We converted the final set of keywords ( Table 1 ) into search strings using * and Boolean logic, as well as the connectors “OR” and “AND”. We then executed the search strings on both databases to search for the title, abstract and author keywords. The search was conducted from January 1 to March 28, 2020. In Scopus, we found 550 journal articles in English, with 420 articles in Web of Science. We used the pre-specified IC and EC to select studies congruent with the area at hand. First, we screened duplicated articles using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. We identified articles with the same authors, title, volume, issue number and DOI. Subsequently, we removed 276 duplicated studies from the Web of Science list. After further screening of the joint pool of 694 studies, we excluded 350 studies from the pool.

For the next level of screening of the remaining 344 studies, three researchers with experience in food waste research reviewed the titles and abstracts of the retrieved studies based on the conceptual boundary and IC and EC. To ensure robust screening, the three researchers performed the task individually, after which they shared their shortlists with one another. The researchers discussed any variances in their respective shortlists to arrive at a consensus list that could be further analyzed. This process excluded 230 studies incongruent with the specific area and conceptual boundary of the current study. At the penultimate step of screening, 3 authors analyzed the full texts of the balance 114 articles to reconfirm their eligibility for inclusion in the review. By consensus, we removed 14 articles, as these dealt with issues not immediately relevant to the review, such as sustainability and food insecurity. In the final stage of the study screening process, two professors and a practitioner from the area of hospitality and food waste examined the 100 shortlisted studies and supplied feedback. Based on their observations, we eliminated 12 studies, making the final sample of 88 articles. Subsequent sections of this work will disclose the results of the research profiling and content analysis, which constituted the data execution process.

2.4 Data execution: research profiling

We present the research profile of the retrieved congruent studies concerning descriptive statistics, such as publication year, publication source, educational institution investigated, geographic scope of each study and theoretical framework. The year-wise publications ( Figure 1 ) indicate that there were few studies on food waste in the food service establishments in educational institutions until 2012, after which the studies increased, reaching a peak of 15 articles in 2019. Furthermore, the studies were published in a variety of journals in nutrition and waste management ( Figure 2 ). Figure 3 presents the number of studies that focused on each type of educational institution (e.g. school versus university). Figure 4(a) and (b) presents the countries where the studies were conducted for schools and universities, respectively. Interestingly, the reviewed studies drew upon seminal theories to propose a hypothesis and/or discuss findings ( Table 3 ).

3. Thematic foci

The studies included in the review examined food waste from different perspectives and investigated distinct aspects of it. To synthesize such diverse studies systematically, we attempted to identify the common themes within the studies. The key themes in the selected studies were identified through content analysis, in consonance with the recently published SLR literature ( Seth et al. , 2020 ). To ensure that emergent themes would present an unbiased view of the literature, we followed a three-step process. First, three researchers performed the open coding. Later, the deductive and inductive methods of axial coding identified relationships among the open codes. Second, to ensure consensus and inter-rater reliability, the three researchers discussed the identified codes and aligned their thought processes. As food waste is a universally understood phenomenon, there were no disagreements except in the sequencing and presentation of the themes. Third, two professors from the hospitality and food waste areas commented on the identified themes. Finally, seven themes synthesized the existing literature. These were the drivers of food waste; quantitative assessment of food waste; assessment of the behavioural aspects of food waste; operational strategies for reducing food waste at the pre- and post-consumer levels; strategies and interventions for inducing behavioural changes to mitigate food waste; food diversion and food waste disposal processes; and the barriers to the implementation of food waste reduction strategies. A mind map of the emergent themes and the related subthemes is showcased in Figure 5 .

3.1 Drivers of food waste

Two perspectives can assess food waste at food service establishments in educational institutions: pre- and post-consumer waste ( Prescott et al. , 2019a ). “Pre-consumer waste” is kitchen waste arising at the time of storage, preparation and production, whereas “post-consumer waste” consists of leftovers or plate waste ( Burton et al. , 2016 ; Bean et al. , 2018b ; Zhao and Manning, 2019b ). Scholars have also used the term “serving waste” or “display waste” (especially regarding buffet meals) to represent waste at the point of consumption ( Abdelaal et al. , 2019 ). Prior scholars examining food waste at the pre-school, elementary and middle school levels have discussed uneaten meals, representing post-consumer waste, to a large extent ( Smith and Cunningham-Sabo, 2014 ; Adams et al. , 2016 ; Zhao et al. , 2019 ). Most studies focused on food waste measurement as a tool to assess the nutritional aspects of leftovers from meals consumed in schools ( Getts et al. , 2017 ).

Pre-consumer waste : It is generated based on various functional, behavioural and contextual factors, as presented in Table 4 . A key driver of food waste in school food service establishments at this stage is production waste, which can also increase because of various regulatory requirements and contractual obligations. For instance, food safety guidelines may prevent food service establishments from re-using the extra amount of food prepared for a particular meal ( Derqui et al. , 2018 ). As such, serving an agreed-upon variety of food offerings as per a contract may force kitchen staff to prepare and serve food that ultimately may not be consumed ( Derqui et al. , 2018 ).

Post-consumer waste : The drivers of post-consumer waste comprise behavioural, contextual and demographic factors, as Table 4 presents. Within post-consumer waste, the key drivers of wasted, edible food at both the school and university levels are taking a portion size larger than required as per one’s age and satiation level ( Thorsen et al. , 2015 ; Huang et al. , 2017 ; Zhao and Manning, 2019a ); and the time allowed for eating (i.e. recess; Cohn et al. , 2013 ; Abe and Akamatsu, 2015 ). Students’ dietary habits ( Liu et al. , 2016 ) also influence the amount of food waste generated in the school dining halls. Other factors that contribute to food waste at the university food services were incorrectly labelled food items (which led to the choice of wrong food items), differences in appetite and diet-related choices ( Wu et al. , 2019 ; Yui and Biltekoff, 2020 ).

Low self-efficacy in finishing one’s meal if it does not taste good is a significant predictor of plate waste only among boys ( Abe and Akamatsu, 2015 ).

Male students tended to waste staple food less compared to females ( Wu et al. , 2019 ).

Male consumers were more likely to finish their meal compared to females ( Zhao and Manning, 2019b ).

Young consumers tend to waste more food than adults on average ( Ellison et al. , 2019 ).

Within the student groups, younger students wasted more food than older ones ( Dillon and Lane, 1989 ; Huang et al. , 2017 ; Niaki et al. , 2017 ).

Individuals with more disposable incomes waste more food ( Wu et al. , 2019 ).

Middle-income students generated more food waste compared to students with poorer backgrounds ( Dillon and Lane, 1989 ).

3.2 Quantitative assessment of food waste

the type of waste quantified;

the unit of measurement used; and

the method used for quantification.

The key concerns covered by each of these aspects are described below.

Type of waste: Some studies have measured all waste, edible or avoidable as well as inedible or unavoidable ( Langley et al. , 2010 ; Costello et al. , 2015 ). In comparison, many studies quantified only edible or avoidable food waste ( Whitehair et al. , 2013 ; Thorsen et al. , 2015 ). The items considered edible or avoidable food wastes are meat protein, soy protein, fruits, rice, potatoes, bread, pies, juice, beverages, milk, vegetables and salads ( Langley et al. , 2010 ; Thiagarajah and Getty, 2013 ; Blondin et al. , 2017 , 2018 ; Eriksson et al. , 2018b ). Conversely, the inedible or unavoidable food wastes are fruit or vegetable peels and spines, eggshells, bones and skins and seeds ( Langley et al. , 2010 ; Whitehair et al. , 2013 ; Derqui and Fernandez, 2017 ). The greatest amount of food waste is derived from vegetables, fruits, salads, main entrées and milk (Carmen et al. , 2014; Smith and Cunningham-Sabo, 2014 ; Blondin et al. , 2015 ; Silvennoinen et al. , 2015 ; Wu et al. , 2019 ).

Unit of measurement: In this regard, the reviewed studies collected wastes for quantification at different stages of food services. Accordingly, the serving waste, plate waste and production waste (prepared food left over after service) were quantified ( Gase et al. , 2014 ; Eriksson et al. , 2017 ; Boschini et al. , 2020 ). Hence, scientists measured the entire mass of food waste generated at every meal (Carmen et al. , 2014; Painter et al. , 2016 ); the aggregated discarded food at the pantry, kitchen, service station or plate level ( Derqui et al. , 2018 ); or the individually/aggregately weighed plate waste ( Chapman et al. , 2019 ). The most commonly used unit of food waste quantification is plate waste, which is the quantity/percentage of edible food served on a plate but left unconsumed ( Huang et al. , 2017 ). In schools, where the focus is nutrition, plate waste is the quantity of edible vegetables and fruits students did not consume during lunch ( Adams et al. , 2016 ; Capps et al. , 2016 ). In this context, studies have revealed that students waste 40% and 30%, respectively, of the fruits and vegetables they receive ( Templeton et al. , 2005 ; Carmen et al. , 2014). Most of the studies included in the review used plate waste as a unit of quantification of food waste ( Cohen et al. , 2013 ; Liz Martins et al. , 2016 ; Chapman et al. , 2017 ; Hudgens et al. , 2017 ).

Methods of quantification : There are multiple methods of quantifying and measuring plate waste, and one can observe method variations in the plate waste quantification approach that selected studies used, such as direct physical measurements and indirect visual observations ( Eriksson et al. , 2018b ). Plate waste can be weighed in grams per portion served ( Eriksson et al. , 2018a ) or as aggregate plate waste per meal ( Eriksson et al. , 2017 ). Although weighed plate waste is considered the gold standard for determining the quantity of plate waste, scientists have also applied visual assessment approaches such as the quarter-waste method, which is considered reliable ( Derqui and Fernandez, 2017 ; Getts et al. , 2017 ; Niaki et al. , 2017 ). In fact, the three visual waste measurement methods (photograph, half-waste and quarter-waste) have been found to be as accurate as the plate weighing method ( Hanks et al. , 2014 ). Visual methods are appealing, as they offer advantages such as convenience, time savings and ease of using a larger sample size to monitor plate waste ( Liz Martins et al. , 2014 ). Within visual methods, many studies have used photography ( Smith and Cunningham-Sabo, 2014 ; Yoder et al. , 2015 ; Bean et al. , 2018a ; Katare et al. , 2019 ; Prescott et al. , 2019a ; Serebrennikov et al. , 2020 ). Moreover, scholars have discussed the use of rubbish analysis to quantify food waste ( Dresler-Hawke et al. , 2009 ; Derqui and Fernandez, 2017 ).

Prior scholars have also tried to ascertain the efficacy of different methods of plate waste quantification. For instance, Bean et al. (2018a) compared a weighed and digital imagery-based assessment of plate waste and confirmed the accuracy of the digital imagery method in terms of plate waste estimation. However, Liz Martins et al. (2014) contended that the visual estimation method is not as accurate as the weighing method in assessing nonselective aggregated plate waste. Previous studies have used food waste audits to quantify the amount and type of food waste generated ( Wilkie et al. , 2015 ; Costello et al. , 2017 ; Derqui and Fernandez, 2017 ; Derqui et al. , 2018 ; Schupp et al. , 2018 ; Prescott et al. , 2019a ). Figure 6 depicts an overview of the stages of waste generation, the types of waste quantified and the key methods of quantification.

3.3 Assessment of the behavioural aspects of food waste

key methods;

type of data collected; and

variety of respondents.

Key methods : The methods used for assessing food waste include direct observation ( Marshall et al. , 2019 ), field notes ( Yui and Biltekoff, 2020 ), cross-sectional questionnaire ( Abe and Akamatsu, 2015 ), semi-structured interviews ( Zhao et al. , 2019 ), non-structured interviews ( Falasconi et al. , 2015 ), structured interviews ( Burton et al. , 2016 ), focus group discussion ( Blondin et al. , 2015 ), experiments ( Kim and Morawski, 2013 ) including randomized controlled experiments ( Katare et al. , 2019 ), quasi-experiments ( Visschers et al. , 2020 ), longitudinal studies ( Lagorio et al. , 2018 ; Marshall et al. , 2019 ) and pre- and post-test-based intervention studies ( Kowalewska and Kołłajtis-Dołowy, 2018 ; Kropp et al. , 2018 ; Lorenz-Walther et al. , 2019 ; Visschers et al. ,2020 ). Figure 7 presents a snapshot of the methods.

Type of data collected : Scientists use self-reporting questionnaires quite frequently to identify the key factors influencing food waste, the reason for plate waste and preferences ( Thorsen et al. , 2015 ; Liu et al. , 2016 ; Huang et al. , 2017 ; Kowalewska and Kołłajtis-Dołowy, 2018 ; Derqui et al. , 2020 ). In addition, questionnaires gathered eating behaviour-related information and food preferences ( Baik and Lee, 2009 ). Notably, prior scholars have made limited qualitative attempts to assess consumer behaviour concerning food waste generation. For instance, Jagau and Vyrastekova (2017) conducted a study to observe the differences between the intention to prevent food waste and the actual waste that consumers generated. Similarly, researchers examined staff and students’ insinuated intentions related to food waste ( Zhao and Manning, 2019b ). A few studies have also analyzed the changes in behaviour with regard to food waste and its reduction ( Whitehair et al. , 2013 ; Pinto et al. , 2018 ; Boulet et al. , 2019 ; Visschers et al. , 2020 ). Along the same lines, fewer studies have focused on the ethnic background of students or other demographic factors. For example, only two studies using a mixed-method approach have undertaken ethnographic investigations ( Lazell, 2016 ; Izumi et al. , 2020 ). Similarly, a limited number of researchers ( Nicklas et al. , 2013 ) have used a demographic questionnaire (e.g. age, ethnicity). Langley et al. (2010) acknowledged the effect of gender-based differences in food consumption and waste; they selected dining areas for the study based on gender composition.

Regarding the variety of respondents, qualitative studies have taken place with many stakeholders, such as kitchen managers, nutrition service directors and sustainability staff ( Prescott et al. , 2019b ), professionals engaged in food recovery ( Prescott et al. , 2019a ), stakeholders along the supply chain ( Liu et al. , 2016 ), school head teachers ( Derqui et al. , 2020 ), managers and staff in schools and catering firms ( Derqui et al. , 2018 ), key informants about stakeholder accountability ( Cohn et al. , 2013 ), food service managers, catering personnel, students ( Marais et al. , 2017 ), teachers ( Prescott et al. , 2019a ) and parents ( Baik and Lee, 2009 ).

3.4 Operational strategies for reducing food waste

strategies to reduce food waste at the pre-consumer level; and

strategies to reduce food waste at the post-consumer level.

This work will explore both strategies in what follows.

Pre-consumer level : The reviewed studies discussed several operational strategies to reduce waste at the pre-consumer level. The main objective of these strategies was to reduce food waste at the kitchen level. Waste at this level occurs largely because of overproduction, mishandling, staff inefficiency and the quality of food prepared. Accordingly, strategies largely target these issues ( Table 5 ). Post-consumer level : The operational strategies to reduce waste at the post-consumer level largely relate to avoiding serving food that would not be consumed. With plate waste being the focus of waste quantification, many previous scholars have discussed strategies to reduce plate waste. Most of the suggestions relate to the serving portion size based on age, going trayless and making better food choices, as Table 5 illustrates.

3.5 Interventions for inducing behavioural changes to mitigate food waste

communication; and

financial and economic incentives.

Education and communication have been suggested to be the most effective approaches for behaviour change ( Whitehair et al. , 2013 ).

Education : Past studies have recommended a holistic approach to decrease food waste, which involves multiple stakeholders in society, including parents and catering staff ( Marais et al. , 2017 ; Wu et al. , 2019 ; Izumi et al. , 2020 ). Studies also have indicated the need to identify and increase the engagement levels of families that have the lowest level of engagement in food waste reduction behaviour ( Boulet et al. , 2019 ). Students can receive education, as an intervention, through lectures on morals, sustainability and related environmental issues, or through a hands-on experience such as visiting landfill sites or segregating their plate waste themselves by putting the leftovers in separate bins ( Wu et al. , 2019 ). Curricula should integrate student engagement and social norms related to eating without waste into food-waste-related discussions, along with nutrition education ( Izumi et al. , 2020 ). Table 6 presents the key educational interventions introduced at the pre- and post-consumer levels. Besides discussing the interventions, some prior studies also tested their efficacy. For instance, Kowalewska and Kołłajtis-Dołowy (2018) revealed that students’ exposure to film was more effective in reducing food waste among students than giving an informational leaflet to parents or guardians. Similarly, Whitehair et al. (2013) reported that a to-the-point prompt-type message effectively reduced food waste by 15%.

Communication : Interaction among varied stakeholders is essential to reducing food waste ( Cohn et al. , 2013 ; Marais et al. , 2017 ; Derqui et al. , 2018 ). Clear and continuous communication among kitchen managers, kitchen staff, students and school authorities boosts the success of food waste reduction efforts ( Prescott et al. , 2019b ; Zhao and Manning, 2019b ).

Financial and economic incentives : These incentives encourage consumers to finish their meals ( Sarjahani et al. , 2009 ). However, there is a challenge here. Providing financial incentives to motivate food waste reduction behaviour among students is effective. However, a non-intended adverse outcome of such incentives for finishing the food on one’s plate could be overeating and obesity. Therefore, any intervention related to food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions should be integrated with healthy eating policies ( Katare et al. , 2019 ).

3.6 Food diversion and food waste disposal processes

The processes related to the diversion and disposal of the daily waste of food service establishments in educational institutions are important aspects of food waste reduction and control efforts. The primary objective at this stage of handling food waste should be to divert it from landfills through recycling ( Wilkie et al. , 2015 ). Such diversion processes are a way of reducing food waste, as they decrease the actual amount of scraps destined to be buried in landfills ( Prescott et al. , 2019a ). The reviewed studies discussed the following approaches to handling food waste: reuse (e.g. staff meals), recycling (e.g. composting) and disposal ( Derqui and Fernandez, 2017 ).

the redistribution of edible, non-perishable and perishable food by donating it to food banks, shelters and other food-insecure groups ( Burton et al. , 2016 ); and

the recovery of food waste through anaerobic digestion and composting, which are the processes of converting leftovers into useful end products, such as nutrient-rich soil amendments and bio-energy ( Sarjahani et al. , 2009 ; Wilkie et al. , 2015 ; Burton et al. , 2016 ; Wu et al. , 2019 ).

The key disposal method discussed by the past studies is the landfill. The approaches discussed by the extant studies range from pulping waste for landfilling to lunchroom food-sharing programmes and leftover lunch service in the form of redistributing leftovers ( Babich and Sylvia, 2010 ; Laakso, 2017 ; Prescott et al. , 2019a ).

Although a limited number of studies have discussed the food diversion and disposal processes in detail, most seem to agree on the donation of edible recovered food as a feasible option to redistribute waste. For instance, Deavin et al. (2018) revealed the popularity of a novel breakfast programme based on donated food to increase food security. Schupp et al. (2018) discussed a “backpack programme” where food-insecure students were to carry temperature-controlled leftovers home. Many other studies have discussed food donation to reduce food waste but emphasized that it is possible only through the collaborative efforts of food service establishments and the beneficiaries of such donations ( Hackman and Oldham, 1974 ; Sarjahani et al. , 2009 ; Blondin et al. , 2015 ; Marais et al. , 2017 ; Balzaretti et al. , 2020 ; Derqui et al. , 2020 ). The results of our study indicate that much of the generated food waste is landfilled, even though landfilling represents a missed opportunity to recover food and promote sustainable behaviour ( Prescott et al. , 2019b ). Finally, prior studies have contended that the sustainability initiatives of diversion, recovery and redistribution can be made successful and effective through proper waste sorting and waste audits by food service establishments ( Prescott et al. , 2019a ).

3.7 Barriers impeding the implementation of food waste reduction strategies

pre-consumer;

operational;

post-consumer;

food waste tracking; and

food diversion and recovery levels.

a lack of willpower and a negligent attitude;

the pressure to quickly finish one’s work; and

less experienced and incompetent personnel.

Prescott et al. (2019b) revealed that limited storage capacity for dry/cold storage also acted as a barrier to success in reducing food waste by impacting the inventory management plans of kitchen managers.

short lunch breaks and too few kitchen staff to allow the adoption of the batch cooking approach as a waste mitigation strategy ( Prescott et al. , 2019b );

the increased breakage of meal utensils and the need to wipe dining tables more frequently, which made it challenging to use the strategy of going trayless to reduce waste ( Thiagarajah and Getty, 2013 );

parents scolding their children for bringing home leftovers and providing bins at school, which presents an easy way to dispose of unconsumed food through the reuse of leftovers ( Boulet et al. , 2019 ); and

the timing of recess ( Chapman et al. , 2017 ).

Post-consumer level : The behavioural and perceptual aspects at the post-consumer level also help impede efforts to reduce food waste. In this context, Zhao et al. (2019) cited the differences in satiation level and social influences as key barriers. Consumers tended to throw away food that they disliked but found it unacceptable to waste the food that they liked. Similarly, Prescott et al. (2019b) argued that factors such as weather, changing tastes and preferences, and seasonal changes also acted as barriers to the success of the efforts to reduce food waste. Other barriers to food waste reduction also stemmed from consumers’ intention−behaviour gap (Lazell, 2). In addition, unsupportive school policy in terms of not allowing students to share food they did not want with others or take leftovers home also hampered food waste reduction efforts ( Zhao et al. , 2019 ).

the time devoted to weighing and keeping a record of food waste;

difficulties in weighing certain items, such as soups;

the ongoing training required for the weighing of waste because of employee turnover; and

spatial constraints.

food safety concerns and food quality standards, which impose limits on the donation of edible leftovers for human and animal consumption;

the prohibitive cost of transportation, heat treatment of waste for making it safe for animal consumption and setting up onsite composting units compared with the low cost of landfilling waste, making redistribution a financially unviable solution;

adverse publicity for the effectiveness of nutrition programmes, highlighted by the waste generated and where legal liability also acts as a disincentive; and

the lack of a clear understanding of the kinds of recovery activity the law permits.

4. Research gaps and potential research questions

We critically assessed the emergent themes to identify the gaps in the literature on food waste reduction measures. We mapped the identified gaps onto the seven themes to present theme-based gaps. We also suggested potential research questions that future researchers can address to close these gaps. The multiple gaps in the literature concerned the seven themes. Table 7 demonstrates potential research questions.

5. Framework development

Based on our content analysis, we identified the key themes on which the extant research on food services in educational institutions focused. The learning emerging through these themes has helped us develop a deeper understanding of the area. Our review has revealed that the entire food service–food waste debate represents a complex ecosystem consisting of different stakeholders and processes that interact but are driven by diverse priorities, as some of the reviewed studies also have argued ( Prescott et al. , 2019b ). Consequently, we have built on this learning to apply the systems approach.

a repeated input–process–output–feedback cycle; and

the influence of the external environment.

We adopted the systems approach to develop a framework that presents various aspects of food waste in the food service establishments in educational institutions as an open system that provides a holistic view of food waste in educational settings ( Figure 8 ). We call the framework developed by us the “food waste ecosystem (FWE)”. FWE consists of the following:

the internal and external environment;

transformative processes;

competing forces;

output; and

feedback loop.

FWE posits that food waste generation and mitigation in educational institutions depend on the interaction of various subsystems that are interdependent and integrated into an organized whole.

To begin with, the food waste system is conceptualized as an open system influenced not only by cues from the internal environment but also by cues and stimuli from the external environment. The internal environment represents the environment within the food service establishment in educational institutions and includes factors such as school policies and methods of food production. It impacts how transformative processes are executed. The external environment represents the environment outside the educational institution and includes factors such as government regulations, composting facilities and food banks.

Inputs are the first block in FWE. Inputs represent the first step in a systems model, and represent the decisions at the beginning of the process that finally result in waste generation. Typically, at this stage, they include decisions such as what is to be served per meal, the food service regime that mandated a particular type of meal to be served, dietary guidelines (particularly in the context of schools), the dining facility and the number of consumers. These decisions affect the amount and type of food prepared, the use of local produce, the storage facilities required, the beverages served, the use of temperature-controlled food items, the portion size, the method of service (self-serve, tray system or trayless system) and the ambiance of the dining area. The decisions at this stage set the tone for the extent to which food waste is generated in the next step in the systems model: the transformative process.

The four key transformative processes at this stage are food production, food service, food consumption and food diversion. Each of these processes presents a potential point of food waste generation. As discussed in the themes, food production is a part of the pre-consumer phase, where the kitchen staff’s role is important. Food service represents serving food for consumption. The food consumption stage is where consumers enter the picture. Food diversion is a process that takes place after the consumption phase is over.

These four activities are the subsystems of the transformative process that is a chaotic tradeoff of competing forces and conflicting priorities. FWE identifies seven broad competing forces based on the reviewed literature: functional issues, behavioural factors, demographic influences, contextual issues, interventions, waste tracking systems and supportive policies. For instance, the functional issues that can generate food waste are overproduction, a lack of trained staff, the mishandling of ingredients and the lack of awareness of the seriousness of food waste among the staff and consumers. Similarly, the size of the portion in staff-served meals, the amount of food added to serving dishes, meal presentation and spillage during handling can generate food waste. Functional issues associated with the donation of edible waste for human consumption, the treatment of waste for animal consumption, composting, anaerobic digestion or landfills also affect the amount of waste generated.

Regarding behavioural factors, the negligent attitude of a kitchen and service staff, the lack of willingness to prevent waste, food preferences, level of satiation, the influence of the social group and family, and the inherent intention–behaviour gap may lead to food waste. Demographic influences in terms of age, gender, household income and ethnic background also influence the amount of food consumed or left unconsumed, contributing to food waste. Contextual factors such as the quality and taste of meals, the unpleasant ambiance of the dining room, the extent of supervision (for younger consumers) and the eating duration can potentially increase food waste.

The four competing forces (functional, behavioural, demographic and contextual) represent the reasons behind the increased food waste in the food service establishments in educational institutions. However, interventions, robust waste tracking systems and supportive policies can reduce food waste. The challenge is that most of the interventions require some expense and effort in terms of time and money. For instance, offering financial incentives may reduce food waste, but for food service establishments, such food waste savings will make economic sense only if the money saved from less food going to waste is more than or at least equal to the financial incentive. Similarly, interventions such as education campaigns may cost money, and whether they are worthwhile will depend on the money saved from less food going to waste. One way of compensating for costs is for a government’s support policy to make the expenses incurred for food waste mitigation efforts tax-deductible. In addition, the initiatives for food diversion, such as food donations, have an associated legal liability that suitable policy guidelines can reduce.

The supportive policy of educational institutions can help by granting permission to take home leftovers, share food, provide better dining areas and make provisions for adequate eating time between academic commitments. In the case of the food tracking system, the immense effort required for sorting, weighing and training the staff to operate such a system represents a cost that must be offset by balancing the savings in food costs. In this way, the food waste ecosystem is an interdependent mass of competing forces that interact to increase or decrease the quantity of food generated, and the food waste mitigation decisions at the micro level are a trade-off between costs and benefits. The output of the transformative process is the quantity of waste generated. The amount and composition of the waste provide feedback, which can help revise decisions at the input level.

6. Conclusion, implications, limitations and future research areas

6.1 conclusion.

This study presents the status of food wastage in food service establishments in educational institutions, as reflected in the extant literature. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no contemporary SLRs that have analyzed food wastage in the food service establishments in educational institutions as a separate vertical. The current study addresses this gap to offer insightful implications for theory and practice. First, it sets the conceptual boundary by including all food service establishments in schools and universities. We selected this subdomain because the focus of the studies has largely been school lunch, where researchers have mainly assessed food waste to compute nutritional loss. In comparison, studies focused on food waste as a central concern, and studies examining food waste in higher education are limited. This indicates a need to catalyze research in the area. Thereafter, the study rigorously follows the SLR method to identify, synthesize and critically evaluate the 88 studies on the topic to reveal their research profile and thematic foci. The seven themes we identified through content analysis are the drivers of food waste; quantitative assessment of food waste; assessment of behavioural aspects of food waste; operational strategies for reducing food waste; interventions for inducing behavioural changes to mitigate food waste; food diversion and food waste disposal processes; and barriers to the implementation of food waste reduction strategies. The review goes beyond presenting the state-of-the-art in the area to uncover the gaps in the extant investigations and to suggest potential research questions that could motivate future academic research from the hospitality perspective. In addition, we developed a framework based on the open-systems approach to depict the complexity of the area and the multiple factors that influence its decision-making.

For the novel contributions of this study, it is the first SLR to review food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no prior review study has systematically reviewed and evaluated the extant research on food waste in the education sector. The only other review study on food waste in the area was the review of the NSLP in the USA ( Byker Shanks et al. , 2017 ). This review focused on the methods of quantifying food waste and the respective results of each method in the NSLP context from 1978 to 2015. The current SLR goes beyond both quantification and NSLP. Another novel contribution of this study is that the gaps that we identified in the extant research are theme-oriented, paving the way for encouraging future academic research through tangible suggestions in the form of theme-based potential research questions. This study also presents a systems view of the dynamics of food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions by identifying the input decisions; the transformative processes; the influence of low-threshold interventions and barriers; and the output in terms of the quantity of food waste. Finally, the practical inferences offered by the study are actionable, useful, contextual and easily transferable across various food service establishments serving educational institutions.

6.2 Theoretical implications

SLR has four key theoretical implications. First, although several researchers have investigated food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions, most have skewed towards the nutritional implication of unconsumed food in the school lunch context, with the quantification of food waste merely serving as a basis to capture nutritional loss. The hospitality literature has yet to focus on the issue of food waste in institutional settings in spite of its strong implications for sustainability and direct association with food services, an inherent part of the hospitality sector. By presenting the key themes, we have provided a ready platform for hospitality researchers to expand the scope of their investigations to include food wastage in educational institutions.

Second, we identified theme-based gaps ( Table 7 ) in the extant research that need to be addressed through empirical investigations from a hospitality perspective. Besides identifying theme-based gaps, we also suggested potential research questions ( Table 7 ) in consonance with prior reviews ( Swani et al. , 2019 ), which can help set the future research agenda in the area. Furthermore, our study revealed that future studies need to focus on food waste as contributing to increased carbon footprints and food insecurity. Such studies will take the focus beyond the nutritional emphasis on ecological implications for the greater good.

Third, in addition to identifying the theme-based gaps and potential research questions, we conducted research profiling of the retrieved and screened literature to identify the scope of the future research concerning the need for theory-based examinations, geographies that need attention and the type of educational institutions that have remained neglected in food waste research. The need for theory-driven investigations, which are now quite deficient, is supported because “theory” alone can yield consistent conclusions from causal patterns in data ( Han,2015 ). The need to explore diverse geographies is justified, considering that food consumption and leaving food unconsumed may be rooted in culture ( Yoder et al. , 2015 ; Pinto et al. , 2018 ; Izumi et al. , 2020 ). The need to focus on hitherto under-explored subsectors in higher education is justified because more granular findings are required to help food service establishments, regulators and university authorities plan and execute sustainable food waste control strategies targeting a group that makes independent decisions. Finally, the FWE framework that we developed presents a systems approach to food waste management that provides researchers with a bird’s eye view of the key areas to investigate in a study examining food waste generation and mitigation in food service establishments in educational institutions.

6.3 Practical implications

SLR has six key practical implications. First, a systematic tracking system can help create awareness and motivate anti-food-waste behaviours at the pre-consumer level, as prior studies have discussed ( Burton et al. , 2016 ). Therefore, catering companies offering food services in educational institutions should implement software with a simple interface to capture food-waste-related data, forecast the number of meals, identify popular menu items and classify waste into edible and non-edible.

Second, the overemphasis on nutritional content and rigid food-serving guidelines can increase food waste, as school authorities may determine portion sizes accordingly. This could be counterproductive from both the nutritional and waste perspectives if the food served is not consumed. For instance, the larger portion sizes that the school determines may cause overnutrition and obesity ( Balzaretti et al. , 2020 ). Therefore, the dietary guidelines that the concerned authorities issue should be indicative so portion sizes are adjusted according to hunger level and personal preferences. Competitive foods that usually have higher fat and sugar contents ( Templeton et al. , 2005 ) can be removed or vended at other times to ensure that the served meals are consumed to satiate hunger.

Third, formal guidelines for quantifying food waste should be prepared and made available to the food service managers in the cafeterias. There also should be a board or display where the aggregate daily food waste at the pre- and post-consumer levels is displayed for everyone to see. This likely will increase food waste awareness and encourage kitchen staff and students to reduce food waste.

Fourth, as food waste is a critical issue, school and college authorities hiring catering services (including cooks and kitchen staff) can also adopt a more structured approach to discouraging food waste. For instance, an inefficiency index ( Falasconi et al. , 2015 ) can be calculated weekly as the percentage of food wasted at the pre-consumer and serving stages compared to the amount of food prepared. Such an index will highlight the deficiencies in the kitchen processes, the slackness of the staff and the inaccurate forecasting of the number of consumers.

Fifth, the proper sorting of food waste can reduce it in two ways: by increasing the chances of recovering edible leftovers for donation and by making concerned stakeholders aware of the waste they are generating. Therefore, regulators or administrative authorities at the educational institution level can make it compulsory for every dining hall to have separate bins with labels for the disposal of different types of waste, including liquid waste, according to Schupp et al. (2018) . Furthermore, consumers should be asked to throw their individual plate waste in the designated bins.

Finally, from a regulatory standpoint, the policy guidelines for food waste reduction should consider the cost of waste reduction processes and offer financial incentives such as tax rebates for initiatives to reduce waste through food diversion. The issue of the legal liability associated with donating food to non-profit organizations for charity is a great disincentive, preventing the giving away of food for charity. To overcome this impediment, donors can be freed of any such legal liability. This practice exists in countries such as Italy and the USA ( Derqui et al. , 2018 ). Furthermore, policymakers should promote an approach to menu design based on the inclusion of more low-carbon-emission food items and fewer high-carbon-emission food items. This is likely to provide food cost savings at the food service level and environmental cost savings at the societal level.

6.4 Limitations and future research areas

We conducted a deep analysis of the extant research on food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions to uncover key themes and gaps. This has made a significant contribution to theory and practice by presenting potential research questions and implementable practical suggestions. However, readers should evaluate the contributions of this study in the context of the following limitations. First, we used Scopus and Web of Science only to search congruent studies and did not juxtapose any other digital library or database. This could have resulted in the exclusion of studies not listed in these two databases. Second, we included articles published only in English and could have missed important regional findings in the local language. Third, like any other SLR study, we faced the challenge of executing extensive search and screening, complexities in synthesis and presentation of findings in a manner that would be palatable to a wide variety of readers. Accordingly, we could have missed information because of inadvertent human error. Fourth, although we followed a systematic approach to identify keywords for searching the congruent literature, the area of food waste is quite vast. We may have excluded keywords. However, we used a robust search and screening protocol to present rigorous analysis to serve as a reliable basis for guiding future research and practice. Future researchers can extend our work by including keywords such as “campus dining”, “food rescue”, “food scarcity on campus”, “food recycling”, “food waste tracking”, “meal plans”, “food supply chains” and “food clubs on campus”. Future work can advance this study by reviewing reports from governments and policies implemented to highlight the gaps between academic research and government initiatives or between evidenced-based and non-evidenced-based methods. In addition, researchers should examine food waste in schools/universities in developed and developing economies, because the extant literature primarily skews towards US-based educational institutions. In this regard, researchers can also focus on cross-cultural/national comparison to provide deeper and more generalizable insights. Food waste studies in educational institutions can also include employees who consume food in the school/university dining facility, as examined in the case of frontline employees working in various hospitality establishments (Luu, 2020). Furthermore, as the drivers and, ultimately, the remedial actions/strategies for handling the issue of food waste may differ between public and private educational institutions, future researchers can build on our findings by separately reviewing the sample of studies on public and private educational institutions. Finally, future studies can explore whether increasing organic food consumption ( Tandon et al. , 2020a , 2020b ; Tandon et al. , 2020c ) has impacted food waste behaviours in educational institutions.

Year-wise publications in food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions

Publications on food waste in the food service establishments in educational institutions, by journal

Food service establishments examined by the studies

Geographic scope of the studies

Thematic foci of studies on food waste in educational institutions

Methods of food waste quantification

Methods of data collection

Systems approach to food waste mitigation: The food waste ecosystem (FWE) framework

Keywords for the literature search

Study inclusion and exclusion criteria

Theoretical framework used in food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions

Drivers of food waste in food service establishments

Operational strategies for food waste reduction

Interventions for food waste reduction

Theme-based gaps and related potential research questions

Abdelaal , A.H. , McKay , G. and Mackey , H.R. ( 2019 ), “ Food waste from a university campus in the Middle east: drivers, composition, and resource recovery potential ”, Waste Management , Vol. 98 , pp. 14 - 20 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.08.007 .

Abe , K. and Akamatsu , R. ( 2015 ), “ Japanese children and plate waste: contexts of low self-efficacy ”, Health Education Journal , Vol. 74 No. 1 , pp. 74 - 83 , doi: 10.1177/0017896913519429 .

Adams , M.A. , Bruening , M. , Ohri-Vachaspati , P. and Hurley , J.C. ( 2016 ), “ Location of school lunch salad bars and fruit and vegetable consumption in Middle schools: a cross-sectional plate waste study ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 116 No. 3 , pp. 407 - 416 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2015.10.011 .

Babich , R. and Sylvia , S. ( 2010 ), “ Cradle to grave’: an analysis of sustainable food systems in a university setting ”, Journal of Culinary Science and Technology , Vol. 8 No. 4 , pp. 180 - 190 , doi: 10.1080/15428052.2010.535747 .

Baik , J.Y. and Lee , H. ( 2009 ), “ Habitual plate-waste of 6- to 9-year-olds may not be associated with lower nutritional needs or taste acuity, but undesirable dietary factors ”, Nutrition Research , Vol. 29 No. 12 , pp. 831 - 838 , doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2009.10.009 .

Balzaretti , C.M. , Ventura , V. , Ratti , S. , Ferrazzi , G. , Spallina , A. , Carruba , M.O. and Castrica , M. ( 2020 ), “ Improving the overall sustainability of the school meal chain: the role of portion sizes ”, Eating and Weight Disorders – Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity , Vol. 25 No. 1 , pp. 107 - 116 , doi: 10.1007/s40519-018-0524-z .

Bavik , A. ( 2020 ), “ A systematic review of the servant leadership literature in management and hospitality ”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 32 No. 1 , pp. 347 - 382 , doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2018-0788 .

Bean , M.K. , Raynor , H.A. , Thornton , L.M. , Sova , A. , Stewart , M.D. and Mazzeo , S.E. ( 2018a ), “ Reliability and validity of digital imagery methodology for measuring starting portions and plate waste from school salad bars ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 118 No. 8 , pp. 1482 - 1489 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2018.02.002 .

Bean , M.K. , Spalding , B.B. , Theriault , E. , Dransfield , K.B. , Sova , A. and Stewart , M.D. ( 2018b ), “ Salad bars increased selection and decreased consumption of fruits and vegetables 1 month after installation in title I elementary schools: a plate waste study ”, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , Vol. 50 No. 6 , pp. 589 - 597 , doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2018.01.017.Salad .

Behera , R.K. , Bala , P.K. and Dhir , A. ( 2019 ), “ The emerging role of cognitive computing in healthcare: a systematic literature review ”, International Journal of Medical Informatics , Vol. 129 , pp. 154 - 166 , doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.04.024 .

Betz , A. , Buchli , J. , Göbel , C. and Müller , C. ( 2015 ), “ Food waste in the Swiss food service industry–magnitude and potential for reduction ”, Waste Management , Vol. 35 , pp. 218 - 226 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.015 .

Blondin , S.A. , Cash , S.B. , Goldberg , J.P. , Griffin , T.S. and Economos , C.D. ( 2017 ), “ Nutritional, economic, and environmental costs of milk waste in a classroom school breakfast program ”, American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 107 No. 4 , pp. 590 - 592 , doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303647 .

Blondin , S.A. , Djang , H.C. , Metayer , N. , Anzman-Frasca , S. and Economos , C.D. ( 2015 ), “ It’s just so much waste.’A qualitative investigation of food waste in a universal free school breakfast program ”, Public Health Nutrition , Vol. 18 No. 9 , pp. 1565 - 1577 , doi: 10.1017/S1368980014002948 .

Blondin , S.A. , Goldberg , J.P. , Cash , S.B. , Griffin , T.S. and Economos , C.D. ( 2018 ), “ Factors influencing fluid milk waste in a breakfast in the classroom school breakfast program ”, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , Vol. 50 No. 4 , pp. 349 - 356 , doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2017.12.006 .

Boschini , M. , Falasconi , L. , Cicatiello , C. and Franco , S. ( 2020 ), “ Why the waste? A large-scale study on the causes of food waste at school canteens ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 246 , p. 118994 , doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118994 .

Boulet , M. , Wright , B. , Williams , C. and Rickinson , M. ( 2019 ), “ Return to sender: a behavioural approach to reducing food waste in schools ”, Australasian Journal of Environmental Management , Vol. 26 No. 4 , pp. 328 - 346 , doi: 10.1080/14486563.2019.1672587 .

Burton , K. , Serrano , E. , Cox , H. , Budowle , R. and Dulys-Nusbaum , E. ( 2016 ), “ Benefits, barriers, and challenges to university-level food waste tracking ”, Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition , Vol. 11 No. 3 , pp. 428 - 438 , doi: 10.1080/19320248.2015.1045676 .

Byker Shanks , C. , Banna , J. and Serrano , E.L. ( 2017 ), “ Food waste in the national school lunch program 1978-2015: a systematic review ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 117 No. 11 , pp. 1792 - 1807 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2017.06.008 .

Byker , C.J. , Farris , A.R. , Marcenelle , M. , Davis , G.C. and Serrano , E.L. ( 2014 ), “ Food waste in a school nutrition program after implementation of new lunch program guidelines ”, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , Vol. 46 No. 5 , pp. 406 - 411 , doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2014.03.009.Made .

Capps , O. , Jr , Ishdorj , A. , Murano , P.S. and Storey , M. ( 2016 ), “ Examining vegetable plate waste in elementary schools by diversity and grade ”, Health Behavior and Policy Review , Vol. 3 No. 5 , pp. 419 - 428 , doi: 10.14485/hbpr.3.5.2 .

Chapman , L.E. , Cohen , J. , Canterberry , M. and Carton , T.W. ( 2017 ), “ Factors associated with school lunch consumption: reverse recess and school brunch ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 117 No. 9 , pp. 1413 - 1418 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2017.04.016 .

Chapman , L.E. , Richardson , S. , McLeod , L. , Rimm , E. and Cohen , J. ( 2019 ), “ Pilot evaluation of aggregate plate waste as a measure of students’ school lunch consumption ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 119 No. 12 , pp. 2093 - 2098 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2019.04.001 .

Cohen , J.F. , Richardson , S. , Austin , S.B. , Economos , C.D. and Rimm , E.B. ( 2013 ), “ School lunch waste among Middle school students: nutrients consumed and costs ”, American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Vol. 44 No. 2 , pp. 114 - 121 , doi: 10.1038/jid.2014.371 .

Cohn , D.J. , Pickering , R. and Chin , N.P. ( 2013 ), “ Is lunch still gross? A qualitative evaluation of a new school lunch program ”, Infant, Child, and Adolescent Nutrition , Vol. 5 No. 6 , pp. 383 - 392 , doi: 10.1177/1941406413502525 .

Costello , C. , Birisci , E. and McGarvey , R.G. ( 2015 ), “ Food waste in campus dining operations: Inventory of pre-and post-consumer mass by food category, and estimation of embodied greenhouse gas emissions ”, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Vol. 31 No. 3 , pp. 191 - 201 , doi: 10.1017/S1742170515000071 .

Costello , C. , McGarvey , R.G. and Birisci , E. ( 2017 ), “ Achieving sustainability beyond zero waste: a case study from a college football stadium ”, Sustainability , Vol. 9 No. 7 , p. 1236 , doi: 10.3390/su9071236 .

Deavin , N. , McMahon , A.T. , Walton , K. and Charlton , K. ( 2018 ), “ Breaking barriers, breaking bread’: Pilot study to evaluate acceptability of a school breakfast program utilising donated food ”, Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 75 No. 5 , pp. 500 - 508 , doi: 10.1111/1747-0080.12478 .

Derqui , B. and Fernandez , V. ( 2017 ), “ The opportunity of tracking food waste in school canteens: Guidelines for self-assessment ”, Waste Management , Vol. 69 , pp. 431 - 444 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.030 .

Derqui , B. , Fernandez , V. and Fayos , T. ( 2018 ), “ Towards more sustainable food systems. Addressing food waste at school canteens ”, Appetite , Vol. 129 , pp. 1 - 11 , doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.06.022 .

Derqui , B. , Grimaldi , D. and Fernandez , V. ( 2020 ), “ Building and managing sustainable schools: the case of food waste ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 243 , p. 118533 , doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118533 .

Dhir , A. , Talwar , S. , Kaur , P. and Malibari , A. ( 2020 ), “ Food waste in hospitality and food services: a systematic literature review and framework development approach ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 270 , p. 122861 , doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122861 .

Dillon , M. and Lane , H.J. ( 1989 ), “ Evaluation of the offer vs. serve option within self-serve, choice menu lunch program at the elementary school level ”, Journal of the American Dietetic Association , Vol. 89 No. 12 , p. 1780 , available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2592709 ( accessed 2 July 2020 ).

Dresler-Hawke , E. , Whitehead , D. and Coad , J. ( 2009 ), “ What are New Zealand children eating at school? A content analysis of “consumed versus unconsumed” food groups in a lunch-box survey ”, Health Education Journal , Vol. 68 No. 1 , pp. 3 - 13 , doi: 10.1177/0017896908100444 .

Ellison , B. , Savchenko , O. , Nikolaus , C.J. and Duff , B.R. ( 2019 ), “ Every plate counts: evaluation of a food waste reduction campaign in a university dining hall ”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling , Vol. 144 , pp. 276 - 284 , doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.046 .

Eriksson , M. , Lindgren , S. and Persson Osowski , C. ( 2018a ), “ Mapping of food waste quantification methodologies in the food services of Swedish municipalities ”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling , Vol. 137 , pp. 191 - 199 , doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.06.013 .

Eriksson , M. , Osowski , C.P. , Malefors , C. , Björkman , J. and Eriksson , E. ( 2017 ), “ Quantification of food waste in public catering services–a case study from a Swedish municipality ”, Waste Management , Vol. 61 , pp. 415 - 422 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.01.035 .

Eriksson , M. , Osowski , C.P. , Björkman , J. , Hansson , E. , Malefors , C. , Eriksson , E. and Ghosh , R. ( 2018b ), “ The tree structure—a general framework for food waste quantification in food services ”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling , Vol. 130 , pp. 140 - 151 , doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.11.030 .

Falasconi , L. , Vittuari , M. , Politano , A. and Segrè , A. ( 2015 ), “ Food waste in school catering: an Italian case study ”, Sustainability , Vol. 7 No. 11 , pp. 14745 - 14760 , doi: 10.3390/su71114745 .

Gase , L.N. , McCarthy , W.J. , Robles , B. and Kuo , T. ( 2014 ), “ Student receptivity to new school meal offerings: assessing fruit and vegetable waste among Middle school students in the Los Angeles unified school district ”, Preventive Medicine , Vol. 67 , pp. S28 - S33 , doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.04.013 .

Getts , K.M. , Quinn , E.L. , Johnson , D.B. and Otten , J.J. ( 2017 ), “ Validity and interrater reliability of the visual quarter-waste method for assessing food waste in Middle school and high school cafeteria settings ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 117 No. 11 , pp. 1816 - 1821 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2017.05.004 .

Gomezelj , D.O. ( 2016 ), “ A systematic review of research on innovation in hospitality and tourism ”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 28 No. 3 , pp. 516 - 558 , doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2014-0510 .

Gustavsson , J. ( 2011 ), “ Food and agriculture organization of the united nations ”, ASME/Pacific Rim Technical Conference and Exhibition on Integration and Packaging of MEMS, N., n.d. Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention: Study Conducted for the International Congress “Save Food!” at Interpack, Düsseldorf , Germany .

Hackman , J.R. and Oldham , G.R. ( 1974 ), “ The job diagnostic survey: an instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects ”, Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology , Vol. 4 , pp. 148 - 149 .

Han , B. ( 2015 ), “ 심리정치: 신자유주의의 통치:술 [psychopolitik: Neoliberalismus und die neuen machttechniken] ”.

Hanks , A.S. , Wansink , B. and Just , D.R. ( 2014 ), “ Reliability and accuracy of real-time visualization techniques for measuring school cafeteria tray waste: Validating The Quarter-waste method ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 114 No. 3 , pp. 470 - 474 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2013.08.013 .

Huang , Z. , Gao , R. , Bawuerjiang , N. , Zhang , Y. , Huang , X. and Cai , M. ( 2017 ), “ Food and nutrients intake in the school lunch program among school children in shanghai, China ”, Nutrients , Vol. 9 No. 6 , pp. 582 , doi: 10.3390/nu9060582 .

Hudgens , M.E. , Barnes , A.S. , Lockhart , M.K. , Ellsworth , S.C. , Beckford , M. and Siegel , R.M. ( 2017 ), “ Small prizes improve food selection in a school cafeteria without increasing waste ”, Clinical Pediatrics , Vol. 56 No. 2 , pp. 123 - 126 , doi: 10.1177/0009922816677546 .

Ivert , L.K. , Dukovska-Popovska , I. , Kaipia , R. , Fredriksson , A. , Dreyer , H.C. , Johansson , M.I. , Chabada , L. , Damgaard , C.M. and Tuomikangas , N. ( 2015 ), “ Sales and operations planning: responding to the needs of industrial food producers ”, Production Planning and Control , Vol. 26 No. 4 , pp. 280 - 295 , doi: 10.1080/09537287.2014.897769 .

Izumi , B.T. , Akamatsu , R. , Shanks , C.B. and Fujisaki , K. ( 2020 ), “ An ethnographic study exploring factors that minimize lunch waste in Tokyo elementary schools ”, Public Health Nutrition , Vol. 23 No. 6 , pp. 1142 - 1151 , doi: 10.1017/S136898001900380X .

Jafari Navimipour , N. and Charband , Y. ( 2016 ), “ Knowledge sharing mechanisms and techniques in project teams: Literature review, classification, and current trends ”, Computers in Human Behavior , Vol. 62 , pp. 730 - 742 , doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.003 .

Jagau , H.L. and Vyrastekova , J. ( 2017 ), “ Behavioral approach to food waste: an experiment ”, British Food Journal , Vol. 119 No. 4 , pp. 882 - 894 , doi: 10.1108/BFJ-05-2016-0213 .

Kallbekken , S. and Sælen , H. ( 2013 ), “ Nudging’hotel guests to reduce food waste as a win–win environmental measure ”, Economics Letters , Vol. 119 No. 3 , pp. 325 - 327 , doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2013.03.019 .

Katajajuuri , J.M. , Silvennoinen , K. , Hartikainen , H. , Heikkilä , L. and Reinikainen , A. ( 2014 ), “ Food waste in the finnish food chain ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 73 , pp. 322 - 329 , doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.057 .

Katare , B. , Wetzstein , M. and Jovanovic , N. ( 2019 ), “ Can economic incentive help in reducing food waste: experimental evidence from a university dining hall ”, Applied Economics Letters , Vol. 26 No. 17 , pp. 1448 - 1451 , doi: 10.1080/13504851.2019.1578856 .

Katz , D. and Kahn , R. ( 1966 ), The Social Psychology of Organizations , Wiley . New York, NY .

Khadka , S. ( 2017 ), “ Reducing food waste vital for India's food security ”, downtoearth.org.in/blog/reducing-food-waste-vital-for-india-s-food-security57345 ).

Kim , K. and Morawski , S. ( 2013 ), “ Quantifying the impact of going Trayless in a university dining hall ”, Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition , Vol. 7 No. 4 , pp. 482 - 486 , doi: 10.1080/19320248.2012.732918 .

Knezevic , B. , Kurnoga , N. and Anic , I.D. ( 2019 ), “ Typology of university students regarding attitudes towards food waste ”, British Food Journal , Vol. 121 No. 11 , pp. 2578 - 2591 , doi: 10.1108/BFJ-05-2018-0316 .

Kowalewska , M.T. and Kołłajtis-Dołowy , A. ( 2018 ), “ Food, nutrient, and energy waste among school students ”, British Food Journal , Vol. 120 No. 8 , pp. 1807 - 1831 , doi: 10.1108/BFJ-11-2017-0611 .

Kropp , J.D. , Abarca-Orozco , S.J. , Israel , G.D. , Diehl , D.C. , Galindo-Gonzalez , S. , Headrick , L.B. and Shelnutt , K.P. ( 2018 ), “ A plate waste evaluation of the farm to school program ”, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , Vol. 50 No. 4 , pp. 332 - 339.e1 , doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2017.10.005 .

Kushwah , S. , ; Dhir , A. , ; Sagar , M. and Gupta , B. ( 2019 ), “ Determinants of organic food consumption. A systematic literature review on motives and barriers ”, Appetite , Vol. 143 , p. 104402 , doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104402 .

Laakso , S. ( 2017 ), “ Creating new food practices: a case study on leftover lunch service, food ”, Culture and Society , Vol. 20 No. 4 , pp. 631 - 650 , doi: 10.1080/15528014.2017.1324655 .

Lagorio , A. , Pinto , R. and Golini , R. ( 2018 ), “ Food waste reduction in school canteens: evidence from an Italian case ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 199 , pp. 77 - 84 , doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.077 .

Langley , J. , Yoxall , A. , Heppel , G. , Rodriguez , E.M. , Bradbury , S. , Lewis , R. , Luxmoore , J. , Hodzic , A. and Rowson , J. ( 2010 ), “ Food for thought? – a UK pilot study testing a methodology for compositional domestic food waste analysis ”, Waste Management and Research , Vol. 28 No. 3 , pp. 220 - 227 , doi: 10.1177/0734242X08095348 .

Law , R. , Sun , S. , Fong , D.K.C. , Fong , L.H.N. and Fu , H. ( 2016 ), “ A systematic review of china’s outbound tourism research ”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 28 No. 12 , pp. 2654 - 2674 , doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-06-2015-0323 .

Lazell , J. ( 2016 ), “ Perceived trustworthiness of online shops ”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour , Vol. 15 No. 5 , pp. 430 - 439 , doi: 10.1002/cb .

Liu , Y. , Cheng , S. , Liu , X. , Cao , X. , Xue , L. and Liu , G. ( 2016 ), “ Plate waste in school lunch programs in Beijing, China ”, Sustainability , Vol. 8 No. 12 , pp. 1 - 11 , doi: 10.3390/su8121288 .

Liz Martins , M. , Cunha , L.M. , Rodrigues , S.S. and Rocha , A. ( 2014 ), “ Determination of plate waste in primary school lunches by weighing and visual estimation methods: a validation study ”, Waste Management , Vol. 34 No. 8 , pp. 1362 - 1368 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.03.020 .

Lorenz-Walther , B.A. , Langen , N. , Göbel , C. , Engelmann , T. , Bienge , K. , Speck , M. and Teitscheid , P. ( 2019 ), “ What makes people leave LESS food? Testing effects of smaller portions and information in a behavioral model ”, Appetite , Vol. 139 , pp. 127 - 144 , doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.03.026 .

Marais , M.L. , Smit , Y. , Koen , N. and Lötze , E. ( 2017 ), “ Are the attitudes and practices of foodservice managers, catering personnel and students contributing to excessive food wastage at Stellenbosch university? ”, South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition , Vol. 30 No. 3 , pp. 60 - 67 , doi: 10.1080/16070658.2017.1267348 .

Mariani , M. , Baggio , R. , Fuchs , M. and Höepken , W. ( 2018 ), “ Business intelligence and big data in hospitality and tourism: a systematic literature review ”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 30 No. 12 , pp. 3514 - 3554 , doi: 10.1108/IJCHM07 .

Marshall , A. , Bounds , G. , Patlovich , K. , Markham , C. , Farhat , A. , Cramer , N. , Oceguera , A. , Croom , T. , Carrillo , J. and Sharma , S. ( 2019 ), “ Study design and protocol to assess fruit and vegetable waste at school lunches ”, Behavioral Sciences , Vol. 9 No. 9 , p. 101 , doi: 10.3390/bs9090101 .

Martin-Rios , C. , Demen-Meier , C. , Gössling , S. and Cornuz , C. ( 2018 ), “ Food waste management innovations in the foodservice industry ”, Waste Management , Vol. 79 , pp. 196 - 206 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.033 .

Martins , M.L. , Rodrigues , S.S. , Cunha , L.M. and Rocha , A. ( 2016 ), “ Strategies to reduce plate waste in primary schools – Experimental evaluation ”, Public Health Nutrition , Vol. 19 No. 8 , pp. 1517 - 1525 , doi: 10.1017/S1368980015002797 .

Mongeon , P. and Paul-Hus , A. ( 2016 ), “ The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: a comparative analysis ”, Scientometrics , Vol. 106 No. 1 , pp. 213 - 228 , doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 .

Niaki , S.F. , Moore , C.E. , Chen , T.A. and Cullen , K.W. ( 2017 ), “ Younger elementary school students waste more school lunch foods than older elementary school students ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 117 No. 1 , pp. 95 - 101 .

Nicklas , T.A. , Liu , Y. , Stuff , J.E. , Fisher , J.O. , Mendoza , J.A. and O'Neil , C.E. ( 2013 ), “ Characterizing lunch meals served and consumed by preschool children in head start ”, Public Health Nutrition , Vol. 16 No. 12 , pp. 2169 - 2177 , doi: 10.1038/jid.2014.371 .

Okumus , B. ( 2019 ), “ How do hotels manage food waste? Evidence from hotels in Orlando, Florida ”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management , Vol. 29 No. 3 , pp. 291 - 301 , doi: 10.1080/19368623.2019.1618775 .

Östergren , K. , Gustavsson , J. , Bos-Brouwers , H. , Timmermans , T. , Hansen , O.J. , Møller , H. , Anderson , G. , O’Connor , C. , Soethoudt , H. , Quested , T. and Easteal , S. ( 2014 ), “ FUSIONS definitional framework for food waste ”, Projekt FUSIONS (Food Use for Social Innovation by Optimising Waste Prevention Strategies), Europäische , Union .

Painter , K. , Thondhlana , G. and Kua , H.W. ( 2016 ), “ Food waste generation and potential interventions at rhodes university, South Africa ”, Waste Management , Vol. 56 , pp. 491 - 497 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.07.013 .

Papargyropoulou , E. , Wright , N. , Lozano , R. , Steinberger , J. , Padfield , R. and Ujang , Z. ( 2016 ), “ Conceptual framework for the study of food waste generation and prevention in the hospitality sector ”, Waste Management , Vol. 49 , pp. 326 - 336 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.017 .

Parfitt , J. , Barthel , M. and Macnaughton , S. ( 2010 ), “ Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050 ”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , Vol. 365 No. 1554 , pp. 3065 - 3081 , doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0126 .

Pinto , R.S. , dos Santos Pinto , R.M. , Melo , F.F.S. , Campos , S.S. and Cordovil , C.M.D.S. ( 2018 ), “ A simple awareness campaign to promote food waste reduction in a university canteen ”, Waste Management , Vol. 76 , pp. 28 - 38 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.044 .

Prescott , M.P. , Herritt , C. , Bunning , M. and Cunningham-Sabo , L. ( 2019a ), “ Resources, barriers, and tradeoffs: a mixed methods analysis of school Pre-Consumer food waste ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 119 No. 8 , pp. 1270 - 1283.e2 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2019.03.008 .

Prescott , M.P. , Burg , X. , Metcalfe , J.J. , Lipka , A.E. , Herritt , C. and Cunningham-Sabo , L. ( 2019b ), “ Healthy planet, healthy youth: a food systems education and promotion intervention to improve adolescent diet quality and reduce food waste ”, Nutrients , Vol. 11 No. 8 , p. 1869 , doi: 10.3390/nu11081869 .

Ruparel , N. , Dhir , A. , Tandon , A. , Kaur , P. and Islam , J.U. ( 2020 ), “ The influence of online professional social media in human resource management: a systematic literature review ”, Technology in Society , Vol. 63 , p. 101335 , doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101335 .

Sahu , A.K. , Padhy , R.K. and Dhir , A. ( 2020 ), “ Envisioning the future of behavioral decision-making: a systematic literature review of behavioral reasoning theory ”, Australasian Marketing Journal (Amj)) , Vol. 28 No. 4 , doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.001 .

Sarjahani , A. , Serrano , E.L. and Johnson , R. ( 2009 ), “ Food and non-edible, compostable waste in a university dining facility ”, Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition , Vol. 4 No. 1 , pp. 95 - 102 , doi: 10.1080/19320240802706874 .

Schupp , C. , Getts , K. and Otten , J. ( 2018 ), “ An evaluation of current lunchroom food waste and food rescue programs in a Washington state school district ”, Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development , Vol. 8 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 20 , doi: 10.5304/jafscd.2018.081.013 .

Segrè , A. , Falasconi , L. , Politano , A. and Vittuari , M. ( 2014 ), “ Background paper on the economics of food loss and waste ”, working paper , FAO , Rome .

Serebrennikov , D. , Katare , B. , Kirkham , L. and Schmitt , S. ( 2020 ), “ Effect of classroom intervention on student food selection and plate waste: Evidence from a randomized control trial ”, PLoS One , Vol. 15 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 18 , doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226181 .

Seth , H. , Talwar , S. , Bhatia , A. , Saxena , A. and Dhir , A. ( 2020 ), “ Consumer resistance and inertia of retail investors: Development of the resistance adoption inertia continuance (RAIC) framework ”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , Vol. 55 , p. 102071 , doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102071 .

Silvennoinen , K. , Nisonen , S. and Pietiläinen , O. ( 2019 ), “ Food waste case study and monitoring developing in finnish food services ”, Waste Management , Vol. 97 , pp. 97 - 104 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.07.028 .

Silvennoinen , K. , Heikkilä , L. , Katajajuuri , J.M. and Reinikainen , A. ( 2015 ), “ Food waste volume and origin: Case studies in the finnish food service sector ”, Waste Management , Vol. 46 , pp. 140 - 145 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.010 .

Smith , S.L. and Cunningham-Sabo , L. ( 2014 ), “ Food choice, plate waste and nutrient intake of elementary-and Middle-school students participating in the US national school lunch program ”, Public Health Nutrition , Vol. 17 No. 6 , pp. 1255 - 1263 , doi: 10.1017/S1368980013001894 .

Steen , H. , Malefors , C. , Röös , E. and Eriksson , M. ( 2018 ), “ Identification and modelling of risk factors for food waste generation in school and pre-school catering units ”, Waste Management , Vol. 77 , pp. 172 - 184 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.05.024 .

Swani , K. , Brown , B.P. and Mudambi , S.M. ( 2019 ), “ The untapped potential of B2B advertising: a literature review and future agenda ”, Industrial Marketing Management , Vol. 89 , doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.05.010 .

Tandon , A. , Dhir , A. , Kaur , P. , Kushwah , S. and Salo , J. ( 2020a ), “ Behavioral reasoning perspectives on organic food purchase ”, Appetite , Vol. 154 , p. 104786 , doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104786 .

Tandon , A. , Dhir , A. , Kaur , P. , Kushwah , S. and Salo , J. ( 2020b ), “ Why do people buy organic food? The moderating role of environmental concerns and trust ”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , Vol. 57 , p. 102247 , doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102247 .

Tandon , A. , Jabeen , F. , Talwar , S. , Sakashita , M. and Dhir , A. ( 2020c ), “ Facilitators and inhibitors of organic food buying behavior ”, Food Quality and Preference , Vol. 88 , p. 104077 , doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104077 .

Templeton , S.B. , Marlette , M.A. and Panemangalore , M. ( 2005 ), “ Competitive foods increase the intake of energy and decrease the intake of certain nutrients by adolescents consuming school lunch ”, Journal of the American Dietetic Association , Vol. 105 No. 2 , pp. 215 - 220 , doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2004.11.027 .

Thiagarajah , K. and Getty , V.M. ( 2013 ), “ Impact on plate waste of switching from a tray to a trayless delivery system in a university dining hall and employee response to the switch ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 113 No. 1 , pp. 141 - 145 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.07.004 .

Thorsen , A.V. , Lassen , A.D. , Andersen , E.W. , Christensen , L.M. , Biltoft-Jensen , A. , Andersen , R. , Damsgaard , C.T. , Michaelsen , K.F. and Tetens , I. ( 2015 ), “ Plate waste and intake of school lunch based on the new Nordic diet and on packed lunches: a randomised controlled trial in 8- to 11-year-old Danish children ”, Journal of Nutritional Science , Vol. 4 No. 9 , pp. 1 - 9 , doi: 10.1017/jns.2015.3 .

Visschers , V.H.M. , Gundlach , D. and Beretta , C. ( 2020 ), “ Smaller servings vs. information provision: Results of two interventions to reduce plate waste in two university canteens ”, Waste Management , Vol. 103 , pp. 323 - 333 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.12.046 .

Wang , L. , Xue , L. , Li , Y. , Liu , X. , Cheng , S. and Liu , G. ( 2018 ), “ Horeca food waste and its ecological footprint in Lhasa, Tibet, China ”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling , Vol. 136 , pp. 1 - 8 , doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.001 .

Whitehair , K.J. , Shanklin , C.W. and Brannon , L.A. ( 2013 ), “ Written messages improve edible food waste behaviors in a university dining facility ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 113 No. 1 , pp. 63 - 69 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.09.015 .

Wilkie , A.C. , Graunke , R.E. and Cornejo , C. ( 2015 ), “ Food waste auditing at three Florida schools ”, Sustainability , Vol. 7 No. 2 , pp. 1370 - 1387 , doi: 10.3390/su7021370 .

Wu , Y. , Tian , X. , Li , X. , Yuan , H. and Liu , G. ( 2019 ), “ Characteristics, influencing factors, and environmental effects of plate waste at university canteens in Beijing, China ”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling , Vol. 149 , pp. 151 - 159 , doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.022 .

Yoder , A.B.B. , Foecke , L.L. and Schoeller , D.A. ( 2015 ), “ Factors affecting fruit and vegetable school lunch waste in Wisconsin elementary schools participating in farm to school programmes ”, Public Health Nutrition , Vol. 18 No. 15 , pp. 2855 - 2863 , doi: 10.1017/S1368980015000385 .

Yui , S. and Biltekoff , C. ( 2020 ), “ How food becomes waste: Students as “carriers of practice” in the UC davis dining commons ”, Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition , pp. 1 - 22 , doi: 10.1080/19320248.2020.1721393 .

Zhao , X. and Manning , L. ( 2019 ), “ Food plate waste: factors influencing insinuated intention in a university food service setting ”, British Food Journal , Vol. 121 No. 7 , pp. 1536 - 1549 , doi: 10.1108/BFJ-07-2018-0481 .

Zhao , C. , Panizza , C. , Fox , K. , Boushey , C.J. , Shanks , C.B. , Ahmed , S. , Chen , S. , Serrano , E.L. , Zee , J. , Fialkowski , M.K. and Banna , J. ( 2019 ), “ Plate waste in school lunch: Barriers, motivators, and perspectives of SNAP-Eligible early adolescents in the US ”, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , Vol. 51 No. 8 , pp. 967 - 975 , doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2019.05.590 .

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Faisal University for the financial support under Nasher Track (Grant No. 186300).

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Food waste management innovations in the foodservice industry

• September 2018
• Waste Management 79:196

• École hôtelière de Lausanne

• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Lethicya Lucas Pires da Silva
• Shannon Perrone
• Carolina Leandra Fantt de Sousa e Reis

• Young-Joong Kim
• Hyeon-Mo Jeon

• Stavros T Ponis

• Antonios Kitsantas
• Chitranjan Kumar
• Karthikeyan Prem Anand
• Mangalam Achuthananda Jayasri
• K. Suthindhiran

• Nadia Ashraf
• Muhammad Danish Habib

• WASTE MANAGE
• Zongguo Wen

• Maurizio Fieschi

• Valentina Adorno

• J CLEAN PROD

• Doroteya Vladimirova

• Emelie Eriksson
• Kathleen M. Eisenhardt
• A.M. Huberman
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Advertisement

Insights into the management of food waste in developing countries: with special reference to India

• Food Waste Generation and Management Strategies and Policies
• Published: 05 June 2023
• Volume 31 , pages 17887–17913, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Ansuman Sahoo 1 ,
• Akanksha Dwivedi 1 ,
• Parvati Madheshiya 1 ,
• Umesh Kumar 1 ,
• Rajesh Kumar Sharma 1 &
• Supriya Tiwari   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7403-4121 1  

12k Accesses

13 Citations

Explore all metrics

Up to one third of the food that is purposely grown for human sustenance is wasted and never consumed, with adverse consequences for the environment and socio-economic aspects. In India, managing food waste is a significant environmental concern. Food waste output is increasing in Indian cities and towns as a result of the country’s urban expansion, modernization, and population growth. Poor management of food waste can have negative consequences for the environment and pose a risk to the public’s health issues. This review focuses on the current challenges, management strategies, and future perspectives of food waste management in India. The efficient management of food waste involves a comprehensive study regarding the characterization of food waste and improved waste management methods. In addition, the government policies and rules for managing food waste that is in effect in India are covered in this review.

Similar content being viewed by others

Sustainable Food Waste Management: A Review

Food Waste Management in Malaysia: A Brief Introduction

Sustainable Management of Food Waste in Saudi Arabia

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Before understanding food waste management, we should first learn about food waste. Different workers have adopted different criteria for defining food waste. Whereas Brian et al. ( 2013 ) defined food waste as “food that is of acceptable quality and qualified for human consumption but is not consumed because it is squandered either before or after it deteriorates,” Parfitt et al. ( 2010 ) described it as the “spoilt food arising at the end of the food cycle, which refers to retailers’ and consumers’ practice.” Food waste is defined as food suitable for human consumption that is wasted, whether it is held over its expiration date or left to deteriorate (FAO 2013 ). Although some amount of food waste occurs commonly at the retail and consumption stages of the food chain, most of it is produced as a result of carelessness or a cautious decision to throw the food away. Food waste is not only confined to the non-utilization of edibles but also includes inappropriate waste of energy, water, and land resources (Tsang et al. 2019 ). In addition to these losses, significant depreciation of environmental quality should also be taken into consideration (Mishra et al. 2020 ). The global human population is very much inclined to rise to around 10 billion by 2050, which is accompanied by a substantially raised demand for food all around the globe, thereby crippling the world’s food supply structure (Haldar et al. 2022 ). According to a recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 750 billion dollars worth of food weighing around 1.3 billion tonnes is wasted globally each year (FAO 2017 ). India, with a population of over 1.3 billion, produces 0.5 kg of organic waste per individual per day (Paulraj et al. 2019 ). Hostels, supermarkets, apartments, restaurants, cafeterias in airplanes, and the food processing industry all produce a significant amount of food waste in India. In India, 90 kg of food waste per capita per year was reported in the high-income group, which was 68, and 63 in the middle- and poor sectors, respectively, according to the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Food Waste Index Report 2021 (Chaudhary et al. 2021 ). A tremendous amount of food and kitchen waste is piled up annually due to ordinary food waste management practices (Sharma et al. 2021 ). The 1.3 billion tonnes of food waste produced annually occupy roughly 28% of the total agricultural land, which is identical to 1.4 billion hectares of usable cultivable area (Paritosh et al. 2017 ; Sharma et al. 2021 ). The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12.3 established in 2015 also concentrates on food waste management, with the goal of “halving per head global food waste at the retail and consumer stages and diminishing food losses along production and supply chains, inclusive of post-harvest fall by 2030” (United Nations 2015 ). This goal is based on a broad understanding of the negative consequences of food losses and waste, which include the waste of land, water, and energy while causing unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions (Närvänen et al. 2020 ).

When we study the sources of food waste extensively, it mainly falls into four categories, i.e., production of food and its harvesting, food processing, and its storage, domestic food waste, and last retail counters. Crops can be subjected to insect infestations and harsh climates from the time they are planted, resulting in pre-harvest losses. Cultivators who use heavy machinery for crop harvesting also generate food waste because they are unable to distinguish between ripe and immature crops or may collect only a portion of a crop (Kantor et al. 1997 ). Food waste due to processing is also caused by losses in nutritional value, caloric value, and edibility of crops caused by the extreme range of temperature, high humidity, or the action of unwanted microbes (FAO 2012 ). Heat along with high humidity creates favorable grounds for the breeding of pests which is a common cause of food waste during storage (FAO 2012 ). A significant amount of food waste is generated at the retailer’s level. When it comes to food, retailers typically have rigorous criteria for appearance. As a result, if fruits or vegetables appear to be bruised, they are frequently not placed on the display. The fishing business wastes a lot of food; in Europe, between 40 and 60% of fish are wasted because they are of inappropriate kind or size (Stuart 2009 ). The dairy sector is one of many forms of the food business that can be found all over the globe. It produces a wide range of goods, including milk, milk powder, butter, and cheese while also producing a significant amount of solid and liquid waste (Jaganmai and Jinka 2017 ). Waste from the dairy sector poses a serious environmental danger due to its high organic content. Internationally, 4–11 million tonnes of dairy waste are dumped into the environment annually, posing a severe threat to ecosystems (Ahmad et al. 2019 ).

In order to understand the challenges of food waste management, we need to understand the characteristics of food waste (Dutta et al. 2021 ). Carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, and traces of inorganic substances make up the majority of food waste (Paritosh et al. 2017 ). Strong variations can be seen in the physicochemical properties of food waste, such as in the C/N ratio, moisture content, pH, and, moisture and volatile solids (Abo et al. 2019 ). Food waste made up of vegetables and rice is heavy in carbohydrates, whereas food trash made up of meat and eggs is high in proteins and lipids (Paritosh et al. 2017 ). Food waste can be utilized as a feedstock for butanol fermentation because it contains a lot of carbohydrates. Potato peels, whey, and apple pomace contain a very high concentration of carbohydrates making them a suitable substrate for butanol fermentation (Smithers 2008 ; Kosmala et al. 2011 ; Li et al. 2015a , b ). Kitchen garbage, other food waste, and restaurant waste all contain 84% water, with the remaining 16% of these wastes’ weight being made up of solids (Kim et al. 2017 ). It was noted that the compositional features of food waste from various sources typically varied. To ascertain the changes in compositional content for five distinct forms of food waste, including kitchen waste, a comparative examination was conducted (Ho and Chu 2019 ). The highest protein content (approx. 26%) was found in household food waste (Haldar et al. 2022 ).

Food waste management is a significant research subject that has expanded quickly in recent years. There are many excellent examples of research that seeks to manage food waste sustainably; however, these studies typically focus on just one aspect of sustainability, such as its effects on the environment, the economy, or society (Garcia-Garcia et al. 2017 ). An effective method for managing food waste is to produce methane through anaerobic digestion. The procedure is less expensive, produces less leftover garbage, and uses food waste as a sustainable energy source (Nasir et al. 2012 ; Morita and Sasaki 2012 ). The ideal substitute for foods that are good for animal farming but unfit for human eating is animal feeding with only farm animals such as cattle, sheep, and poultry, being relevant in this category (Garcia-Garcia et al. 2017 ). Composting is another method of sustainable food waste management which is a process of aerobic decomposition of waste. Composting has seen a resurgence in popularity over the past two decades as a strategy for overcoming today’s waste management issues, particularly for lowering landfill dumping and the accompanying methane emissions from organic material degradation (Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP): Quality Protocol 2007 ). An alternative method of food waste management is valorization which uses naturally occurring manure rich in nutrients to transform municipal solid waste into energy (Banerjee and Arora 2021 ). Valorization is the method of giving waste materials or remnants from an economic activity a financial benefit through reuse or recycling in order to produce resources with a positive economic impact (Kabongo 2013 ). The prominence, timely consumption, and the way food are kept in the refrigerator all have a big impact on how much food waste is generated on daily basis. According to Haldar et al. ( 2022 ), there are two types of suggestions for using refrigerators and freezers in order to reduce food waste. The first category of food waste reduction focuses on enhancing information, labeling, and recommendations to persuade consumers to keep potentially wasteful goods chilled or frozen, and the second category includes technological advancements that assist clients in keeping track of their inventories and formulating better meal plans. Besides these techniques, there is a multitude of physical, chemical, and biotechnological methods that can be utilized for food waste management strategies.

Sources of food waste

The generation of food waste (FW) is increasing day by day from diverse industrial, agricultural, commercial, domestic, and other sources due to changing lifestyles and the fast urbanization of the global population. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated almost 1.3 billion tonnes of wasted food are generated annually which is one third of the total food production on a global scale (Gustavsson et al. 2011 ). FW also leads to the significant loss of other resources like water, land, manpower, and energy. There are several sources such as food processing industries, agricultural waste, and commercial and household kitchens, for the generation of FW illustrated in Fig.  1 (Sharma et al. 2020 ; Saber et al. 2022 ). Food waste production in Pakistan is 93, 74, and 118 kg/capita/year (JICA 2015 ); in India 63, 68, and 90 kg/capita/year (Grover and Singh 2014 ; Sinha and Tripathi 2021 ); South Africa 27, 30, and 45 kg/capita/year (Nahman et al. 2012 ); and Ghana 80, 86, and 86 kg/capita/year (Miezah et al. 2015 ) in the specific study area by low, medium, and high-income group respectively. In North American countries such as Canada and the USA, household sector produced 79 and 59 kg/capita food waste respectively (Environmental and Climate Change Canada 2019 ; United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) ( 2020 ) and Sinha and Tripathi ( 2021 ) reported household food waste for Southern Asian countries such as Bhutan (79 kg/capita/year), Bangladesh (65 kg/capita/year), and Afghanistan (82 kg/capita/year).

Different sources of food waste

Agricultural waste

Agricultural waste included straw, bagasse, molasses, spent grains, grain husks (rice, maize, and wheat), nut shells (walnuts, coconuts, and groundnuts), fruit and vegetable skins (potato, jackfruit, pomegranates, bananas, and avocados), crop stalks (cotton, plant waste), and animal and bird dung all constitute agriculture waste (Dai et al. 2018 ). Inappropriate use and handling of refrigeration can also lead production of agricultural waste eventually. In India, there are various sources that produce more than 350 million tonnes of agro-industrial waste annually (Madurwar et al. 2013 ). Dai et al. ( 2018 ) reported that maximum agriculture waste including crop straw livestock and poultry manure is produced by the largest grain-producer countries such as China. Consumers are less interested in misshaped or blemished food products therefore cosmetic flaws (resulting in so-called “ugly produce”) are another substantial source of food waste on farms both before and after harvest. Inappropriate use and handling of refrigeration can also lead production of agricultural waste eventually. In recent years, farmers have been forced to leave food in the fields due to labor shortages caused by changing immigration laws (Natural Resources Defence Council 2017). Dai et al. ( 2018 ) reported that maximum agriculture waste including crop straw livestock and poultry manure is produced by the largest grain-producer countries such as China.

Residential waste

Urbanization, rapid economic growth, and unregulated population growth have intensified food consumption, which has raised the proportion of kitchen garbage production each year (Zhao et al. 2017 ). Kitchen waste (KW) is a type of anthropogenic organic waste that is typically produced by canteens, restaurants, homes, public catering facilities, factories, etc. (Liu et al. 2019 ). A wide range of preparation techniques, comprising handling, processing, production, storage, transportation, and consumption are major causes to generate KW. Kitchen wastewater from both commercial and residential kitchens is also produced when food is washed, rinsed, cooked, dishes and cooking utensils are cleaned, and when basic housekeeping is performed (Sharma et al. 2020 ). Typically, KW is made up of 38.2% of fruits, 41.52% of vegetables, 7.62% of staple foods, 7.22% of egg shells and bones, 2.52% of shells and pits, and 2.32% of meat on a wet basis (Zhao et al. 2017 ). A wide range of preparation techniques, comprising handling, processing, production, storage, transportation, and consumption, are major causes to generate KW. Kitchen wastewater from both commercial and residential kitchens is produced when food is washed and rinsed when food is cooked when dishes and cooking utensils are cleaned, and when basic housekeeping is performed (Sharma et al. 2020 ).

Food processing industries

Food processing industries include cereal grain, fruit and vegetable, beverage, dairy products industry, meat, poultry, and egg processing industry, seafood industries, and edible oil industry. The cereal grain (wheat, rice, barley, maize, sorghum, millet, oat, and rye) production reached 2577.85 million tons globally in 2016 (FAO). FAO Amis ( 2017 ) estimated that the production of coarse grains (cereal grains other than wheat and rice) used primarily for animal feed or brewing was 1330.02 million tons. According to Anal ( 2017 ), the processing of grains and pulses results in significant amounts of by-products like bran and germ. India is the greatest producer of pulses in the world, and during processing, a significant amount of husk is obtained (Parate and Talib 2015 ). In the case of fruit and vegetable, waste was produced at several stages of the farm-to-table food supply chain, including those for production, processing, packaging, handling, storage, and transportation (Ji et al. 2017 ). It produces waste only when a consumer removes them from the range of acceptance due to several factors such as microbial attack (rotting, softening, and product surface growth), thermal treatment, biochemical reactions (enzymes, antioxidants, oxygen, phenolic, and flavonoid compounds), discoloration, wounding or chilling, and degree of ripening (Sharma et al. 2020 ). Several countries produced fruit waste and vegetables such as India (50 million tons) (Panda et al. 2016 ), Central de Abasto (895 tonnes), China (1.3 million tonnes) (Ji et al. 2017 ), and the UK (5.5 million tonnes) (FAO 2014 ). India produced about 50 million tons of fruit waste (Panda et al. 2016 ), Central de Abasto produced 895 tonnes of fruit waste per day, China produces 1.3 million tonnes of fruit waste per day (Ji et al. 2017 ), and the UK alone produced 5.5 million tonnes of potatoes (FAO 2014 ). Kiran et al. ( 2014 ) reported that beverage industries generated approximately 105 kilotonnes of waste as broken packages, and spilled beverages. Europe produced around 29 million tonnes of dairy products wasted due to inappropriate handling, processing, and rotting of dairy products due to Fungal contamination and microbial attack (Mahboubi et al. 2017 ). The largest milk-producing country India generated 3.739–11.217 million m 3 of effluent waste per year during the processing of milk, while making cheese a significant amount of whey is produced as a by-product (Parashar et al. 2016 ). Meat poultry and egg processing industry produced a significant quantity of animal by-products (feathers, hairs, skin, horn, hooves, soft meat, and bones,), slaughterhouse waste (blood residue, protein, detergent residues, and high organic matter (carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous)), and wastewater (washing and cleaning purpose) (Ning et al. 2018 ; Adhikari et al. 2018 ). European Union produced around 11 million tonnes annually of this type of waste (Sharma et al. 2020 ). In seafood and aquatic biotic life processing, approximately 50–70% of raw material is wasted every year (Kumar et al. 2018 ). Seafood waste, mainly in the form of crabs, shrimp, and lobster shells which about 6–8 million tonnes of waste worldwide, where a total of 1.5 million tonnes of waste are contributed by Southeast Asia. Waste is produced by the edible oil industry during several processing steps, including degumming, neutralization, bleaching, deodorization, and oxidative or hydrolytic rancidity (Okino-Delgado et al. 2017 ). It was reported that the edible oil industry generated 350.9 million tonnes of de-oiled cake and oil meal as a by-product yearly (Chang et al. 2018 ).

Commercial waste is manmade organic biodegradable waste in sectors such as supermarkets, supercentres, food wholesale, restaurants, and hotels shown in Fig.  1 . Supermarkets and supercentres have generated 8.7 million tons, and food wholesale generated 4 million tons of food waste. Restaurants produced 4 to 10% of raw food waste (Sharma et al. 2020 ). According to Afzal et al. ( 2022 ), the hotels and restaurants sector procured 80% and 92% of chicken and vegetables daily, respectively, and some high-end restaurants and hotels have chicken and meat stock for up to many days in case there is a delay in the supply. Some food was still wasted because several restaurants had a policy of not using certain commodities the next day, such as bread, salad veggies, and dairy goods, and induced the production of food waste due to the size, shape, color, and texture of vegetables and chicken/meat, and they simply discarded those that did not meet their criteria (Diaz-Ruiz et al. 2018 ). The primary source of food waste is reported to be the food leftover by customers in the restaurant, caterers, and buffet settings (Silvennoinen et al. 2015 ; Pirani and Arafat 2016 ) as well as preparing 10–15% of extra food at every event (Afzal et al. 2022 ). The actual cause of plate leftovers depends on various factors such as the restaurant type, their diet price, and the quality of food they served. The second and third biggest causes of food waste in hotels and restaurants were overproduction and food rotting, whereas the major significant causes of storage space and food waste during serving and preparation (Ferreira et al. 2013 ; Afzal et al. 2022 ).

Institutional waste

It is included a hospital, nursing homes, military canter, office buildings, colleges, universities, and K-12 schools that produce 7.2 million tons of wasted food that is harmful to the environment (Food waste warriors report 2020 ). Food, however, is a significant part of the daily waste stream that is generated by patients, healthcare professionals, and visitors. According to the United Nations Environmental Program ( 2012 ), hospitals produce 71% of all healthcare-related solid waste of which 10–15% of food waste is generated during the preparation of food and prepared food that is not consumed or is discarded by patients (Practice Greenhealth 2021 ). Thirty-nine percent of the total meals served to patients have wasted food that was brought back to the kitchen (Saber et al. 2022 ). FW generation in educational institutions varies depending on the number of total meals served to patients where wasted food was brought back to the kitchen (Saber et al. 2022 ). FW generation in educational institutions varies depending on the number of students on campus or off during the summer and winter sessions holidays and school breaks. According to several reports, “the 46 schools created 17.8 kg of food waste per student per year on average at the national level”. The Harvard School of Public Health found that school lunches are wasted annually to the amount of approximately US$ 1.2 billion. However, the WWF (World Wildlife Fund’s) Food Waste Warriors initiative has given classrooms new resources to reduce waste and increase students’ access to healthy food. According to WWF, schools may waste as much as 481,000 metric tonnes of food annually. That is roughly equivalent to the annual food consumption of Atlanta, Georgia’s 510,000 residents (Food Waste Warriors Report Shows Can Be on Frontline Against Food Waste 2020 ). University-contributed FW generation was higher than average during September to November and February to April sessions. Depending on the university schedule, attendance in the months prior to and following these seasons varies and FW generation trends for August, December, January, and May modify correspondingly. FW generation is substantially decreased but not eliminated during the June and July month due to the faculty, graduate students, and scheduled summer events (Armington et al. 2020 ).

Characterization of food waste

Several physical (moisture content, bulk density, and pH) and chemical (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, particle size, C/N, and total carbohydrate) characteristics also include high biodegradability, low handling expenses because of minimum collection and transport cost of food waste make it useful for further waste to worth materials (Cheng and Lo 2016 ). Characterizations of food waste, which is generated in India and some other countries, are shown in Table 1 . Some characteristics of food waste are described below:

Solids content

Compared to animal sludge and sewage sludge, food waste contains more solid matter due to the presence of heavy organic material and its thickness. The use of solids abundant in organic matter is based on their solubilization and consequent microbiological biodegradation. Total solids content estimated was about 20% in household waste (Izhar et al. 2021 ) and less than 10% estimated in garbage collection companies (Kawai et al. 2014 ) and institute dinner hall (Wu et al. 2016 ). The wet bulk density increases significantly from June to August, as compared to May of the FW (Adhikari et al. 2008 ).

C/N ratio and pH of food wastes

Food waste has a low C/N ratio and pH, compared to fruit-vegetable waste due to its high lignocellulose content (Izhar et al. 2021 ). A balanced C/N ratio showed pellets produced from wheat bran, chopped hay, and leftover cattle feed and neutral pH values indicated for pellets of wheat straw, wheat residue, chopped hay, and cardboard. Similarly, the pH of FW was found to be the highest in May and dropped in June, July, and August (Diaz et al. 1993 ; Adhikari et al. 2007). Due to natural acidity, the pH of food waste ranges between 7.26 and 8.14 except for wet market food waste. Most citrus fruits, apples, and tomatoes are an example of naturally acidic in nature, whereas meats and vegetables generally have a pH between 4.6 and 5.3 (FDA (Food and Drug Administration) 2012 ).

Fatty acids

Generally, food waste has a high ether extract content (Fung et al. 2018 ). Restaurant food waste ranged from 17 to 24% ether extract content on a dry basis (Myer et al. 2000 ; Chae et al. 2000 ), and lower ether extract content in food waste from a dining university and leftover food (Cho et al. 2004 ; Fung et al. 2018 ). Lower ether extract content in food waste from commercial and residential locations was reported by Castrica et al. ( 2018 ), whereas higher ether extract content in leftover food was generated by restaurants and a hotel (Asar and Genç  2018 ). Our traditional diet contained significantly higher saturated and monounsaturated fatty acid contents than restaurant food waste (Choe et al. 2017 ).

Several studies have been done on the vitamin contents in food waste. These findings differed from those of earlier research, according to Georganas et al. ( 2020 ), in which the niacin and pantothenic acid concentrations of restaurant and hotel waste were more. Animal proteins in the poultry diet have been shown to perform better than plant proteins in prior studies during this century. B-complex vitamins are present in all animal products, but not in plants especially attributed higher content of riboflavin in dried skimmed milk and whey. Therefore, food waste that contains animal, as well as microorganism products, may have considerable contents of vitamins important in swine and poultry nutrition, which is much higher than in plant-based food waste (Leeson and Summers 2001 ).

According to Myer et al. ( 2000 ), mineral content in restaurant waste ranged from 3 to 6% on a dry basis in different observations. Food waste from a university canteen, restaurant, hotel, and commercial and residential areas contained minerals equal to 5.01%, 14.75%, 12.6%, and 14.56% on a dry basis, respectively (Kwak and Kang 2006 ; Asar and Genç 2018 ; Fung et al. 2018 ; Slopiecka et al. 2022 ). Macro and micronutrients such as phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and calcium are also estimated in food waste generated from university, and college canteens, restaurants, and commercial and residential areas (Castrica et al. 2018 ; Fung et al. 2018 ).

Amino acids

Animal products (fish, eggs, flush, butter, whey, and milk) contain a higher concentration of amino acids compared to the protein supplements of plant-originated food products (Leeson and Summers 2001 ). Qualitative and quantitative dietary protein is significantly contained in poultry and swine nutrition. A different study showed that restaurant food waste, leftover food from households, and the food service sector contain 15 to 23%, 22%, and 27.6% respectively on a dry basis crude protein (Myer et al. 1999 , 2000 ; Cho et al. 2004 ; Castrica et al. 2018 ). Fung et al. ( 2018 ) analyzed the amino acid profile of food waste generated from a university residential dining hall which was approximately 18.9% on a dry basis and Choe et al. ( 2017 ) analyzed the amino acid profile of restaurant waste and traditional meals for growing-finishing pigs and reported many amino acids were quite similar while some of the amino acids such as threonine and valine were higher concentration in restaurant food waste. Food waste from restaurants and hotels mainly leftover food from consumers contained higher crude protein (Asar and Genç  2018 ). Food waste recovered from restaurants and apartment complex sectors had a far lower concentration of most essential amino acids, like methionine and lysine than a cornmeal and soybean mixture produced (60%:40% ratio) (Chae et al. 2000 ). Additionally, due to the processing and heating of food waste, it is essential to determine the digestibility of amino acids present prior to feeding them to animals (Fung et al. 2018 ).

Biodegradability

The majority of municipal solid waste consisted of organic components that produced biodegradable food waste. Typically, food waste is made up of degradable carbohydrates (41–62%), proteins (15–25%), and lipids (13–30%) (Braguglia et al. 2017 ). Waste can be originated from food preparation or as fruit-vegetable waste, agriculture waste, pulses, and cereals are characterized as readily degradable, and this rapid biodegradability of volatile solids in the different types of food waste results in the acidification and volatile fatty acids accumulation (Izhar et al. 2021 ).

Factors affecting food waste biodegradation

The efficient decomposition of organic food wastes into mature natural composts depends on several important and dominating factors (Fig.  2 ). Assessing the development of preferred dominant parameters such as a change in the rate of aeration, carbon to nitrogen ratio, temperature, and pH is important to characterize the potential of a composting process of the food wastes (Juárez et al. 2015 ). These elements are crucial for creating an ideal environment for anaerobic microbes to function with high metabolic activity.

Factors affecting the biodegradation of food wastes

According to the study of Pathak et al. ( 2012 ), Jhansi City is a well-known district in Uttar Pradesh’s Bundelkhand region, covering a land area of 502.75 thousand hectares. The district is located in the region’s southwest corner at 24° 11′–25° 57′ N latitude and 78° 10′–79° 23′ E longitude. Food waste was collected from door to door in Jhansi City, Uttar Pradesh (India) in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 and composted in a biocomposter for 135 days. The highest temperature recorded was 64 °C, which decreased to 32.7 °C at the ambient temperature, and the moisture content was 55.8%, which decreased to 21.7% on day 36. The loss of moisture content was caused by the high temperature. For the pH, an acidic pH was recorded during the early days of composting due to the production of organic acids; the pH rose to 8.6 but then dropped to 6.3. This was caused by the ammonification and mineralization of organic matter by microorganisms. The nutrient compositions of N, P, and K ranged from 1.16 to 1.20%, 0.03 to 0.053%, and 0.30 to 0.38%, respectively, while heavy metal content ranged from 45.25 to 48.39 mg/kg, zinc (51.1 to 54.4 mg/kg), and iron (1134.8 to1274.2 mg/kg). In 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, the EC (S/cm) of mature food waste compost was 1288.0, 1324.0, 1277, and 1251.0, respectively. In 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, the organic carbon (%) of mature food waste compost was 23.0, 24.0, 26.0, and 21.0, respectively. This study reveals a reduction in microbial counts as well as microbial succession without a definite pattern and lower microbial counts at the end of the composting period. Food waste compost contained a significant amount of nutrients for plant growth. Food waste composting has the potential to be a useful recycling tool. Its safe use in agriculture, however, is dependent on the production of high-quality compost, specifically compost that is mature and low in metals and salt content.

Gautam et al. ( 2010 ) conducted another study using mixed vegetable and fruit wastes. As a composting area, a heap 4′ high and 8′ long was used. The ambient temperature was measured to be between 35 and 45 °C. The initial moisture content was kept between 50 and 60%. Every 3 to 5 days, the compost heap was turned over to aerate it. During the composting process, the maximum temperature ranged from 48 to 50 °C. The moisture content and pH ranged from 25 to 41% and 7.75 to 7.84. The contents of N, P, and K ranged from 0.03 to 0.07%, 0.002 to 0.005%, and 0.32 to 0.36%, respectively. However, when compared to the standard concentration, the N concentration was insufficient. As a result, this study proposed adding phosphoric acid to avoid unnecessary ammonia volatilization.

In another study, Arslan et al. ( 2011 ) composted kitchen waste using an in-vessel composter. The composting process would take 22 days. The compost was mixed with 2 kg of sludge as inoculum and 3.5 kg of sawdust. On day 2, the temperature was recorded at 55 °C, and this temperature was maintained on day 7. The initial pH value was 5.5, and the moisture content ranged from 48 to 53%. The C: N ratio decreased from 35.92 to 19.69, while the total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) increased from 1.43 to 2.45% at the end of composting. Heavy metal content was tested for chromium, cadmium, zinc, copper, iron, and nickel. The cadmium concentration was below the detection limit, while the others were 22.4 mg/kg, 190.7 mg/kg, 35 mg/kg, 2641.75 mg/kg, and 15.33 mg/kg, respectively.

Food waste was primarily utilized in two stages in a study conducted by Patel et al. ( 2021 ). The carbohydrates and proteins from the food waste were extracted by following the enzymatic hydrolytic pathway by cultivating heterotrophic microalgae on the food waste products, resulting in a biomass yield of 0.346 ± 0.09/g sugars and a lipid yield of 0.216 ± 0.06/g sugars. In the second stage, oil (14.15% w/w) was extracted from the same food waste using hydrolysis and converted into biodiesel using a simple two-step transesterification reaction, yielding 135.8 g of fatty acid methyl esters/kg of food waste and 13.8 g of crude glycerol/kg of food waste, respectively. Finally, crude glycerol obtained from both processes was used at 20 g/L to cultivate heterotrophic microalgae, yielding cell dry weight and total lipid concentrations of 6.23 g/L and 2.91 g/L, respectively. This integrated process yielded 248.21 g of fatty acid methyl esters from 1 kg of food waste. This was one of the documented successful methods of producing biodiesel from food waste (Patel et al. 2019 ).

pH level indicator is one of the main physical factors frequently used to track microbial activities during the composting of food wastes. pH typically exhibits a pattern of a fall in the early stages and an increase in the later stages of composting (Chan et al. 2016 ). The release of potassium and organic acids increases the saturation of the composting process during the ideal pH (7–8) of the compost (Kalemelawa et al. 2012 ). The pH of compost is decreased due to the mineralization of phosphorus and the volatilization of ammonium ions by nitrifying bacteria (Wang et al. 2016 ). Experimental evidence has demonstrated that the pH drops to an abnormally low level during the transition from a mesophilic to a thermophilic phase at the industrial level. However, as the organic component degrades, the proteins raise the pH, and this alkalinization may make it difficult for pH-sensitive microbes to persist during those that are sensitive to pH changes (Paradelo et al. 2013 ). Recent studies showed that the pH ranges between 7.5 and 8.5 (Zhang and Sun 2016 ), 6.7–9 (Rich and Bharti 2015 ), 5.5–8 (Chen et al. 2015 ), and 8.0 to 8.5 (Juárez et al. 2015 ). During the decomposition of food wastes, the additives such as wood ash, zeolite, and calcium carbonate are utilized at crucial stages to control the pH level bring the pH level into balance, and speed up the biodegradation process. (Paradelo et al. 2013 ; Juárez et al. 2015 ; Chan et al. 2016 ).

Temperature

Temperature is considered one of the key determining factor that advance the composting process in two stages: active and mature (final product, i.e., organic matter) (Zhang et al. 2012 ; Zhao et al. 2016a , b ). An increase in temperature during the early phase typically speeds up the breakdown process of food wastes with dominant microbes, while a decrease in temperature makes the compost appropriate even with beneficial microorganisms (Kulikowska 2016 ). A change in temperature disturbs the physicochemical properties of organic composts, favoring some bacteria and increasing the strength of the substrates and composts, which has a direct impact on treatment effectiveness (Chen et al. 2015 ).

There are several temperature ranges where anaerobic digestion can occur, including psychrophilic (below 20 °C), mesophilic (25–40 °C), and thermophilic (45–60 °C) (Chiu and Lo 2016 ). According to research, mesophilic activity operates best between 35 and 45 °C and thermophilic activity around 55 to 65 °C (Moset et al. 2015 ). As the temperature rises, the rates of anaerobic digestion, methane production, bacterial growth, and metabolic rate all increase (El-Mashad et al. 2004 ; Kim et al. 2006 ). The production of biogas doubled when anaerobic digestion occurred under thermophilic conditions compared to psychrophilic ones. Additionally, it was noted that under thermophilic conditions, reduced ammonia inhibition was seen (Morales-Polo et al. 2018 ). In addition, Smith et al. ( 2005 ) showed that higher temperatures can accelerate the speed at which pathogens are destroyed during anaerobic digestion (Smith et al. 2005 ). However, high temperatures in thermophilic environments will have undesirable effects. Increasing the amount of free ammonia, for instance, may limit microbial activity and disrupt the thermophilic process. Lohani and Havukainen ( 2018 ) stated that the utilization of mesophilic conditions is more appropriate in the existing anaerobic digestion facilities, even though it requires a longer retention time (Lohani and Havukainen 2018 ).

The regular turning of the organic materials throughout the composting process provides aeration which facilitates the digestion of organic materials by the microorganisms. Adequate aeration directly affects waste stabilization since excessive aeration or turning could cause vital components to be lost while insufficient aeration could shorten the composting process (Awasthi et al. 2014 ). A high rate of hygienization typically improves the turning ratio, and there is a correlation between the turning frequency and the physicochemical characteristics of waste that serve as a measure of composting effectiveness. In the meantime, it significantly affects other factors that influence the compost’s maturity (Getahun et al. 2012 ). Aeration has been shown to be an efficient approach for degradation and homogeneity in composting processes involving various organic components (i.e., poultry manure, wheat straw, municipal solid wastes, sewage sludge animal dung, barks, and green waste) (Petric et al. 2012 ). According to Li et al. ( 2015a b ) and Mohee et al. (2015a, b), mixing the feed composition for 30 min each day increased the compost’s quality. Rotating the feed mixture sustains air distribution and oxygen consumption (Petric et al. 2015).

Microorganisms produce energy and release nutrients including C, N, P, and K through their metabolic activity during the decomposition of waste (Chen et al. 2011 ; Iqbal et al. 2015 ). The anaerobic microbes appear to require nitrogen as one of the main nutrients for growth. The uptake of nitrogen from the substrate is dependent on the nature of the microbes (Kondusamy and Kalamdhad 2014 ). The researchers Kondusamy and Kalamdhad ( 2014 ) concluded that bacteria use carbon 25–35 times more efficiently than they use nitrogen. As a result, Kondusamy and Kalamdhad ( 2014 ) suggested a C/N ratio of 25–30:1 to ensure the highest level of bacterial activity. Due to the lower microbial population, the digestion of carbon requires a longer time period in low nitrogen conditions. On the other hand, too much nitrogen can hinder a process since it results in the production of ammonia.

The toxicity of solid waste can be decreased by diluting it with water to decrease the effect of ammonia inhibition (Kondusamy and Kalamdhad 2014 ). Thus, it may be inferred that carbon and nitrogen are both necessary to support and increase the microbial population. In a pH-controlled condition, Wang et al. ( 2012 ) found that a C/N ratio of 27.2 produced the highest methane yield. Dairy manure, wheat straw, and chicken dung were employed as co-substrates in the study. In fact, introducing an ideal carbon content can have a good impact on preventing excessive ammonia inhibition (Pramanik et al. 2019 ). In general, the C/N ratio needs to be lower initially, though it might be greater and decrease the decomposition rate of waste (Chen et al. 2011 ; Awasthi et al. 2014 ). In order to increase the C/N ratio and porosity of the organic composition, bulking agents like rice husk (helps to boost the contaminant removal efficiency as well as protect the cell from stress responses due to changes in edaphic characteristics, i.e., pH, salinity, and toxicity) and peanut shells are added with it (Wang et al. 2015 ; Zhang and Sun 2016 ).

Moisture content

Changes in temperature, oxygen uptake rate, and open-air space during composting promote microbial development, but these factors also have a direct impact on the moisture content of degrading materials (Petric et al. 2012 ). The ideal moisture concentration for biological conversion ranged from 40 to 70%, and as the moisture content rises, the rates of gas diffusion and oxygen uptake may be decreased (Luangwilai et al. 2011 ). Compost’s water content is influenced by temperature and, as it distributes soluble nutrients, slows microbial activities if the moisture range decreases (Guo et al. 2012 ; Varma and Kalamdhad 2015 ). Strong decomposition of waste is indicated by a decrease in moisture content since extremely low moisture levels might result in early dehydration while higher moisture levels can result in the formation of water logs and affect the composting process (Makan et al. 2014 ).

The compost matrix must be air-circulated in order to maintain optimum porosity, which allows water and fully aerobic conditions for the proper growth of water-content microbes. The ideal porosity level is measured by locating a free air space using an empirical method that is dependent on bulk density and particle size. The ideal bulking agents are cereal residue pellets and wood chips, although the free air space is maintained at 30–33% (Ku¨lcu¨ 2015 ) or 30–50% throughout the process (Schwalb et al. 2011 ). Depending on how food waste is treated, it is always necessary to alter the porosity ratio (Ku¨lcu¨ 2015 ; Mu et al. 2017 ).

Particle size

Particle size contributes to maintaining aeration, and larger particle sizes typically slow down the process of decomposition while smaller sizes may cause the mass to condense. Particle size variation directly affects the water-holding capacity and gas-to-water exchange potentials (Zhang and Sun 2014 ). The composting process can determine the particle size by using a sieving method (Ge et al. 2015 ).

The inclusion of inoculating agents such as Clostridium , Cellulomonas , Pseudomonas , Bacillus spp. , and Thermoactionmycetes along with fungal species such as Aspergillus , Trichoderma , and Sclerotium , which accelerate the decomposition of organic materials, enhance the natural composting process (Karnchanawong and Nissaikla 2014 ; Onwosi et al. 2017 ). These inoculants may consist of a particular strain, e.g., seeding inoculums containing Bacillus azotofixams , B. megaterium , B. mucilaginous , effective microorganism (EM), and Trichoderma sp. In composting putrescible kitchen waste, cellulolytic strains and white-rot fungi were very efficient in accelerating the degradation rate of composting products (Zhao et al. 2016a , b ; Hou et al. 2017 ), a commercialized mixture of many species such as Trichoderma spp. (60%, v/v) and Phanerochaete chrysosporium Burdsall (40%, v/v), lactic acid bacteria, yeast, and photosynthetic bacteria (Manu et al. 2017 ; Van Fan et al. 2018 ), or even mature compost (Karnchanawong and Nissaikla 2014 ; Kinet et al. 2015 ).

Nutrient balance

Food waste compositions typically contain greater salt concentrations; however, with the right grinding and filtering, any harmful contaminants could be eliminated. Compost contains heavy metals such as Pb, Cu, Cd, Cr, and Ni (Huerta Pujol et al. 2011 ).

Oxygen uptake

The rates of aeration, temperature, time, as well as circumstances, and location of the compost are the main factors focused on composting mass stability (Bari and Koenig 2012 ). Aeration supplies oxygen for oxidation while enabling excess moisture to evacuate, which has a direct impact on compost stability (Guo et al. 2012 ). Physicochemical characteristics are used to assess the breakdown rates of organic waste before and after composting to determine which is the best (Rich and Bharti 2015 ). According to Tata`no et al. ( 2015 ), forced aeration is also required to produce excessive heat. A vacuum pump is used for aeration (Sun et al. 2011 ), and a mechanical air compressor is employed to circulate the air. Airflow measurement is calibrated using an airflow meter (Petric et al. 2015 ).

Microbial growth

The major goal in controlling the composting system is to maintain the stability of compost, which is often regulated by the systematic development of the microbial community. The respiration index of microbes plays a direct effect in the breakdown of organic waste (Rich and Bharti 2015 ). A high surface area and a porous space are produced with sufficient microbial development, creating ideal conditions for composting (Luo et al. 2014 ).

Odor and color

The process of keeping compost stable results in gas emissions, which have a significant impact on the sustainability of the environment (Nasini et al. 2016 ). The primary sources of secondary environmental pollution, which have a significant impact on air quality, are typically by-product emissions such as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH 3 ), hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (Adhikari et al. 2013 ; Jiang et al. 2015 ).

Retention time

The retention time is another important characteristic that must be examined regularly. Retention time is the amount of time needed to finish substrate degradation or the average amount of time substrate spends in the digester (Deepanraj et al. 2014 ; Mao et al. 2015 ). For microorganisms to transform organic substrates into biogas, sufficient retention time is needed (Khoo et al. 2021 ). There are two different kinds of retention times: solid retention time (SRT) and hydraulic retention time (HRT). According to Deepanraj et al. ( 2014 ), HRT refers to the amount of time that the digester’s liquid sludge will remain there, whereas SRT refers to the amount of time that the solid (bacteria) will remain there. In addition, it was demonstrated that the pace of bacterial development in relation to retention time depends on the OLR, substrate configuration, and operating temperature (Mao et al. 2015 ). According to studies (Kothari et al. 2014 ; Sánchez et al. 2015 ), organic waste have varied retention time depending on the temperature. For instance, mesophilic conditions call for a retention period of 10 to 40 days, but thermophilic conditions call for a shorter retention period. According to Mao et al. ( 2015 ), the average normal retention time in mesophilic anaerobic digesters is 15 to 30 days. Increased acclimatization to various pH ranges and types of hazardous substances will be brought on by a longer retention time, as will an increase in the digester capacity that must be used, a reduction in volatile solids, and a greater volatile solids reduction. Chandra et al. ( 2012 ) showed that when the retention time is shorter, less digester capacity is required, which reduces investment costs while maintaining the quantity and quality of biogas. According to Gerardi ( 2003 ), biological adaptation to hazardous chemicals may result in a rise in bacterial concentration and digester volume when a longer SRT is applied. According to studies, using a longer SRT decreased methane output (Chen et al. 2018 ). When the SRT was 6 days, the maximum methane output was noted.

Volatile fatty acid (VFA)

According to Luo et al. ( 2019 ), VFA formation may restrict anaerobic digestion and lower biogas generation. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that VFA concentrations can influence every stage of anaerobic digestion, particularly the hydrolysis and acidogenesis stages (Kondusamy and Kalamdhad 2014 ). According to Bouallagui et al. ( 2005 ), a decrease in pH results in the loss of activity of acid-sensitive enzymes, which inhibits the VFA of the methanogen. Additionally, a lot of undissociated acids may pass through cell membranes and break down macromolecules. In addition, it was shown that the ideal VFA range for metabolic activity is between 2000 and 3000 mg/L (Paritosh et al. 2017 ). Cellulolytic activity will be decreased when the VFA concentration reaches 2 g/L. Due to the effects of VFA on the rate of cellulose hydrolysis and glucose fermentation, biogas production can be significantly reduced when VFA concentrations are over 4 g/L. When cellulose and paper are co-digested, as demonstrated by Siegert and Banks ( 2005 ), biogas production decreases at a VFA concentration of 1 g/L. When VFA accumulates in a particular area, it disrupts the microbial consortia, which leads to process inhibition and failure (Kondusamy and Kalamdhad 2014 ).

Organic loading rate (OLR)

OLR stands for “chemical oxygen demand per unit reactor volume” or “substrate amount” (Dhar et al. 2016 ). This parameter needs to be under control because it could have an impact on stability, cost, and process performance. In the study conducted by Morken et al. ( 2018 ), it was demonstrated that as OLR raised from 1.8 to 5.0 kg VS/m 3 d, the methane output increased by 479%. It has been demonstrated that OLR can affect both the output of biogas and the microbial community. The best time to increase biogas production is when the OLR is at its ideal level. The phases of anaerobic digestion will be out of balance if the OLR is over the recommended amount, which will result in an accumulation of VFA and process inhibition. In reality, an elevated OLR will result in process failure and irreversible acidification. Under mesophilic conditions, the methane yield may be maintained when the OLR of 1.0 kg VS/m 3 d is increased to 2.5 kg VS/m 3 d (Guo et al. 2014 ). It was discovered that when mesophilic conditions were used, there was a larger diversity and abundance of microorganisms maintained in the anaerobic digester.

Current scenario of food waste generation in different countries

Food waste is gaining global attention as a type of municipal solid waste (MSW). According to the EPA’s 2018 wasted food report, the USA generates 93.4 million tonnes of food waste each year, which equates to approximately 285.8 kg per capita (United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2020 ). Food waste accounted for 21.6% of all MSW generated in 2018, and food waste output has steadily increased over the last 50 years (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2022 ). Landfills are now the most popular destination for food waste, accounting for 36% of total food waste generated (United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2020 ).

The estimate of household food waste, which is based on approximately 100 data points from a variety of nations representing 75% of the world’s population, is the most reliable of the three sectors, i.e., households, retail, and food services. The estimates for the retail and food service industries, in contrast, are based on each of about 30 data points, the majority of which are from high-income nations. For food service and retail, countries having measurable data points made up 32% and 14% of the global population, respectively. The table below lists the amount of household food waste produced in each UNEP area (Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific, West Asia, North America, and Europe) (Table 2 ).

Food waste is mainly caused by consumer habits such as buying more food than necessary, cooking too much food for meals, and throwing away leftovers (von Massow and Martin 2015). According to estimates by Stenmarck et al. ( 2016 ), households in the European Union (EU) account for 53% (92 kg per person) of all food waste, compared to 12% (21 kg per person) from the hospitality and food services industry and 30% (51 kg per person) from the food production and processing sectors. Since 2010, consumer behavior and household food waste have received increased attention in the literature, and several reviews have been undertaken to summarize the available data (Principato 2018 ; Stangherlin and de Barcellos 2018 ). Household food waste is connected to a variety of consumer food-related behaviors (Schanes et al. 2018 ). When compared to other practices, some contribute to significantly higher levels of waste such as only shopping at major supermarkets, while others such as using shopping lists and meal plans contribute to lower levels (Stangherlin and de Barcellos 2018 ). These actions are part of larger household food provisioning activities that include planning, buying, storing, preparing, eating, and disposing of food (Roodhuyzen et al. 2017 ).

According to the most recent data collected by FSSAI ( 2022 ), India is the world’s second-largest producer of food, accounting for nearly 10.1% of total global food production. Despite such values, India has nearly 196 million undernourished people, the second-highest number in the world, as India has been interpreted to house 25% of the world’s hungry people, and statistical studies (primarily conducted and reported by the Food and Agricultural Organization) have revealed that as of 2021, the amount of food waste generated in India accounts for nearly 40% of its total food production (by weight), which includes household waste, with each individual throwing away approximately 50 kg of food per year (Roe et al. 2021 ). According to the article, Indian families waste 50 kg of food per capita per year, the lowest figure in South Asia. In 2019, 931 million tonnes of food were wasted worldwide, with households wasting the most (570 million tonnes), followed by the food service and retail sectors (Pal and Bhatia 2022 ).

According to Biswas and Parida ( 2021 ), food waste accounts for more than half of the solid waste produced in a country. Bobbili is a historic town in Andhra Pradesh’s Vizianagaram district. It produces 21.5 tonnes of waste per day (320 g per person per day). The summary of waste generation (%), with food waste accounted for 34% and other non-biodegradable waste accounted for 66%. For more than 10 years, the town has prohibited the use of plastic bags and pouches. The town’s crowning achievement, however, is the processing of food waste. In terms of waste processing rate, Bobbili is now one of the top ten municipalities in the country. It categorizes waste into three types and generates significant revenue from processing and recycling.

As per the data of Biswas and Parida ( 2021 ), Mysuru is located in the Chamundi Hills, 770 m above sea level. With a land area of 155 square kilometers, it is Karnataka’s second-largest city after Bangalore. It is a popular tourist destination and is also known as the City of Palaces. Mysuru got its first municipal committee in 1862, a sanitary division in 1885, and the City Improvement Trust Board, India’s first urban planning body, in 1903. To manage food waste, which accounts for the majority of municipal solid waste, Mysuru City Corporation has implemented decentralized waste management. Mysuru City attracts a large number of tourists throughout the year due to its cultural history and pleasant climate, which contributes to waste generation. Prior to 2014, the waste scenario was similar to that of other cities. Municipal solid waste is typically composed of approximately 55% food waste and 45% non-biodegradable waste. Mysuru City Corporation launched a decentralized biodegradable waste management system, also known as zero-waste management, in 2009. Mysuru City Corporation is a forerunner in the implementation of scientific waste handling and management practices. Following the collection of segregated waste, food waste is directed to a centralized compost unit on the outskirts of the city with a capacity of 200 tonnes per day (TPD). Non-biodegradable waste is collected at one of the city’s 43 collection centers.

According to the study of Biswas and Parida ( 2021 ), Vengurla, a town in the Maharashtra district of Sindhudurg, has one of the state’s oldest municipal councils. It reportedly generates over 3 tonnes of waste per day, with approximately 82% of that being food waste and the remaining 18% being all other waste. The town claims to be a zero-waste city because it processes 100% of its food waste. Until recently, the Vengurla Municipal Council (VMC) would collect all mixed waste and dump it in a dumping ground at Parabwada. The dumping ground not only contributed to poor air quality due to emissions and groundwater pollution due to leachate generation but it also contributed to marine pollution. The VMC (Vengurla Municipal Council) generates over 2.7 TPD (tonnes per day) of biodegradable waste, of which 2.5 TPD is processed centrally and 0.208 TPD is processed decentrally. This dual system has served the town well.

The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), with the help and support of NEERI, conducted a survey of solid waste management in 59 cities (35 metro cities and 24 state Capitals: 2004–05). Table 3 depicts the quantity and quality of generated food waste. Over the last few decades, the amount of waste generated per capita has increased at an annual rate of 1 to 1.33% (Shekdar 1999 ). If current trends continue, India’s waste generation will likely increase from less than 40,000 tonnes per year to more than 125,000 tonnes by 2030. (Srishti 2000 ). Furthermore, in some cities, the rate of per capita generation is high (Port Blair, Kochi, Chennai, Vishakhapatnam, Pondicherry, Kolkata, Jammu, Delhi, and Hyderabad). This could be due to these cities’ high living standards, rapid economic growth, and high levels of urbanization. Increased waste generation is frequently associated with economic growth, increased industrialization, population growth, and higher living standards (Minghua et al. 2009 ). Compostable materials (40–60%) and inerts (30–50%) make up most of the municipal solid waste in urban areas. Food waste (44%) made up the majority of MSW, followed by recyclables such as paper, plastics, glass, and metals (Mohee et al. 2015a , b ). Food is the main source of all life and the most important consumable daily; as a result, it contributes significantly to MSW. Food waste is a significant constituent with a high percentage of all MSW constituents (Bhat et al. 2013 ).

Environmental impacts of food waste disposal

When food is wasted rather than eaten, the environmental effects of food production and consumption are further compounded. According to the FAO, one third of all food produced for human consumption worldwide is lost or wasted along the whole supply chain (FAO 2011 ). In 2019, around 931 million tonnes of food were wasted globally, accounting for 17% of all food consumed (Zhou et al. 2022 ). Owing to the country’s distinctive eating patterns, food waste in India has excessive moisture, organic, and oil content (Li et al. 2016 ). As a result of incorrect and common food disposal practices, which have detrimental environmental effects, a significant amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and foul odor discharge occur (Xia et al. 2022 ). There have been several small-scale operations regarding the environmental impacts of food waste disposal but such studies have not been so fruitful. The execution of massive industrial practical applications and the field operating conditions could ensure the accuracy and reliability of the life cycle inventory in order to assess the environment associated with food waste disposal procedures (Matsuda et al. 2012 ).

According to Adhikari et al. ( 2009a , b ), the most common five food waste disposal methods utilized in India are landfills, composting, animal feeding, incineration, and anaerobic digestion. India produces a lot of food waste, but its techniques for disposing of it are quite inadequate; instead, organic garbage is typically dumped at landfills (Thi et al. 2015 ). Landfills are the most common method of food waste disposal in developing nations including India, which accounts for approx. 90% of the total food waste (Thi et al. 2015 ). But this practice is not encouraged in the reality due to its increased probability of producing disease vectors and releasing greenhouse gases (Louis 2004 ; Adhikari et al. 2009a , b ). Composting is one of the most effective techniques for food waste disposal in flourishing countries like India where there are presently more than 70 composting establishments, which recycle up to 5.9% of the annual total of food waste, producing over 4.3 million tonnes of compost (Thi et al. 2015 ). Because the organic portion of the waste stream is kept out of landfills, composting is one of the easiest ways to stop methane emissions. Although composting does release carbon dioxide into the environment, it is currently regarded as a carbon–neutral process since it does not take into account the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by photosynthesis to form organic matter (Hoornweg et al. 1999 ). Other beneficial effects of composting on the environment include less need for landfill disposal, reduced surface and groundwater contamination, lower air pollution from burning garbage, less erosion, and increased effectiveness of synthetic fertilizers (Hoornweg et al. 1999 ).

Although it is currently forbidden in the European Union to feed municipal food waste to cattle, this practice is widespread in developing nations like India, and there is rising interest in its potential to substitute for highly significant, more expensive than traditional livestock feed (Salemdeeb et al. 2017 ). Animal feeding as a method of food waste disposal is a very efficient practice in India that has several positive impacts on the environment with reduced methane emissions being a prominent one. Waste can be decreased by 95% and the amount of land required by incinerating it. Incineration uses filters to capture harmful gases and pollutants; therefore, it pollutes the environment less than landfills. Incinerators offer significant odor and noise reduction in addition to operating within the required pollution restrictions. Because they are running at a very high temperature, which is best suited for enormous calorific value waste, they eliminate germs and chemicals (Paulraj et al. 2019 ). These are some of the positive impacts of the incineration of food wastes which greatly improve the environmental quality.

Anaerobic digestion and in-vessel composting, two major natural food waste disposal technologies, are used to evaluate the impacts on the environment. These two techniques are the most often used for organized food waste disposal in large cities, with tonnages ranging from hundreds to thousands (Jin et al. 2021 ). The four metrics of global warming potential, nutritional enhancement, photochemical ozone production, and acidity are the major criteria used to assess the environmental impact of any method of disposing of food waste (Oyoo et al. 2014 ). Around 57.02 kg of CO 2 -equivalent/tonne from anaerobic digestion went toward global warming capacity. With a value of 18.3 kg CO 2 -equivalent/tonne, the incineration of biogas waste was the biggest contributor to global warming potential in anaerobic digestion (Zhou et al. 2022 ). The methane emission from both anaerobic digestion and in-vessel composting leachate treatment processes constituted a significant source of environmental burden for photochemical ozone formation. The primary source of nutrient enrichment in in-vessel composting was nitrate released into fresh water by the surface application of compost, with a quantity of 0.65 kg NO 3 equivalent/tonne. The avoidance of fossil CO 2 in the combustion cycle and carbon consistency through nutrient management use could prevent the transition from the burning of biogas left over the land application, increasing global warming potential avoidance by 52.8%. The environmental performance of the anaerobic digestion system may be more significantly impacted by advancements in the biogas residue management process (Zhou et al. 2022 ).

Sustainable approaches for food waste management

Various methods such as animal feeding, composting (organic fertilizers), anaerobic digestion, incineration, and landfill are applied for the treatment of food waste. Illegal open dumps and landfills are the primary methods frequently used in food waste management because of their high rate of use for treating food waste (Adhikari et al. 2006 , 2009). Based on the current data for FW treatments in developing countries, the common FW treatment method is dumping/landfills, which account for over 90% of FW treatment, and the second most used method is composting which accounts for 1 to 6%. Anaerobic digestion is used for the treatments of 0.6% food waste whereas other treatments, such as incineration and animal feeding are rarely used.

Animal feeding of food waste

The legislative laws of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan encourage using FW to feed animals which compose 33%, 81%, and 72.1% of total FW generation, respectively (Gen et al. 2006 ; Kim et al. 2011 ). The separation and collection of FWs are not properly practiced in developing countries and therefore, almost all of the generated FW is mixed with MSW, which could not be purified and utilized for animal feeding.

Anaerobic digestion of food waste

Since 2006, several affluent nations in Asia and the European Union have used anaerobic digestion (AD) extensively for FW treatment (Abbasi et al. 2012 ). Contrarily, it is noted that AD is still not widely used as a significant therapeutic strategy for FW control in developing nations. A number of institutions and NGOs in China and India have set up various anaerobic digesters on a domestic and commercial scale to improve AD technology (Christian and Dübendorf 2007 ). India, for instance, opened biogas facilities that are used by several institutions and adopted AD on a trial basis. In China, twenty MSW, FW, and manure co-fermentation AD projects are being planned for or are already in operation, despite the fact that FW-based AD facilities have not yet been constructed on a large scale. However, the majority of these AD may not operate well because of technical issues, poor operations, or management rules (Christian and Dübendorf 2007 ). To dispose of FW in landfills, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam typically combine AD with composting (Forbes et al. 2001). Meanwhile, employing AD and the aerobic composting technique, Thailand and Jamaica have made substantial progress in integrating FW treatment facilities. Thailand’s Rayong facility utilizes organic MSW from foods, vegetables, and fruit waste to produce organic fertilizer and biogas (Christian and Dübendorf 2007 ). Carib Share Biogas Group in Jamaica processes FW using AD to provide energy for remote areas.

Composting of food waste

Composting is an effective way to get rid of FW load in developing nations. There are already more than 70 composting facilities in India that process mixed MSW. These facilities recycle up to 5.9% of the total quantity of FW to produce over 4.3 million tonnes of compost annually. Nearly every composting facility accepts mixed trash, while two units in Vijayawada and Suryapetare city in India are known to accept source-separated organic waste (Ranjith et al.  2012 ).

Incineration of food waste

Reduced waste volume and required landfill area can be achieved by effective incineration of food waste. Many nations including Singapore and the USA have adopted this technique (Khoo et al. 2010 ). Incineration is an expensive procedure when compared to alternative therapies (high capital and maintenance cost) and needs expensive equipment and highly sophisticated operations to reduce gas emission leftovers. According to Yates and Gutberlet ( 2011 ), incineration is not commonly used for FW treatment in developing nations, Brazil and Ukraine.

Landfill of food waste

The primary FW treatment technique used in all developing nations is open dumps or landfills, which account for 90% of all the FW, disposed of in landfills. Numerous modern landfills capture potentially hazardous landfill gas emissions and turn them into electricity (USEPA 2020 ). Many nations, such as Brazil, Turkey, Malaysia, Mexico, Costa Rica, Romania, South Africa, Belarus, China, Jamaica, Ukraine, Nigeria, and Vietnam, are currently disposing of unsorted foreign waste in landfills, and it is estimated that 20 to 80% of all the foreign waste worldwide has not yet been separated from MSW (Adhikari et al. 2006 ). Landfills are not currently seen to be a practical option for treating FW due to the biodegradability of FW and the possibility of disease vectors produced by FW in landfills, (Louis 2004 ). In addition, landfilling FW can result in an 8% rise in greenhouse gas emissions (Adhikari et al. 2009a , b ).

India’s current laws and regulations on the management of food waste

The Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MOEF & CC) implemented the solid waste management (SWM) rule in 2016, with the goal of channeling waste to wealth through 3R (recovery, reuse, and recycling). All approach hotels and restaurants are expected to separate biodegradable garbage and set up a collection system to ensure that food waste is composted/bio-methanides on the premises. Indian government was required to notify a committee for food waste reduction in the Official Gazette under the mandatory food waste reduction bill introduced in 2018. The committee’s duty was to publish a food waste reduction policy within 6 months of its formation, with the main goal of reducing food waste by half by 2025.

Starting in 2016, supermarkets and food processors were given the goal to reduce food waste by 30% by 2025. Starting with the 2016 baseline, an overall objective of 50% food waste reduction until 2030 has been established. This rule proposes that the committee carry out its responsibilities in collaboration with relevant entities and organizations such as supermarkets, food manufacturers, and food distribution organizations. The committee will conduct frequent inspections to ensure compliance and will take action if any provisions of this act are violated. The Indian government has expressed concern about food waste in restaurants, hotels, and weddings; it has yet to expressly address concerns about retail sector food waste (The Compulsory Food Waste Reduction Bill 2018 ). In June 2018, the Indian government proposed a new biofuel policy with an indicative aim of 5% biodiesel blending in diesel and 20% ethanol blending in petrol by 2030 (Dabas et al. 2021 ). With 200 scientists working in the field of biofuel, a platform with a focus on 2nd generation biofuel has been built. Under the Swacch Bharat Mission, the main focus in 2018 has been on generating energy from garbage such as municipal solid waste (MSW) and municipal liquid waste (MLW). The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) government of India has financed eight waste-to-energy projects that were begun to develop/demonstrate unique and feasible technology for the sustainable usage of MSW for cleaner and pollution-free environments and electricity generation.

Contemporary trends in food waste disposal in India

FW is wet waste and generally includes kitchen garbage such as cooked and uncooked food waste, eggshells and bones, flower and fruit waste such as juice peels and house-plant waste, green waste from fruit and vegetable vendors/shops, and rubbish from food and tea stalls/shops. In India, a nationwide lockdown coincided with the peak harvesting season for summer vegetables, paddy, and other grain crops which resulted in the production of massive food waste, as well as substantial economic losses for farmers; also, due to the country’s unexpected lockdown, a large number of farm products was wasted. During such an economic crisis, the government of India implemented several measures such as adequate food supply to rural areas and effective maintenance of infrastructure. Hotels, hostels, restaurants, cafes, supermarkets, residential complexes, airline cafeterias, and food processing companies are major sources of food waste in India (Paritosh et al. 2017 ). Food waste is now prevalent in India. However, some of these are composted for fertilizer production and buried within the earth, resulting in land contamination and a rise in natural resources. The big picture of food waste management and the process of valorization is summarized in Fig.  3 . It is not a long-term viable alternative and should be phased out.

Types of food waste and their sustainable utilization

Case study 1: conversion of hotel/restaurant food waste into a value-added product

While it has traditionally been stated that landfilling and composting are not long-term solutions for food waste disposal, AD of food waste is already an established technique that is used internationally for food waste treatment, along with other emerging technologies. Residential food waste at some places in Pune and Malur and commercial food waste in Chennai and Amul dairy waste disposal are some examples of food waste disposal and for by AD plants established in the city (Abanades et al. 2021 ). Food waste accounts for 10–12% of rubbish generated in India, and approximately 6.5 billion square feet of prime land in Delhi is used for garbage dumping. Large hotels (4-star or 5-star) have their own garbage disposal facilities, with smaller settings lacking; therefore, waste management is a serious issue in such settings. In most cases, municipal waste is collected and disposed of in landfills. The majority of them are caused by pre-preparation, expired shelf-life of products, and 50% of cooked food lost from tables or buffets (Dabas et al. 2021 ). Composting is still a standard way and every good restaurant has a composting machine on its premises because it is required for accreditation. A large hotel with 100 rooms generates 700–800 kg of garbage per day, with a processing capability of 100–200 kg per day. Other issues with composting/bio-methanation include air and soil pollution caused by the release of gas such as CO 2 , CH 4 , and H 2 S as a result of rubbish composting.

To reduce the amount of food waste generated by restaurants in India, which is around 67 million metric tonnes per year and is valued at INR 92,000 crore, a new idea known as “Farm to Farm” has been introduced. This technique entails collecting food waste from various hotels and restaurants and fermenting it into nutritious organic bio-fertilizers. Restaurant food waste is indigestible due to the use of grease and spices during the cooking process. Incubating with microbial consortia for converting food to organic manure and gas was used in pilot research. This system handled 25 kg of garbage each day, but after a government grant, it was improved to one-tonne food waste per day. This study was conducted in Hyderabad, which produces 400–500 tonnes of food waste per day. This system was capable of processing 10 tonnes of food waste per day or 300 tonnes of food waste per month, and it is hoped that by 2022, 6000 metric tonnes of waste will be handled each day in 8–10 cities across India. The released gas will indeed be bottled, enhanced, and marketed as compressed biogas, which is 25% cheaper than ordinary LPG used in Indian households for cooking. Manure can be sold to farmers at a subsidized rate to enhance soil fertility, and there are no constraints because the same food that was grown on the farm is now being grown on another farm. Restaurants can obtain carbon credits by using a technology-based approach (Dabas et al. 2021 ).

Case study 2: bioethanol production from food waste

The viability of bioethanol production was tested in the laboratory from food waste generated in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. After drying, food waste was collected and shredded for bioethanol production (Thapa et al. 2019 ). Hydrolysis and fermentation studies were conducted sequentially, and variables were controlled. The growth of yeast was connected with an ethanol output of 13.78 g/100 g of dry food waste. In theory, 329,756 L/day of bioethanol might be produced from Delhi municipal solid waste (MSW). It was determined that ethanol could be successfully created from the organic fraction of MSW through controlled fermentation using the Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain name and is a profitable valorisation alternative from an environmental standpoint, as well as an economically viable choice. Another study looked at kitchen waste, specifically tea waste and onion peel usage for bioethanol production was investigated as well as for wastewater treatment (Ganguly et al. 2021 ). Hydrothermal followed by acidic pre-treatment has been used for pre-treatment before bio-hydrolysis by Aspergillus sp. for reducing sugar production. The declining sugar yields 9.5 mg/ml from onion peel, compared to 4.88 mg/ml from tea waste S. cerevisiae -based anaerobic fermentation was reached, with 0.95 g/g and 0.66 g/g of bioethanol generated from onion peel and tea wastes, respectively. These wastes were also used to remove crystal violet pigment from the wastewater. To develop an effective treatment process for recycling lingo-cellulosic substances, these wastes were transformed into value-added products such as cellulose and lignin, which were then employed for dye removal from the wastewater.

Case study 3: Safal outlets

On average, the Safal branch disposed of food items of 18.7 kg per day. This suggests that 7.5 tonnes of food are thrown away every day at their 400 stores in Safal in Delhi. About 84.7% of total recorded food waste was thrown into the trash, the rest was opposed and was given to the poor and some animals. A good portion of the food waste container was still edible. Edible food waste produced by Safal is estimated to feed 2000 people if diverted every day (Sharma et al. 2021 ).

It is effective to manage potentially dangerous food waste by producing biogas with a food waste treatment system. Biogas is perfect for use in residential kitchens since it produces no smoke when cooking. In contrast, the soil’s nutrients are restored by the organic manure that is created. Using this method, there is less need for chemical fertilizers and tree cutting. Composting organic food wastes and incorporating them into the soil can support plant growth. Compost has a light texture and is rich in minerals, giving your plant the nutrition it requires. Composting prevents food waste and yard trimmings from ending up in landfills, where they take up space and emit greenhouse gases.

Future perspectives

Byun et al. ( 2021 ) highlighted the feasibility of green vehicles running using green energy produced from food wastes in near future. There have been proposals for internal combustion engine cars (ICEVs) powered by biomethane and bioethanol, fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) powered by biohydrogen, and plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) powered by bioelectricity. The top four FW-producing countries in the world, namely the USA, China, India, and Brazil, were evaluated for prospective green fuel generation, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from each green car operation were analyzed and compared with 2030. The most significant reduction in GHG emissions can be achieved by conventional food waste treatment and biohydrogen production for FCV, operations. The study also identified crucial components that could be relevant for the sustainability assessment of future green energy vehicle technologies that use FW as an alternative resource to existing fossil fuels. Biohydrogen was discovered to be the most feasible choice for green vehicle GV energy production.

Recently, the efficacy of FW as an adsorbent for the removal of hazardous dye from wastewater has been examined (Sridhar et al. 2022 ). Pectin extraction from FW utilizing ultrasound-assisted extraction technology has previously been described, and the process was further refined for maximal extraction using response surface methodology (Shivamathi et al. 2022 ). Sustainable nano-materials such as cellulose, and SCNCs (spherical cellulose nanocrystals), have been extracted from non-edible parts of jackfruits ( Artocarpus heterophyllus L.) (Trilokesh and Uppuluri 2019 ). Valorization of jackfruit peel for the production of SCNCs has many applications in food, paper, optics, pharma, environmental remediation, composite synthesis, etc. Similarly, non-genotoxic, non-hemolytic organometallic silver nanoparticles using spent hop extracts were synthesized in Greenway, characterized, and showed anti-bacterial and anti-cancer properties having potential application in the medical industry (Das et al. 2022 ).

Like other developing countries, India can implement steps to reduce food waste, like collaborating with charities and food banks to make sure that surplus food from stores is given to people in need. Food that has passed its expiration date and cannot be donated can be composted or transformed into biofuel for retail commercial vehicles. Removing expiry dates from non-perishable commodities (such as salt, sugar, and so on), enabling discounts on single goods (such as a separated banana), eliminating general shop promotions (such as buy-one-get-one-free), and mandating food waste statements in retail marketing are some of the important steps. Furthermore, obligatory employee training on food waste avoidance may significantly alter how the retail business treats food delivery.

Indian cities including Chennai, Kochi, Mumbai, Bangalore, and even Gurugram are rapidly adopting the usage of communal fridges to battle hunger. Installing communal fridges outside retail businesses is a humanitarian approach to offering free daily access to extra food to people in need.

Challenges in food waste management

Our houses generate a large quantity of food waste. According to Zhongming et al. ( 2021 ), an astounding 50 kg of food per person is thrown away in Indian homes each year. Every year, over 40% of the food produced in India is wasted due to disorganized food production systems and inefficient supply chains. This is the loss that occurs before the meal is even delivered to the consumer. Excess food waste typically ends up in landfills, where it produces strong greenhouse gasses with serious environmental consequences. Inadequacies in government services, a lack of transparency in income creation, insufficient storage facilities, and a lack of valid and complete inventories are some of the issues in the Indian food supply chain.

Infrastructure

India must spend heavily on its infrastructure. According to the World Economic Forum ( 2011 ), India is ranked 89th out of 142 nations in terms of infrastructure reliability and sufficiency. India’s infrastructure shortcomings have a particularly negative effect on the agricultural sector since agricultural production and distribution depend on the nation’s infrastructure to move and store millions of tonnes of food each year. Depending on the area and the crop harvested, the infrastructural issues appear differently.

The roads and rail connections in Punjab and Haryana, where the majority of the nation’s grain is cultivated, are in fair to good condition. Logistics for transportation are also made quite straightforward by the area’s proximity to a significant market, greater Delhi (Artiuch and Kornstein 2012 ). Yet, because the government buys a sizable share of each year’s grain production to be given later as part of public redistribution schemes, storage is a significant concern in the northwest states. Grain is frequently kept outside beneath tarps made of plastic since the nation lacks sophisticated storage facilities like silos, which offer little defense against dampness and pests. Because of this, crops frequently deteriorate before they can be transported to other regions of the nation. Modern storage has been deemed a priority area for investment by the government, but new public and private initiatives have been difficult to get off the ground.

One of the main causes of food waste in India is frequently attributed to inadequate cold storage and cold chain transportation networks, which can increase the shelf life of goods from a few days to weeks or more.

Roads and transportation

Crops are frequently unable to be transported to marketplaces in rural areas of India due to poor transportation infrastructure. Farmers find it challenging to obtain fair pricing due to bad roads, a shortage of tractors and trucks, and large distances to city markets. Furthermore, it is sometimes uneconomical to harvest in the first place during bumper crop seasons when prices decrease due to the added expense of getting to market. Crops are thus left to rot on the field.

Typically, trucks are used to transport crops around the nation. For instance, everyday truck shipments from as far afield as 72 h arrive at Delhi’s wholesale vegetable market. Bad roads might cause the entire truckload to be delayed and decay on any part of the journey from the origin to Delhi. In the humid summer months, fruits like bananas and mangos are particularly prone.

Government purchase and distribution schemes

In India, bureaucracy and corruption are well-known issues, and the food supply system is not exempt. Several government organizations and middlemen are involved in the extensive redistribution scheme of the Indian government. Corrupt administrators of storage facilities have been known to manipulate scales to show less grain entering the facility and divert the excess to the grey or black markets. According to some sources, administrators allowed waste and then over-reported it in an effort to market the surplus supplies. Similar problems occur while cargo is being transported and pieces of them have been known to disappear at railway yards and transfer stations. According to experts, the private sector is far better at preventing food waste since management there is often unable to profit from ongoing illegal activities.

Middlemen, bargaining power, and price transparency

Food is often transferred through a variety of mediators before it is delivered from a farmer to a consumer: dealers purchase and ship products while commissioning agents coordinate deals between farmers and traders. The mediators have an edge in terms of information and negotiating power because the ordinary farmer only cultivates a few acres of land and is not a significant supplier.

Before they visit the wholesale market, farmers frequently are unaware of the price of their products. It is not practical for the farmer to take the items back to wait for a better price once they are in the market, thus the commission agents can set the price. As they are paid based on the entire transaction value, without ever gaining possession of the product, commission agents have no motivation to reduce waste. They may make more money by closing as many deals as they can rapidly because they often only receive a 2.5–6% commission on sales; thus, it makes little sense for them to spend time looking for traders offering slightly higher pricing (Artiuch and Kornstein 2012 ).

However, dealers further along the supply chain lack many of the incentives to reduce waste. They can manage fewer items at a higher price easier than more goods at lower costs. As a result, waste frequently happens when these intermediates conspire to limit supply, which leads to higher pricing and fewer shipments. In isolated areas with few buyers, middlemen are more likely to conspire.

Price volatility

Farmers frequently decide to cultivate crops that have been successful in previous seasons. When this herding tendency takes place, following prices fall, making harvesting unprofitable. By the end of 2011, potato prices experienced this. Several farmers decided to switch to growing potatoes since they were previously profitable and abandoned other crops. The price fell as a result of the extra supply. The harvesting and transportation of thousands of tonnes of crops became unprofitable, and they were left to decay in fields and on city streets. For many different crops, there is a typical boom and bust cycle.

Making long-term investments that might increase future efficiency becomes significantly more dangerous when farmers are unable to predict their revenue for the upcoming year. Mechanisms that lower price volatility would decrease food waste and boost farmers' incomes, enabling them to make more long-term investments.

Financing, education, and training

Farmers frequently borrow the money they need from commission brokers for each growing season in India’s undeveloped agricultural banking industry, repaying the loan after the crop is harvested. Because most small farmers find it challenging to invest in modern infrastructure and equipment that may increase output yields, efficiency, and quality, few farmers have the scale to justify major investments.

Moreover, farmers are not adequately educated on topics like crop planning, rotation, pesticide and fertilizer use, investment decision-making, and crop planning. The majority of farmers inherit family land holdings, and they generally learn their trade through word-of-mouth and family traditions. Because of this, India’s sizable farming population struggles to adopt optimal practices in agriculture.

It is evident that the fragmented farming system in India has special educational obstacles. Hence, increasing information sharing and transparency as well as access to longer-term funding will be highly beneficial for raising agricultural productivity and farmer incomes.

The COVID-19 pandemic not only revealed but also exacerbated the problems of food waste. In response to the public health emergency, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) released guidelines for recycling and sustainable handling of food waste. These recommendations cover how to manage food waste in homes, businesses, and institutions (United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2020 ). Following last year’s lockout, surplus grain inventories estimated at 65 lakh tonnes in the first 4 months of 2020 — continued to deteriorate in go-downs throughout India (FAO 2020 ). Food became exceedingly limited for the poor, particularly day laborers. Despite substantial food production, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization reports that over 190 million Indians are undernourished. Furthermore, it is stated that every third malnourished kid is Indian. Ironically, the same survey claims that over 40% of food produced in India is lost or squandered. It is also estimated that food waste costs in India are over 92,000 crores per year. This food waste, however, is not restricted to one level but pervades all stages, from harvesting through processing, packaging, and shipping to the final stage of consumption. Though food waste is a worldwide issue, India has the possibility to turn it into an opportunity if addressed appropriately.

Considering food waste is a serious cause for concern, it is crucial to take a holistic approach to its management. In this article, an effort has been made to examine the concerns, management strategies, challenges, and future perspectives regarding food waste management in India. Food waste in India is mainly generated from domestic, commercial, agricultural, and industrial sources. Like other developing countries, India may take steps to reduce food waste, like collaborating with charities and food banks to make sure that surplus food from stores is given to people in need. The study of the detailed characteristics of food waste helps in deciding efficient management methods. Nevertheless, these studies often concentrate on just one component of sustainability, such as its impact on the environment, commerce, or community. There are many cases in point of research that aims to regulate food waste sustainably. Valorization, anaerobic digestion, composting, landfill, etc. are some of the effective sustainable food waste management techniques used worldwide as well as in India. Anaerobic digestion can be used to create methane, which is an efficient way to manage food waste. The method is less expensive, generates less waste thereafter, and turns food waste into a green energy source. This review also discusses the environmental impacts of food waste disposal. Improper food waste disposal practices have several negative environmental effects such as pollution, spreading of diseases, and emission of GHGs. Furthermore, by focusing research and optimization studies on integrating various production processes for value-added products, the effectiveness of the management of food waste might be improved. The significance of this review is that it portrays a detailed description of different sources of food waste, its characterization, and the factors affecting its biodegradation. The challenges, future perspectives, and a multitude of approaches regarding sustainable management have also been discussed in the later part of this review which makes it unique.

Data availability

Not applicable.

Abanades S, Abbaspour H, Ahmadi A, Das B, Ehyaei MA, Esmaeilion F, El Haj AM, Hajilounezhad T, Jamali DH, Hmida A, Ozgoli HA (2021) A critical review of biogas production and usage with legislations framework across the globe. Int Jour Environ Sci Technol 1–24

Abbasi T, Tauseef SM, Abbasi SA (2012) Anaerobic digestion for global warming control and energy generation—an overview. Renew Sust Ener Rev 16(5):3228–3242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.046

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Abo BO, Gao M, Wu C, Zhu W, Wang Q (2019) A review on characteristics of food waste and their use in butanol production. Rev Environ Heal 34(4):447–457. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2019-0037

Adhikari BK, Barrington S, Martinez J (2006) Predicted growth of world urban food waste and methane production. Waste Manag Res 24(5):421–433

Adhikari BK, Barrington S, Martinez J, King S (2008) Characterization of food waste and bulking agents for composting. Waste Manag 28(5):795–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.08.018

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Adhikari BB, Chae M, Bressler DC (2018) Utilization of slaughterhouse waste in value-added applications: recent advances in the development of wood adhesives. Polymers 10(2):176

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Adhikari B, Barrington S, Martinez J (2009a) Urban food waste generation: challenges and opportunities. Int Jour Environ Waste Manag 3(1/2):4. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijewm.2009.024696

Article   Google Scholar  

Adhikari BK, Barrington S, Martinez J, King S (2009b) Effectiveness of three bulking agents for food waste composting. Waste Manag 29(1):197–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.04.001

Adhikari BK, Trémier A, Barrington S, Martinez J, Daumoin M (2013) Gas emissions as influenced by home composting system configuration. J Environ Manag 116:163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.12.008

Afzal N, Basit A, Daniel A, Ilyas N, Imran A, Awan ZA, Papargyropoulou E, Stringer LC, Hashem M, Alamri S, Bashir MA (2022) Quantifying food waste in the hospitality sector and exploring its underlying reasons—a case study of Lahore. Pak Sustain 14(11):6914. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116914

Ahmad T, Aadil RM, Ahmed H, Rahman UU, Soares BC, Souza SL, Cruz AG (2019) Treatment and utilization of dairy industrial waste: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol 88:361–372

Al-Masoudi RM, Al-Haidary MS (2015) Spatial analysis of residential waste solid in the city of Karbala. Kar Univ Journ 13(2):132–154

Google Scholar  

Anal AK (2017) Food processing by-products and their utilization: introduction. Food Process Prod Their Utilization 29:1–10

Arcadis NV (2019) National food waste baseline: final assessment report. ARCADIS, Australian Government National Environmental Science Program: Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Armington WR, Babbitt CW, Chen RB (2020) Variability in commercial and institutional food waste generation and implications for sustainable management systems. Resour Conserv Recycl 155:104622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104622

Arslan EI, Ünlü A, Topal M (2011) Determination of the effect of aeration rate on composting of vegetable–fruit wastes. Clean Soil Air Water 39(11):1014–1021

Artiuch P, Kornstein S (2012) Sustainable approaches to reducing food waste in India. J Mass Inst Technol 10

Asar Y, Genç A (2018) A new two-parameter estimator for the poisson regression model. Iran J Sci Technol Transac A Sci 42:793–803

Awasthi MK, Pandey AK, Khan J, Bundela PS, Wong JW, Selvam A (2014) Evaluation of thermophilic fungal consortium for organic municipal solid waste composting. Bioresour Technol 168:214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.048

Banerjee S, Arora A (2021) Sustainable bioprocess technologies for urban waste valorization. Case Stud Chem Environ Engi 4:100166

Bari QH, Koenig A (2012) Application of a simplified mathematical model to estimate the effect of forced aeration on composting in a closed system. Waste Manag 32(11):2037–2045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.01.014

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bhat RA, Kamili AN, Bandh SA (2013) Characterisation and composition of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated in Yusmarg: a health resort of Kashmir valley. Waste Manag 33(3):776–777

Biswas A, Parida S (2021) Waste-wise cities: best practices in municipal solid waste management, Centre for Science and Environment and NITI Aayog, New Delhi

Bouallagui H, Touhami Y, Cheikh RB, Hamdi M (2005) Bioreactor performance in anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes. Process Biochem 40:989–995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2004.03.007

Braguglia CM, Gallipoli A, Gianico A, Pagliaccia P (2017) Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: a critical review. Bioresour Technol 248:37–56

Brian L, Craig H, James L, Lisa K, Richard W, Tim S (2013) Reducing food loss and waste - installment 2 of “Creating a Sustainable Food Future.” World Resource Institute, Washington DC

Byun J, Kwon O, Park H, Han J (2021) Food waste valorization to green energy vehicles: sustainability assessment. Energy Environ Sci 14:3651–3663

Castrica M, Tedesco DE, Panseri S, Ferrazzi G, Ventura V, Frisio DG, Balzaretti CM (2018) Pet food as the most concrete strategy for using food waste as feedstuff within the European context: a feasibility study. Sustainability 10(6):2035

Chae BJ, Choi SC, Kim YG, Kim CH, Sohn KS (2000) Effects of feeding dried food waste on growth and nutrient digestibility in growing-finishing pigs. Asian-Aust Jour Anim Sci 13(9):1304–1308

Chan MT, Selvam A, Wong JW (2016) Reducing nitrogen loss and salinity during ‘struvite’ food waste composting by zeolite amendment. Bioresour Technol 200:838–844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.10.093

Chandra R, Takeuchi H, Hasegawa T (2012) Methane production from lignocellulosic agricultural crop wastes: a review in context to second generation of biofuel production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16:1462–1476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.11.035

Chang FC, Tsai MJ, Ko CH (2018) Agricultural waste derived fuel from oil meal and waste cooking oil. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(6):5223–5230

Chaudhary P, Garg S, George T, Shabin M, Saha S, Subodh S, Sinha B (2021) Underreporting and open burning–the two largest challenges for sustainable waste management in India. Resour Conserv Recycl 175:105865

Chen L, De Haro MM, Moore A, Falen C (2011) The composting process: dairy compost production and use in Idaho CIS 1179. University of Idaho

Chen Y, Xiao K, Jiang X, Shen N, Zeng RJ, Zhou Y (2018) Long solid retention time (SRT) has minor role in promoting methane production in a 65 °C single-stage anaerobic sludge digester. Bioresour Technol 247:724–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.153

Chen Z, Zhang S, Wen Q, Zheng J (2015) Effect of aeration rate on composting of penicillin mycelial dreg. J Environ Sci 37:172–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2015.03.020

Cheng JY, Lo I (2016) Investigation of the available technologies and their feasibility for the conversion of food waste into fish feed in Hong Kong. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(8):7169–7177

Chiu SL, Lo IM (2016) Reviewing the anaerobic digestion and codigestion process of food waste from the perspectives on biogas production performance and environmental impacts. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:24435–24450

Cho YM, Shin IS, Yang CJ (2004) Effects of feeding dried leftover food on productivity of laying hens. Asian Australas J Anim Sci 17(4):518–522

Choe J, Moyo KM, Park K, Jeong J, Kim H, Ryu Y, Kim J, Kim JM, Lee S, Go GW (2017) Meat quality traits of pigs finished on food waste. Kor Jour Food Sci Anim Resour 37(5):690

Christian M, Dübendorf S (2007) Anaerobic digestion of biodegradable solid waste in low-and middle-income countries, overview over existing technologies and relevant case studies. Sandec Rep

Dabas S, Sharma S, Manaktola K (2021) Adoption of digital marketing tools in independent businesses: experiences of restaurant entrepreneurs in India and United Kingdom. World Hospit Tour Themes 13(2):214–235

Dai Y, Sun Q, Wang W, Lu L, Liu M, Li J, Yang S, Sun Y, Zhang K, Xu J, Zheng W (2018) Utilizations of agricultural waste as adsorbent for the removal of contaminants: a review. Chemosphere 211:235–253

Article   CAS   PubMed   ADS   Google Scholar  

Das P, Dutta T, Manna S, Loganathan S, Basak P (2022) Facile green synthesis of non-genotoxic, non-hemolytic organometallic silver nanoparticles using extract of crushed, wasted, and spent Humulus lupulus (hops): characterization, anti-bacterial, and anti-cancer studies. Environ Res 204:111962

de ARAUJO GP, LOURENÇO C, de ARAÚJO CML, BASTOS A (2018) Intercâmbio Brasil-União Europeia sobre desperdício de alimentos: relatório final

Deepanraj B, Sivasubramanian V, Jayaraj S (2014) Biogas generation through anaerobic digestion process-an overview. Res J Chem Environ 18:5

Dhar H, Kumar P, Kumar S, Mukherjee S, Vaidya AN (2016) Effect of organic loading rate during anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste. Bioresour Technol 217:56–61

Dhokhikah Y, Trihadiningrum Y, Sunaryo S (2015) Community participation in household solid waste reduction in Surabaya, Indonesia. Resour Conserv Recycl 102:153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.06.013

Diaz LF, Savage GM, Eggerth LL, Golueke CG (1993) Composting and recycling municipal solid waste. Lewis Publishers

Diaz-Ruiz R, Costa-Font M, López-i-Gelats F, Gil JM (2018) A sum of incidentals or a structural problem? The true nature of food waste in the metropolitan region of Barcelona. Sustainability 10(10):3730. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103730

Dutta S, He M, Xiong X, Tsang DC (2021) Sustainable management and recycling of food waste anaerobic digestate: a review. Bioresour Technol 341:125915

Du C, Sabirova J, Soetaert W, Ki CLS (2012) Polyhydroxyalkanoates production from low-cost sustainable raw materials. Curr Chem Biol 6(1):14–25

CAS   Google Scholar  

Edwiges T, Frare L, Mayer B, Lins L, Triolo JM, Flotats X, de Mendonça CMSS (2018) Influence of chemical composition on biochemical methane potential of fruit and vegetable waste. Waste Manag 71:618–625

Environment and Climate Change Canada (2019) National waste characterization report: the composition of Canadian residual municipal solid waste

Elimelech E, Ayalon O, Ert E (2018) What gets measured gets managed: a new method of measuring household food waste. Waste Manag 76:68–81

El-Mashad HM, Zeeman G, Van Loon WK, Bot GP, Lettinga G (2004) Effect of temperature and temperature fluctuation on thermophilic anaerobic digestion of cattle manure. Bioresour Technol 95:191–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2003.07.013

FAO (2011) Global food losses and food waste – extent, causes and prevention

FAO (2012) Towards the future we want: end hunger and make the transition to sustainable agricultural and food systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome

FAO (2013) Food wastage footprint: impacts on natural resources

FAO (2014) SAVE FOOD: Global initiative on food loss and waste reduction definitional framework of food waste and loss

FAO (2017) The future of food and agriculture—trends and challenges. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FAO, AMIS (2017) Report balanced cereal supply-and-demand prospects for 2017

FAO (2020) Local food systems and COVID-19; a glimpse on India’s responses

FDA (Food and Drug Administration) (2012) Bad bug book: handbook of foodborne pathogenic microorganisms and natural toxins

Ferreira M, Liz Martins M, Rocha A (2013) Food waste as an index of food service quality. Brit Food J 115(11):1628–1637. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2012-0051

Food Industry Policy Office August (2017) Reducing food loss and waste & promoting recycling

Food Waste Warriors Report Shows Schools Can Be on Frontline Against Food Waste (2020)

Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) (2022) An important outlook on adopting it as a business. Issue 2 Int'l JL Mgmt. Human 5:246

Fung F, Wang HS, Menon S (2018) Food safety in the 21st century. Biomed J 41(2):88–95

Ganguly P, Khan A, Das P, Bhowal A (2021) Cellulose from lignocellulose kitchen waste and its application for energy and environment: bioethanol production and dye removal. Indian Chem Eng 63(2):161–171

Garcia-Garcia G, Woolley E, Rahimifard S, Colwill J, White R, Needham L (2017) A methodology for sustainable management of food waste. Waste Biom Valor 8(6):2209–2227

Gautam SP, Bundela PS, Pandey AK, Awasthi MK, Sarsaiya S (2010) Composting of municipal solid waste of Jabalpur city. Glob J Environ Resear 4(1):43–46

Ge J, Huang G, Huang J, Zeng J, Han L (2015) Mechanism and kinetics of organic matter degradation based on particle structure variation during pig manure aerobic composting. J Hazard Mate 292:19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.03.010

Gen M, Altiparmak F, Lin L (2006) A genetic algorithm for two-stage transportation problem using priority-based encoding. OR spectrum 28:337–354

Georganas A, Giamouri E, Pappas AC, Papadomichelakis G, Galliou F, Manios T, Zervas G (2020) Bioactive compounds in food waste: a review on the transformation of food waste to animal feed. Foods 9(3):291

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gerardi MH (2003) The microbiology of anaerobic digesters. John Wiley and Sons

Book   Google Scholar  

Getahun T, Nigusie A, Entele T, Van Gerven T, Van der Bruggen B (2012) Effect of turning frequencies on composting biodegradable municipal solid waste quality. Resour Conserv Recycl 65:79–84

Grover P, Singh P (2014) An analytical study of effect of family income and size on per capita household solid waste generation in developing countries. Rev Arts Human 3(1):127–143

Guo R, Li G, Jiang T, Schuchardt F, Chen T, ZhaoY, (2012) Effect of aeration rate, C/N ratio, moisture content on the stability, maturity of compost. Bioresour Technol 112:171–178

Guo X, Wang C, Sun F, Zhu W, Wu W (2014) A comparison of microbial characteristics between the thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic digesters exposed to elevated food waste loadings. Bioresour Technol 152:420–428

Gustavsson J, Cederberg C, Sonesson U (2011) Global food losses and food waste: extent, causes and prevention. FAO

Haldar D, Shabbirahmed AM, Singhania RR, Chen CW, Dong CD, Ponnusamy VK, Patel AK (2022) Understanding the management of household food waste and its engineering for sustainable valorization- a state-of-the-art review. Bioresour Technol 12:7390

Ho KS, Chu LM (2019) Characterization of food waste from different sources in Hong Kong. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 69(3):277–288

Hoornweg D, Thomas L, Otten L (1999) Composting and its applicability in developing countries. World Bank Work Paper Ser 8:1–46

Hou N, Wen L, Cao H, Liu K, An X, Li D (2017) Role of psychrotrophic bacteria in organic domestic waste composting in cold regions of China. Bioresour Technol 236:20–28

HuertaPujol O, Gallart M, Soliva M, Marti´nez-Farre´ FX, Lopez M (2011) Effect of collection system on mineral content of biowaste. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:1095–1099

Iqbal MK, Nadeem A, Sherazi F, Khan RA (2015) Optimization of process parameters for kitchen waste composting by response surface methodology. Int J Environ Sci Technol 12:1759–1768

Izhar TNT, Zakarya IA, Zaaba SK, Yusof AHM, Shahril NM (2021) A review of food waste characterization and treatment in anaerobic digestion. In IOP Conference Series: Earth Environ Sci 646(1):012004

Jaganmai G, Jinka R (2017) Production of lipases from dairy industry wastes and its applications. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 5:67–73

Jereme I, Chamhuri S, Talib BA, Begum RA (2013) Household food composition and disposal behaviour in Malaysia. Soc Sci 8(6):553–539

Ji C, Kong CX, Mei ZL, Li J (2017) A review of the anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable waste. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 183(3):906–922

Jiang J, Liu X, Huang Y, Huang H (2015) Inoculation with nitrogen turnover bacterial agent appropriately increasing nitrogen and promoting maturity in pig manure composting. Waste Manag 39:78–85

JICA (2015) Project for integrated solid waste management master plan in Gujranwala (volume 3). Japan International Cooperation Agency

JICA (2016) Data collection survey on solid waste management in Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Japan International Cooperation Agency

Jin C, Sun S, Yang D, Sheng W, Ma Y, He W, Li G (2021) Anaerobic digestion. An alternative resource treatment option for food waste in China. Sci Tot Environ 779:146397

Juárez MFD, Prähauser B, Walter A, Insam H, Franke-Whittle IH (2015) Co-composting of biowaste and wood ash, influence on a microbially driven-process. Waste Manag 46:155–164

Kabongo JD (2013) Waste valorization. Encycl Corp Soc Responsib 27:01–2706

Kalemelawa F, Nishihara E, Endo T, Ahmad Z, Yeasmin R, Tenywa MM (2012) An evaluation of aerobic and anaerobic composting of banana peels treated with different inoculums for soil nutrient replenishment. Bioresour Technol 126:375–382

Kantor LS, Lipton K, Manchester A, Oliveira V (1997) Estimating and addressing America’s food losses. Food Rev 2:2–12

Karnchanawong S, Nissaikla S (2014) Effects of microbial inoculation on composting of household organic waste using passive aeration bin. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric 3:113–119

Kawai M, Nagao N, Tajima N, Niwa C, Matsuyama T, Toda T (2014) The effect of the labile organic fraction in food waste and the substrate/inoculum ratio on anaerobic digestion for a reliable methane yield. Bioresour Technol 157:174–180

Kemper K, Voegele J, Hickey V, Ahuja PS, Poveda R, Edmeades S, Kneller C, Swannell R, Gillick S, Corallo A, Aguilar G, Alencastro S, Felix E, Sebastian A (2019) Mexico conceptual framework for a national strategy on food loss and waste

Khoo HH, Lim TZ, Tan RB (2010) Food waste conversion options in Singapore: environmental impacts based on an LCA perspective. Sci Total Environ 408(6):1367–1373

Khoo KS, Chia WY, Chew KW, Show PL (2021) Microalgal-bacterial consortia as future prospect in wastewater bioremediation, environmental management and bioenergy production. Indian J Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-021-00924-8

Kim E, Shin SG, Jannat MAH, Tongco JV, Hwang S (2017) Use of food waste-recycling wastewater as an alternative carbon source for denitrification process- a full-scale study. Bioresour Technol 245:1016–1021

Kim JK, Oh BR, Chun YN, Kim SW (2006) Effects of temperature and hydraulic retention time on anaerobic digestion of food waste. J Biosci Bioeng 102:328–332

Kim JH, Lee JC, Pak D (2011) Feasibility of producing ethanol from food waste. Waste Manag 31(9-10):2121–2125

Kinet R, Destain J, Hiligsmann S, Thonart P, Delhalle L, Taminiau B (2015) Thermophilic and cellulolytic consortium isolated from composting plants improves anaerobic digestion of cellulosic biomass: toward a microbial resource management approach. Bioresour Technol 189:138–144

Kiran EU, Trzcinski AP, Ng WJ, Liu Y (2014) Bioconversion of food waste to energy- a review. Fuel 134:389–399

Kondusamy D, Kalamdhad AS (2014) Pre-treatment and anaerobic digestion of food waste for high rate methane production: a review. J Environ Chem Eng 2:1821–1830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2014.07.024

Kosmala M, Kołodziejczyk K, Zdunczyk Z, Juskiewicz J, Boros D (2011) Chemical composition of natural and polyphenol-free apple pomace and the effect of this dietary ingredient on intestinal fermentation and serum lipid parameters in rats. Jour Agri Food Chem 59(17):9177–9185

Kothari R, Pandey A, Kumar S, Tyagi V, Tyagi S (2014) Different aspects of dry anaerobic digestion for bio-energy: an overview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 39:174–195

Ku¨lcu¨ R (2015) Determination of the relationship between FAS values and energy consumption in the composting process. Ecol Eng 81:444–450

Kulikowska D (2016) Kinetics of organic matter removal and humification progress during sewage sludge composting. Waste Manag 49:196–203

Kumar A, Kumar D, George N, Sharma P, Gupta N (2018) A process for complete biodegradation of shrimp waste by a novel marine isolate Paenibacillus sp AD with simultaneous production of chitinase and chitin oligosaccharides. Int J Bio Macro 109:263–272

Kwak WS, Kang JS (2006) Effect of feeding food waste broiler litter and bakery by-product mixture to pigs. Bioresour Technol 97(2):243–249

Leeson S, Summers JD, Scott’s (2001) Nutrition of the chicken 4:100–175

Leket (2019) Food waste and rescue in Israel: the economic, social and environmental impact

Li Y, Jin Y, Li J, Chen Y, Gong Y, Li Y, Zhang J (2016) Current situation and development of kitchen waste treatment in China. Proc Environ Sci 31:40–49

Li Y, Liu B, Song J, Jiang C, Yang Q (2015a) Utilization of potato starch processing wastes to produce animal feed with high lysine content. J Micro Biotech 25(2):178–184

Li Y, Wang L, Liu G, Cheng S (2021) Rural household food waste characteristics and driving factors in China. Resour Conserv Recycl 164:105209

Li Y, Liu H, Yan F, Su D, Wang Y, Zhou H (2017) High-calorific biogas production from anaerobic digestion of food waste using a two-phase pressurized biofilm (TPPB) system. Bioresour Technol 224:56–62

Li Z, Huang G, Yu H, Zhou Y, Huang W (2015b) Critical factors and their effects on product maturity in food waste composting. Environ Monit Assess 187:217

Liu Y, Wachemo AC, Yuan H, Li X (2019) Anaerobic digestion performance and microbial community structure of corn stover in three-stage continuously stirred tank reactors. Bioresour Technol 287:121339

Lo IMC, Woon KS (2016) Food waste collection and recycling for value-added products: potential applications and challenges in Hong Kong. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(8):7081–7091

Lohani SP, Havukainen J (2018) Anaerobic digestion: factors affecting anaerobic digestion process. Waste Bioremed 343–59

Louis GE (2004) A historical context of municipal solid waste management in the United States. Waste Manag Resear 22(4):06–322

Luangwilai T, Sidhu HS, Nelson MI, Chen XD (2011) Modelling the effects of moisture content in compost piles

Luo K, Pang Y, Yang Q, Wang D, Li X, Lei M, Huang Q (2019) A critical review of volatile fatty acids produced from waste activated sludge: enhanced strategies and its applications. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:13984–13998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04798-8

Luo WH, Yuan J, Luo YM, Li GX, Nghiem LD, Price WE (2014) Effects of mixing and covering with mature compost on gaseous emissions during composting. Chemosphere 117:14–19

Madurwar MV, Ralegaonkar RV, Mandavgane SA (2013) Application of agro-waste for sustainable construction materials: a review. Constr Build Mater 38:872–878

Mahboubi A, Ferreira JA, Taherzadeh MJ, Lennartsson PR (2017) Value-added products from dairy waste using edible fungi. Waste Manag 59:518

Makan A, Assobhei O, Mountadar M (2014) In-vessel composting under air pressure of organic fraction of municipal solid waste in A zemmour, Morocco. Water Environ J 28:401–409

Manu MK, Kumar R, Garg A (2017) Performance assessment of improved composting system for food waste with varying aeration and use of microbial inoculum. Bioresour Technol 234:167–177

Mao C, Feng Y, Wang X, Ren G (2015) Review on research achievements of biogas from anaerobic digestion. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 45:540–555

Matsuda T, Yano J, Hirai Y, Sakai SI (2012) Life-cycle greenhouse gas inventory analysis of household waste management and food waste reduction activities in Kyoto. Japan Int Jour Life Cyc Assess 17(6):743–752

Menon A, Wang JY, Giannis A (2017) Optimization of micronutrient supplement for enhancing biogas production from food waste in two-phase thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Waste Manag 59:465–475

Mishra B, Varjani S, Pradhan I, Ekambaram N, Teixeira JA, Ngo HH, Guo W (2020) Insights into interdisciplinary approaches for bioremediation of organic pollutants: innovations, challenges and perspectives. Proc Nat Acad Sci: Bio Sci 90(5):951–958

Miezah K, Obiri-Danso K, Kádár Z, Fei-Baffoe B, Mensah MY (2015) Municipal solid waste characterization and quantification as a measure towards effective waste management in Ghana. Waste Manag 46:15–27

Minghua Z, Xiumin F, Rovetta A, Qichang H, Vicentini F, Bingkai L, Yi L (2009) Municipal solid waste management in Pudong new area, China. Waste Manag 29(3):1227–1233

Mohee R, Boojhawon A, Sewhoo B, Rungasamy S, Somaroo GD, Mudhoo A (2015a) Assessing the potential of coal ash and bagasse ash as inorganic amendments during composting of municipal solid wastes. J Environ Manag 159:209–217

Mohee R, Mauthoor S, Bundhoo ZM, Somaroo G, Soobhany N, Gunasee S (2015b) Current status of solid waste management in small island developing states: a review. Waste Manag 43:539–549

Morales-Polo C, Cledera-Castro MDM, Moratilla Soria BY (2018) Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food waste: from waste generation and anaerobic process to its perspectives. Appl Sci 8:1804. https://doi.org/10.3390/app8101804

Morita M, Sasaki K (2012) Factors influencing the degradation of garbage in methanogenic bioreactors and impacts on biogas formation. Appl Microbio Biotech 94(3):575–582

Morken J, Gjetmundsen M, Fjørtoft K (2018) Determination of kinetic constants from the co-digestion of dairy cow slurry and municipal food waste at increasing organic loading rates. Renew Energy 117:46–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.09.081

Moset V, Poulsen M, Wahid R, Højberg O, Møller HB (2015) Mesophilic versus thermophilic anaerobic digestion of cattle manure: methane productivity and microbial ecology. Microb Biotechnol 8:787–800

Mu D, Horowitz N, Casey M, Jones K (2017) Environmental and economic analysis of an in-vessel food waste composting system at Kean University in the US. Waste Manag 59:476–486

Myer RO, Brendemuhl JH, Johnson DD (1999) Evaluation of dehydrated restaurant food waste products as feedstuffs for finishing pigs. J Anim Sci 77(3):685–692

Myer RO, Brendemuhl JH, Johnson DD (2000) Dehydrated restaurant food waste as swine feed. Food waste to animal feed 113–44

Närvänen E, Mesiranta N, Mattila M, Heikkinen A (2020) Introduction: a framework for managing food waste. Food Waste Manag 1–24

Nasini L, De Luca G, de Ricci A, Ortolani F, Caselli A, Massaccesi L (2016) Gas emissions during olive mill waste composting under static pile conditions. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 107:70–76

Nahman A, de Lange W, Oelofse S, Godfrey L (2012) The costs of household food waste in South Africa. Waste Manag 32(11):2147–2153

Nasir IM, Mohd Ghazi TI, Omar R (2012) Anaerobic digestion technology in livestock manure treatment for biogas production: a review. Engi Life Scien 12(3):258–269

Ning Z, Zhang H, Li W, Zhang R, Liu G, Chen C (2018) Anaerobic digestion of lipid-rich swine slaughterhouse waste: methane production performance, long-chain fatty acids profile and predominant microorganisms. Bioresour Technol 269:426–433

Oelofse S, Muswema A, Ramukhwatho F (2018) Household food waste disposal in South Africa: a case study of Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni. South Afri Jour Sci 114(5/6)

Okino-Delgado CH, Prado DZD, Facanali R, Marques MMO, Nascimento AS, Fernandes CJDC, Zambuzzi WF, Fleuri LF (2017) Bioremediation of cooking oil waste using lipases from wastes. PLoS ONE 12(10):0186246

Onwosi CO, Igbokwe VC, Odimba JN, Eke IE, Nwankwoala MO, Iroh IN (2017) Composting technology in waste stabilization: on the methods, challenges and future prospects. J Environ Manag 190:140–157

Orhorhoro EK, Ebunilo PO, Sadjere GE (2017) Determination and quantification of household solid waste generation for planning suitable sustainable waste management in Nigeria. Int Jour Emer Eng Resea Technol 5(8):10

Oyoo R, Leemans R, Mol AP (2014) Comparison of environmental performance for different waste management scenarios in East Africa: the case of Kampala City, Uganda. Habitat Intern 44:349–357

Pal MS, Bhatia M (2022) Current status, topographical constraints, and implementation strategy of municipal solid waste in India: a review. Arab Jour Geosci 15(12):1176

Panda SK, Mishra SS, Kayitesi E, Ray RC (2016) Microbial-processing of fruit and vegetable wastes for production of vital enzymes and organic acids: biotechnology and scopes. Environ Res 146:161–172

Paradelo R, Moldes AB, Barral MT (2013) Evolution of organic matter during the mesophilic composting of lignocellulosic winery wastes. J Environ Manag 116:18–26

Parashar A, Jin Y, Mason B, Chae M, Bressler DC (2016) Incorporation of whey permeate a dairy effluent, in ethanol fermentation to provide a zero-waste solution for the dairy industry. J Dairy Sci 99(3):1859–1867

Parate VR, Talib MI (2015) Utilization of pulse processing waste ( Cajanus cajan husk) for developing metal adsorbent: a value-added exploitation of food industry waste. Am J Food Sci Technol 3(1):1–9

Parfitt J, Barthel M, Macnaughton S (2010) Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos Transac Royal Soc Biol Sci 365(1554):3065–3081

Paritosh K, Kushwaha SK, Yadav M, Pareek N, Chawade A, Vivekanand V (2017) Food waste to energy: an overview of sustainable approaches for food waste management and nutrient recycling. BioMed Res Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2370927

Patel A, Sarkar O, Rova U, Christakopoulos P, Matsakas L (2021) Valorization of volatile fatty acids derived from low-cost organic waste for lipogenesis in oleaginous microorganisms-a review. Bioresour Technol 321:124457

Patel A, Hrůzová U, Rova P, Christakopoulos L, Matsakas L (2019) Sustainable biorefinery concept for biofuel production through holistic volarization of food waste. Bioresour Technol 294:122247

Pathak AK, Singh MM, Kumara V, Arya S, Trivedi AK (2012) Assessment of physico-chemical properties and microbial community during composting of municipal solid waste (Viz. KItchen waste) at Jhansi City, UP (India). Rec Resear Sci Tech 4(4)

Paulraj CRKJ, Bernard MA, Raju J, Abdulmajid M (2019) Sustainable waste management through waste to energy technologies in India-opportunities and environmental impacts. Int J Renew Ener Res 9(1):309–342

Petric I, Avdihodˇzi´c E, Ibri´c N (2015) Numerical simulation of composting process for mixture of organic fraction of municipal solid waste and poultry manure. Ecol Eng 75:242–249

Petric I, Heli´c A, Avdi´c EA (2012) Evolution of process parameters and determination of kinetics for co-composting of organic fraction of municipal solid waste with poultry manure. Bioresour Technol 117:107–116

Pirani SI, Arafat HA (2016) Reduction of food waste generation in the hospitality industry. J Clean Prod 132:129–145

Practice Greenhealth (2021) Food waste. Waste

Pramanik SK, Suja FB, Zain SM, Pramanik BK (2019) The anaerobic digestion process of biogas production from food waste: prospects and constraints. Bioresour Technol 8:100310

Principato L (2018) Food waste at the consumer level: a comprehensive review. Springer International Publishing, Cham

Ramakrishna V (2016) Municipal solid waste quantification, characterization and management in Rajam. Int J Engi Sci 5(2):8

Ramukhwatho FR (2016) An assessment of the household food wastage in a developing country: a case study of five areas in the city of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality, Guateng Province, South Africa

Ranjith PG, Viete DR, Chen BJ, Perera MSA (2012) Transformation plasticity and the effect of temperature on the mechanical behaviour of Hawkesbury sandstone at atmospheric pressure. Engineer Geol 151:120–127

Rich N, Bharti A (2015) Assessment of different types of in-vessel composters and its effect on stabilization of MSW compost. Int Res J Eng Technol 2:37–42

Roe BE, Bender K, Qi D (2021) The impact of COVID-19 on consumer food waste. Appl Eco Persp Pol 43(1):401–411

Roodhuyzen DMA, Luning PA, Fogliano V, Steenbekkers LPA (2017) Putting together the puzzle of consumer food waste: towards an integral perspective. Trends Food Sci Technol 68:37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.07.009

Saber DA, Azizi R, Dreyer S, Sanford D, Nadeau H (2022) Hospital food waste: reducing waste and cost to our health care system and environment. Onl J Issues Nurs 27(1)

SAGO (2019) Saudi FLW baseline: food loss & waste index in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Grains Organization.  https://www.sago.gov.sa/Content/Files/Baseline_230719

Salam MA, Hossain L, Das SR, Wahab R, Hossain MK (2012) Generation and assessing the composition of household solid waste in commercial capital city of Bangladesh. 1:12

Salemdeeb R, Zu Ermgassen EK, Kim MH, Balmford A, Al-Tabbaa A (2017) Environmental and health impacts of using food waste as animal feed: a comparative analysis of food waste management options. J Clean Prod 140:871–880

Sánchez A, Artola A, Font X, Gea T, Barrena R, Gabriel D, SánchezMonedero MÁ, Roig A, Cayuela ML, Mondini C (2015) Greenhouse gas emissions from organic waste composting. Environ Chem Lett 13:223–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-015-0507-5

Schanes K, Dobernig K, Gozet B (2018) Food waste matters - a systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications Jour Clean. Prod 182:978–991

Schwalb M, Rosevear C, Chin R, Barrington S (2011) Food waste treatment in a community center. Waste Manag 31:1570–1575

Shamurad B, Sallis P, Petropoulos E, Tabraiz S, Ospina C, Leary P, Gray N (2020) Stable biogas production from single-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste. Appl Ener 263:114609

Sharma P, Gaur VK, Kim SH, Pandey A (2020) Microbial strategies for bio-transforming food waste into resources. Bioresour Technol 299:122580

Sharma P, Gaur VK, Sirohi R, Varjani S, Kim SH, Wong JW (2021) Sustainable processing of food waste for production of bio-based products for circular bioeconomy. Bioresour Technol 325:124684

Shekdar AV (1999) Municipal solid waste management–the Indian perspective. J Indian Assoc Environ Manag 26(2):100–108

Shivamathi CS, Gunaseelan S, Soosai MR, Vignesh NS, Varalakshmi P, Kumar RS, Karthikumar S, Kumar RV, Baskar R, Rigby SP, Syed A (2022) Process optimization and characterization of pectin derived from underexploited pineapple peel biowaste as a value-added product. Food Hydrocoll 123:107141

Siegert I, Banks C (2005) The effect of volatile fatty acid additions on the anaerobic digestion of cellulose and glucose in batch reactors. Process Biochem 40:3412–3418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2005.01.025

Silvennoinen K, Heikkilä L, Katajajuuri JM, Reinikainen A (2015) Food waste volume and origin: case studies in the Finnish food service sector. Waste Manag 46:140–145

Slopiecka K, Liberti F, Massoli S, Bartocci P, Fantozzi F (2022) Chemical and physical characterization of food waste to improve its use in anaerobic digestion plants. Energy Nexus 5:100049

Smith S, Lang N, Cheung K, Spanoudaki K (2005) Factors controlling pathogen destruction during anaerobic digestion of biowastes. Waste Manag 25:417–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.02.010

Smithers GW (2008) Whey and whey proteins—From ‘gutter-to-gold.’ Int Dairy J 18(7):695–704

Song G, Li M, Semakula HM, Zhang S (2015) Food consumption and waste and the embedded carbon, water and ecological footprints of households in China. Sci Total Environ 529:191–197

Sridhar A, Ponnuchamy M, Kapoor A, Prabhakar S (2022) Valorization of food waste as adsorbents for toxic dye removal from contaminated waters A review. J Hazar Mater 424:127432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127432

Stangherlin IC, de Barcellos MD (2018) Drivers and barriers to food waste reduction. Brit Food J 120(10):2364–2387

Stenmarck A, Jensen C, Quested T, Moates G, Buksti M, Cseh B (2016) Estimates of European food waste levels. Project report FUSIONS

Stuart T (2009) Waste: uncovering the global food scandal. WW Norton & Company

Sujauddin M, Huda SMS, Hoque ATMR (2008) Household solid waste characteristics and management in Chittagong. Bangladesh Waste Manag 28(9):1688–1695

Sinha S, Tripathi P (2021) Trends and challenges in valorisation of food waste in developing economies: a case study of India. Case Stud Chem Enviro Eng 4:100162

Srishti (2000) Fifth Srishti survey of medical waste disposal practices in health care units of Delhi. New Delhi

Sun W, Huang GH, Zeng G, Qin X, Yu H (2011) Quantitative effects of composting state variables on C/N ratio through GA-aided multivariate analysis. Sci Total Environ 409:1243–1254

Sunshine Yates Consulting (2018) New Zealand food waste audits. Prepared for WasteMINZ

Suthar S, Singh P (2015) Household solid waste generation and composition in different family size and socio-economic groups: a case study. Sustain Citi Soc 14:56–63

Takeuchi N (2019) Linkages with SDG 11.6.1 on MSW and composition analysis

Tataˋno F, Pagliaro G, Di Giovanni P, Floriani E, Mangani F (2015) Biowaste home composting: experimental process monitoring and quality control. Waste Manag 38:72–85

Thapa B, Patidar SK, Khatiwada NR, Kc AK, Ghimire A (2019) Production of ethanol from municipal solid waste of India and Nepal. Waste valori Recyc 47–58

The Compulsory Food Waste Reduction Bill (2018)

Thi NBD, Kumar G, Lin CY (2015) An overview of food waste management in developing countries: current status and future perspective. J Environ Manag 157:220–229

Trilokesh C, Uppuluri KB (2019) Isolation and characterization of cellulose nanocrystals from jackfruit peel. Scien Rep 9(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53412-x

Tsang YF, Kumar V, Samadar P, Yang Y, Lee J, Ok YS, Song H, Kim KH, Kwon EE, Jeon YJ (2019) Production of bioplastic through food waste valorization. Environ Int 127:625–644

United Nations (2015) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) (2012) Compendium of technologies for treatment/destruction of healthcare waste.  https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/8628

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2020) Recycling and sustainable management of food during COVID-19 public health emergency

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2022) From farm to kitchen: the environmental impacts of food waste

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2020a) 2018 wasted food report (42)

Van Fan Y, Lee CT, Klemeˇs JJ, Chua LS, Sarmidi MR, Leow CW (2018) Evaluation of effective microorganisms on home scale organic waste composting. J Environ Manag 216:41–48

Varma VS, Kalamdhad AS (2015) Evolution of chemical and biological characterization during thermophilic composting of vegetable waste using rotary drum composter. Int J Environ Sci Technol 12(6)

Vetter-Gindele J, Braun A, Warth G, Bui TTQ, Bachofer F, Eltrop L (2019) Assessment of household solid waste generation and composition by building type in Da Nang, Vietnam. Resources 8(4):171

Wang K, He C, You S, Liu W, Wang W, Zhang R (2015) Transformation of organic matters in animal wastes during composting. J Hazard Mater 300:745–753

Wang X, Wen W, Pan S, Lin X, Chen S (2016) Influence of conditioner proportion on aerobic composting of food waste and microbial characteristics. Chi J Environ Engi 10:3215–3222

Wang X, Yang G, Feng Y, Ren G, Han X (2012) Optimizing feeding composition and carbon–nitrogen ratios for improved methane yield during anaerobic co-digestion of dairy, chicken manure and wheat straw. Bioresour Technol 120:78–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.06.058

Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP): Quality Protocol (2007) Compost end of waste criteria for the production and use of quality compost from source-segregated biodegradable waste

Watanabe K (2012) The 3R potential of household waste in Bangi, Malaysia. Towards Transforming Society and Empowering People, In Understanding Confluences and Contestations, Continuities and Changes, pp 116–126

World Economic Forum (2011) The global competitiveness report 2011–2012

Wu LJ, Kobayashi T, Kuramochi H, Li YY, Xu KQ (2016) Improved biogas production from food waste by co-digestion with de-oiled grease trap waste. Bioresour Technol 201:237–244

Xia H, Tang J, Aljerf L (2022) Dioxin emission prediction based on improved deep forest regression for municipal solid waste incineration process. Chemosphere 294:133716

Yates J, Gutberlet J (2011) Reclaiming and recirculating urban natures: integrated organic waste management in Diadema, Brazil. Environment and Planning A. 43. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4439

Zhang H, Liu G, Xue L, Zuo J, Chen T, Vuppaladadiyam A, Duan H (2020) Anaerobic digestion based waste-to-energy technologies can halve the climate impact of China’s fast-growing food waste by 2040. J Clean Prod 277:123490

Zhang L, Sun X (2014) Changes in physical, chemical, and microbiological properties during the two-stage co-composting of green waste with spent mushroom compost and biochar. Bioresour Technol 171:274–284

Zhang L, Sun X (2016) Improving green waste composting by addition of sugarcane bagasse and exhausted grape marc. Bioresour Technol 21:335–343

Zhang Y, Banks CJ, Heaven S (2012) Anaerobic digestion of two biodegradable municipal waste streams. J Environ Manag 104:166–174

Zhao J, Liu Y, Wang D, Chen F, Li X, Zeng G, Yang Q (2017) Potential impact of salinity on methane production from food waste anaerobic digestion. Waste Manag 67:308–314

Zhao X, Li B, Ni J, Xie D (2016a) Effect of four crop straws on transformation of organic matter during sewage sludge composting. J Integ Agri 15:232–240

Zhao Y, Lu Q, Wei Y, Cui H, Zhang X, Wang X (2016b) Effect of actinobacteria agent inoculation methods on cellulose degradation during composting based on redundancy analysis. Bioresour Technol 219:196–203

Zhongming Z, Linong L, Xiaona Y, Wangqiang Z, Wei L (2021) UNEP Food Waste Index Report

Zhou H, We L, Wang D, Zhang W (2022) Environmental impacts and optimizing strategies of municipal sludge treatment and disposal routes in China based on life cycle analysis. Environ Internat 166:107

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Head, Department of Botany, Banaras Hindu University for providing the necessary facilities. The authors would like to thank the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)- New Delhi, the University Grants Commission (UGC)-New Delhi, and the Institute of Eminence, BHU for providing fellowships.

The authors would like to thank the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)-New Delhi, University Grants Commission (UGC)-New Delhi, and the Institute of Eminence, BHU for providing fellowships to AS, PM and UK, and AK, respectively.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Laboratory of Ecotoxicology, Department of Botany, Institute of Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 221005, India

Ansuman Sahoo, Akanksha Dwivedi, Parvati Madheshiya, Umesh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar Sharma & Supriya Tiwari

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. The conceptualization and the first draft of the manuscript were written by Ansuman Sahoo. The compilation and editing were done by Akanksha Dwivedi. The figures and tables were done by Parvati Madheshiya. The references were arranged by Umesh Kumar. The preliminary editing was done by Rajesh Kumar Sharma. The final editing and finalization were performed by Supriya Tiwari.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Supriya Tiwari .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Ta Yeong Wu

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sahoo, A., Dwivedi, A., Madheshiya, P. et al. Insights into the management of food waste in developing countries: with special reference to India. Environ Sci Pollut Res 31 , 17887–17913 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27901-6

Download citation

Received : 03 September 2022

Accepted : 21 May 2023

Published : 05 June 2023

Issue Date : March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27901-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sustainability
• Environment
• Valorization
• Solid Characterization
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Jadwiga Rogoża: A stinking business. Environmental issues, protests and big money in the waste business in Russia. OSW Commentary No. 283, 27.08.2018

In recent months, Moscow oblast has seen a series of social protests against environmental problems caused by municipal waste landfills. The waste disposal sites are overloaded, lack adequate safeguards, emit toxic gases and contaminate the groundwater with harmful effluent. The situation is most severe in Moscow oblast because the capital city generates the largest volumes of waste; however, the problem itself extends beyond environmental concerns into the economic and social spheres. Waste management in Russia is marked by notorious overloading of legal waste disposal sites and the emergence of illegal waste dumps, inadequate waste disposal practices leading to air pollution and groundwater contamination which affect local residents, and bad practices by businesses with links to President Vladimir Putin which have monopolised the waste collection sector. The worsening environmental problems, and especially the health conditions suffered by residents exposed to waste dump vapours, have triggered social discontent. Residents of many locations outside Moscow have been protesting for months, and in some cases have raised political demands. However, a closer analysis of how the protests in Russia unfolded (and subsided) offers little hope that they will bring about any systemic change in waste management or create long-term social effects such as the emergence of mechanisms for civic oversight or a gradual change in the relationship between the state and the citizens. The 'garbage protests' seem to be an accurate illustration of the general dynamics of social protests in Russia. These are usually spontaneous and local, focus on a specific problem, and peter out once the problem has been even partly addressed, when the people become tired of demonstrating or come under pressure from the authorities. Moreover, the protesters seldom see their problem as part of a wider system sanctioned by the top tiers of government. The most that they expect is for their petition to reach the 'good tsar' president and for the local problem to be solved, without affecting the system as a whole. This attitude allows the Kremlin to maintain its status as the sole decision-maker, and gives it broad possibilities to extinguish the protests by making small concessions, manipulating the protesters, or intimidating or bribing their leaders.

RELATED PAPERS

Russian Analytical Didgest

Svetlana Erpyleva

Domenico Valenza

Jan Matti Dollbaum

Russian Politics

Yana Gorokhovskaia

International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society

Elena Tykanova

Europe-Asia Studies

Matthew Blackburn

Maria Chehonadskih

Ekaterina Ananyeva

Tetiana Havlin

Anna Grigoryeva

Cameron Ross

Serhiy Kudelia

Vladimir Vedrashko

Francesc Serra Massansalvador

Maria Tysiachniouk , Simone P

International Affairs

Nigel Gould-Davies

Vadim Likhachev

Irina Olimpieva , Stephen Crowley

Valentina Parisi

Andrei Semenov

Matthew Kott

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024