Next Article in Journal
An Examination of the Variables Affecting the Growth of the Tourist Sector in Guizhou Province
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluating and Prioritizing the Enablers of Supply Chain Performance Management System (SCPMS) for Sustainability
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 18
10.3390/su141811293
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Quantification, Environmental Impact, and Behavior Management: A Bibliometric Analysis and Review of Global Food Waste Research Based on CiteSpace

by
Li Jia
and
Guanghua Qiao
*
College of Economics and Management, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010010, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(18), 11293; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811293
Submission received: 1 August 2022 / Revised: 30 August 2022 / Accepted: 3 September 2022 / Published: 8 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Food)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
With the help of CiteSpace software and the Web of Science core collection database, we quantitatively analyzed the global research progress of food waste, explored the core and hotspots, and compared and analyzed the methods and findings based on the literature. The results show the following: (1) The studies in the field are multidisciplinary, with researchers from different countries drawing from each other’s work. The United States, China, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Sweden are the top five in terms of the number of articles published. (2) Research hotspots have gradually transitioned from food waste treatment processes to the quantification of food waste, resource and environmental impacts, consumer behaviors, and interventions, with quantification studies and food waste in the restaurant industry being the emergent hotspots in recent years. (3) Quantitative studies were mostly conducted based on two or more methods, and a larger proportion of studies were based on secondary data. In terms of per capita food waste, the amount from eating out at restaurants was higher than eating at home, and higher in developed countries than others. (4) The environmental footprint implied by food waste reflects the inefficiency and unsustainability of the food supply chain, and the footprint of meat food is much larger than that of other types. (5) The future trend in behavioral research is to conduct in-depth randomized intervention studies to explore the impact of different interventions and policies on food waste behavior and to strengthen cooperation among experts in various fields to dig deeper into theoretical approaches, policy systems, and science and technology to propose more strategic and sustainable food consumption and promote the transformation of agricultural food systems.

1. Introduction

In recent years, multiple risks, such as natural disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic, and regional conflicts, have overlapped to affect global agri-food systems, with 193 million people in 53 countries and regions experiencing crisis-level food insecurity in 2021 [1]. However, according to calculations by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), about one-third of all food produced for human consumption, corresponding to approximately 1.3 billion tons, is lost or wasted worldwide each year [2,3].
Food waste represents significant economic losses and reducing it could have a positive impact on total output, GDP, and employment [4]. In addition, food waste has a huge environmental impact, exacerbating stresses on arable land and water and creating staggering carbon emissions [5,6]. Target 12.3 of the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is about reducing food loss and waste and calls for halving per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels while reducing food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses, by 2030.
The global COVID-19 pandemic has set off a series of demand and supply side shocks that have disrupted food supply chains enormously and have impacted food waste. A bibliometric study of waste management in COVID-19 pandemic showed that household food waste was a major theme considering the pandemic’s effects on the waste generated, consumer behavior and lifestyle, and food systems [7].The lockdown processes may have triggered individuals to stockpile foodstuffs and may have led families to generate more food waste due to lack of foresight. A study showed a 12% increase in household food waste in Spain during the first weeks of the COVID-19 lockdown [8]. A similar situation also occurred in the United States, India [9], and Canada [10]. On the other hand, several changes in shopping and cooking behaviors, food consumption, and managing inventory and leftovers have occurred due to COVID-19, which pushed toward a positive change in food waste reduction [11,12]. A review also showed that the COVID-19 pandemic led to reductions in household food waste in most countries [13], and the positive effect of the epidemic on reducing canteen food waste was also confirmed in Indian universities [14]. Addressing the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the food supply chain and minimizing food waste is a very important aspect of sustainable consumption.
Due to the complexity and diversity of the food waste phenomenon, there is no uniform definition of food waste, causing confusion. Different research objectives have led to different ways of measuring the amount of food waste generated, often based on estimates and extrapolations. This has directly led to diverse definitions of food waste. In 2011, a study commissioned by the FAO evaluated the global incidence of food loss and waste and provided the following definition: “Food losses refer to the decrease in edible food mass throughout the part of the supply chain that specifically leads to edible food for human consumption” [2]. Stenmarck et al. (2016) defined food waste as “Fractions of ‘food and inedible parts of food removed from the food supply chain’ to be recovered or disposed (including composted, crops ploughed in/not harvested, anaerobic digestion, bioenergy production, co-generation, incineration, disposal to sewer, landfill or discarded to sea)” [15]. The study found that, in the European Union (EU-28), food waste amounts to approximately 88 million tonnes, or 173 kg per person, per year. This means 20% of the total amount of food produced in the EU is wasted.
According to the definition adopted from Parfitt et al. (2010), food losses occur at the beginning of the value chain due to objective factors in production, post-harvest handling and storage, processing, and distribution stages, and wastage occurring at the end of the value chain due to subjective factors at the retail and consumer level is referred to as food waste [16]. The FAO’s 2019 report defined food loss and waste as a reduction in quantity or quality of food along the food supply chain; food loss occurs from production up to (but excluding) retail and food waste occurs in retail and consumption [17]. We agree with this definition, and we define food waste as a reduction in the quantity or quality of food occurring in retail and consumption.
In general, food waste is more serious in developed countries, and food loss is more serious in developing countries and less developed regions [17]. The results of a major US study indicate that, in 2008, the estimated total value of food loss at the retail and consumer levels in the United States, as purchased at retail prices, was USD 165.6 billion, which means almost 124 kg (273 lb) of food lost per capita at an estimated retail price of USD 390 per capita per year [18]. Another study examined the quality baselines for food waste in the hospitality sector based on quantification data measured in 1189 kitchens in Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Germany and found that around 20% of food served became waste (about 192 g per person per meal) [19]. Household food waste in the UK, Germany, and Italy is also not negligible; using the diary method, studies have found that household food waste in these countries was about 136, 50, and 76 g per person per day, respectively [20,21,22].
With the rise of emerging economies, developing countries are likely to be important players in determining the global food waste situation by the mid-21st century, with global per capita food waste likely to double by 2050 without policy interventions or behavioral changes [23], which is a potential threat to national food security. China’s dietary structure has changed dramatically in the past 20 years, reflecting a significant increase in the consumption of animal foods and the continued development of the restaurant industry, which means that the quantity and composition of food waste is also changing. A study estimated that 27% of the food produced in China each year is lost or wasted, 17% of which is generated at the retail and consumption levels [24]. The government of China is guiding low-carbon sustainable consumption by implementing a comprehensive conservation strategy. With the promulgation of the Anti-Food Waste Law of the People’s Republic of China, the country has officially incorporated food waste reduction into the legal system.
There has been a dramatic increase in international research on food waste since 2010 based on multiple factors. From a macro perspective, on the one hand, economic development has led to overconsumption and income growth, and a decreasing Engel coefficient has led to increasingly serious food waste; on the other hand, the inherent demand for sustainable development in every country has heightened the importance of food waste reduction and waste resource utilization. Some scholars have searched and summarized the research about food waste in formal and informal publications [25,26,27]. Reviews of management policies about food waste [28,29,30], intervention approaches, and nudge strategies to reduce waste [31] have also provided a basis for exploring the frontiers of the field.
Our study is the first in the field of food waste to use CiteSpace software for bibliometric analysis and review. CiteSpace is open-source software with powerful data processing capability that can be used to demonstrate the evolution of research frontiers and hotspots in knowledge areas. It shows research areas, core topics, and hotspots to facilitate a quick understanding of the knowledge and progress of certain fields by categorizing the literature and using large nodes for visualization in software analysis. We read and categorized articles which were categorized in relevant big nodes by keywords into various types of visualization graphs in CiteSpace, summarized their research scope, methods, results, etc., and listed the important information in tables. This approach enables a clear presentation of the research progress on hot topics in the field.
In this paper, we focus on the literature about food waste at the consumption level for both households and eating out. With the help of CiteSpace software and the Web of Science core collection database, we conducted a comprehensive scientometrics analysis and substantial discussion of research progress in food waste over a full time span, aiming to provide an overview of the most influential scientific literature published on Web of Science in this field. The research process was as follows: (1) We summarized the significant publication status and regional distribution of research on food waste with basic statistics and advanced analytics. (2) We reviewed the foci, trends, and frontiers of food waste research from references, keyword clustering, and burst keywords. (3) Based on the keyword clustering results, the existing research results were compared and analyzed from four aspects—quantification, environmental impact, drivers, and behavior management—in order to show the whole picture of food waste research and the current status of research in different countries. The results indicate the current status and future trends of food waste, which can help scholars to understand the scope of this topic and foresee the dynamic directions of this field of research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Scientometric Analysis in CiteSpace

CiteSpace is a literature data mining and visualization software, developed by Chao-Mei Chen’s team, which integrates various methods, such as cluster analysis and social network analysis, and can determine the basic knowledge and research frontiers of a certain field through the analysis of literature co-citation and coupling, research collaboration networks, and theme and field contributions, detect disciplinary research characteristics and evolution trends, as well as identify the intersection and interaction between different research themes. It can quantitatively and visually sort the literature [32] and present the research status and theme evolution of a certain field for a certain period of time on a graph [33].
In the generated graph, N denotes the number of network nodes, E denotes the number of connections, Density denotes the network density, and Modularity is the evaluation index of network modularity (the larger the Modularity Q value, the better the clustering obtained by the network, and a Modularity Q value > 0.3 means that the obtained network association structure is significant). The nodes indicate the citation year wheel, and the different colors and sizes of the year wheel represent the different years and the number of citations, which are used to indicate the history of the literature being cited since its publication. For Keyword Co-occurrence Analysis, word frequency is the number of occurrences of words in the analyzed literature, which can show the core topics and hotspots of research in the field [34]. The greater the word frequency, the larger the nodes shown in the graph. Meanwhile, the number of co-occurrences can be determined based on the thickness of linked keyword lines, and the affinity between them can also be measured. The Burst function in CiteSpace software indicates an explosive growth of the frequency of word use in titles, abstracts, and keywords in a short period of time. Burst keywords with high strength indicate that scholars in a certain period have discovered new research fields and research perspectives, thus showing the academic frontier and hotspots in a certain period.
Visual analytics of the literature provides a valuable, timely, repeatable, and flexible approach when used in addition to traditional systematic reviews in order to track the development of new emerging trends and identify critical evidence [35].

2.2. Data Collection

The main source of literature analyzed in this paper was the Web of Science core collection database, and the search was mainly focused on food waste in the catering industry (represented by school cafeterias, restaurants, and hotels) and households. The search was focused on food waste (plate waste) and place, and the search formula was set as {“food waste” or “plate waste”} and {“catering or hotel or restaurant or school or university or supermarket or home or household”} for a topic search of the literature with the time interval set as 2002 to January 6, 2022, and the document types were refined by groups into articles, meetings, and review articles; in total, 1570 papers were obtained for analysis. In this paper, we used CiteSpace software version 5.7.R2 (64-bit) with the parameter selection criteria of Top50 per slice, which was run on January 6, 2022 and spanned 2002–2022 (Slice Length = 2). The Pathfinder in the pruning connection function was also used. The data extraction and analysis process is shown in Figure 1.
Food waste involves multidisciplinary research and some information related to the food waste treatment process was found in the searched literature, which defined food waste as kitchen waste requiring disposal. The definition of food waste in this paper is given in the Introduction and mainly refers to the edible part of kitchen waste. Therefore, although this category in the literature was not the main focus of our study, it was considered in the bibliometric analysis and then refined for different categories in the subsequent analysis.

3. Results of Bibliometric Analysis

3.1. Publication Trends

Food waste became a hot spot for research after 2010. The number of publications surged from 5 in 2002 to 305 in 2021 (Figure 2) and, according to the disciplinary distribution of research journals, environmental science and environmental engineering accounted for 53.01% and 31.74%, respectively. Scholars in natural and social science fields have explored food waste in areas such as green agriculture and sustainable science and technology, nutrition, environmental research, food science and technology, agricultural economic policy, etc., which covers perspectives including waste management and utilization, nutrition and health, household and catering settings, resources, environment and economy, behavior and intervention, management and policy, etc. This reflects the fact that food waste not only involves natural science issues, such as waste treatment and environmental assessment, but has also received attention in recent years from scholars in social sciences, such as economics, behavior, and psychology, to deeply explore causes and intervention methods, reveal the inner mechanism of market failure, and explore the potential for reduction.

3.2. Research Area and Analysis

The size of nodes in CiteSpace represents the number of publications and the thickness of lines between nodes represents the strength of their relationship. According to the co-occurrence network of countries (shown in Figure 3), a pattern of mutual learning and close cooperation has formed globally, and the research is mainly conducted in developed countries. The United States, China, the United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden, Germany, Spain, Australia, Denmark, Canada, Brazil, and Greece were the 12 countries with the most published literature.

3.3. Research Cores and Hotspots

As can be seen on the keyword co-occurrence visualization map of food waste studies (Figure 4), there are 642 nodes and 4133 connections, with a network density of 0.0201. The top 15 keywords were food waste, management, behavior, anaerobic digestion, consumption, attitude, generation, municipal solid waste, life cycle assessment, impact, reduction, system, energy, plate waste, and loss, all of which had more than 85 occurrences. The graph shows that the high-frequency keywords are closely linked and are the basis of the study. Some keywords represent unidirectional branches or network connections, forming different research subdivisions. For example, anaerobic digestion and municipal solid waste form a one-way branch, which reflects that the current research on food waste treatment is relatively independent and rich. Keywords such as management, behavior, consumption, generation, impact (mostly referred to as environmental impact in the literature), and reduction form different branches and complex networks, constituting important research content. The keywords were clustered, and the clustering Q value was 0.61 (Q > 0.3 indicates significant clustering). A total of nine themes were formed, involving plate waste, food waste, theory of planned behavior (consumption psychology that explains this theory), anaerobic digestion, life cycle assessment (a method of assessing resource and environmental impacts), food consumption, consumer behavior, waste management, and energy intake. Most studies needed to quantify food waste, so, based on the keyword clustering results, we focused on four research themes for in-depth analysis: food waste quantification, impact, consumer behavior, and management policies.
Burst keywords are determined by the growth rate of a word’s frequency of use in titles, abstracts, and keywords, and burst strength can reflect hotspots, according to which we can understand the direction in which the frontier of a certain field is moving. Using the Burst function in CiteSpace software, the top 25 burst keywords were identified (Table 1). Household food waste and plate waste have been research hotspots for a long time, and their burst strength was the highest among the relevant words. Food waste disposal processes (municipal solid waste, organic waste, sewage sludge, manure, biogas production, ammonia) have also shown high frequency over time, along with the formation of waste behaviors and interventions, which occur at important stages and places in childhood and adolescence at schools. Supply chain food waste, circular economy, restaurant food waste, and food waste quantification have been research hotspots in recent years. From a focus on food waste treatment processes, research has gradually shifted to comprehensive and complex studies on consumer behavior, resource and environmental costs, the potential for reduction, intervention approaches, and policy measures.

4. Review of Core and Hot Topics

4.1. Quantification and Survey Methods

Food waste can be quantified in a variety of ways [36,37]. The quantification methods include two types: direct measurement (or approximate and indirect measurement) based on first-hand data, and indirect measurement derived from secondary data.
The main quantitative methods based on first-hand data are diaries, direct measurements, surveys (questionnaire interviews), waste composition analyses (archaeological method), and mass balance analyses (material flow analysis). Diaries are often used in household food waste measurement research to collect data by recording the amounts and types of wasted food daily using a scale over a period of time [38]. Direct measurement (weighing method) is more costly, and therefore less common, but has been used in in-depth studies of urban food waste in China [39]. The main purpose of the survey method is to collect information about people’s perceptions or behaviors regarding food waste [11] through questionnaires or interviews, asking respondents to directly estimate the amount or percentage of food waste [40,41,42,43]. Waste composition analysis is often used in combination with other methods for quantification, mainly by separating food waste from other types of solid waste to determine its weight or percentage [44]. Mass balance (material flow analysis) is often used to quantify food loss and waste along a chain [45] or in restaurants [46]. Alternatively, rough quantification can be done by observation, using a multi-point scale, visual inspection, or counting to assess the amount of food waste.
Indirect measurement or derivation from secondary data is another method used to estimate the magnitude of regional or national food waste, which mainly includes modeling or using a food balance sheet [47], proxy data, or literature data [48,49]. The purpose of such studies is to assess the resource impacts, environmental impacts, economic costs, etc., of food waste. The disadvantage of indirect measurement is that it is difficult to reflect the real situation and the results are less generalizable across regions.
Due to the large amount of human and material resources required to obtain first-hand data, there is a lack of research based on first-hand data worldwide. A systematic review of 370 papers related to food waste found that only about 20% of the studies were based on first-hand data, more than 40% were based on literature data only, and about a third used a combination of literature data and other methods to quantify food waste [25]. Results based on different methods can vary widely. For instance, the results of a study on two ways of quantifying household food waste in Sweden showed that self-reported findings on the amount of household food waste per capita per year differed by a factor of 10 from the extrapolations in a national waste composition analysis report, and the problem of underreporting was evident [50]. In conclusion, the quantification methods used in existing studies have advantages and disadvantages, and they need to be carefully tailored to the research question and purpose. Table 2 summarizes the quantification methods and their findings from national food waste studies.
When, where, and which methods to use to quantify food waste depend on the research objectives, and the shortcomings of the chosen method should be avoided as much as possible. Input–output analysis based on mass balance analysis (material flow analysis) of secondary data is suitable for measuring regional food waste. For the consumer side (households and restaurants), the diary method includes important information on the steps of food waste generation, the main causes, and the means of disposal in order to understand and correct consumer behavior, but it is more challenging to overcome self-selection problems and to improve the accuracy of data provided by participants. Direct measurement, especially the weighing method, is more critical in terms of sample size and sample selection due to its high cost and the complexity of food types. Waste composition analysis can be combined with material flow analysis to both refine the data on food waste in restaurants and obtain information on household food waste under interference-free conditions, but such studies are more fragmented and are not standardized. Surveys are widely used because of their feasibility and the ability to obtain information from multiple perspectives, but they require the cooperation of participants and need to be scientifically designed in order to avoid underestimation and socially desirable responses as much as possible; in addition, more accurate data may be obtained with the help of mobile applications and other technological tools. Figure 5 shows a summary of the findings of food waste quantification studies in different countries, with the amounts of food waste from households and eating out listed separately. Although different quantification methods were used, the results show a higher overall amount of food waste in developed countries and from eating out compared to other countries and eating at home.

4.2. Economic and Environmental Costs of Resources

Differences in quantification methods make the economic costs of food waste less comparable across regions. Cuéllar et al. assessed the economic costs of food waste at the national level, estimating that energy from wasted food in the United States accounts for about 2% of annual energy consumption [74]. Campoy-Muñoz et al. used a linear multiplier model based on a social accounting matrix to assess the positive impact of reducing food waste on the national economy in terms of total output, gross domestic product (GDP), and employment [4]. Reducing food waste can indirectly increase supply and help ensure regional food security, as well as alleviate the pressure of rising food prices and curb inflation to a certain extent. From a micro perspective, existing studies have mainly estimated the economic cost of food waste and the average expense ratio of individuals. The studies on the economic loss of food waste and their findings are shown in Table 3.
Current studies assessing the economic costs of food waste include total food waste, but Ellison et al. proposed the concept of optimal food waste [79], i.e., that an economic analysis of the costs of food waste and benefits of interventions can help identify relevant policies to intervene in food waste-induced market failures. There are winners and losers among stakeholders in reducing food waste, and the benefits of the system must be weighed before policy interventions can be identified.
Food waste implies the use of resources and labor at the front of the food supply chain [80]. Reducing waste can eliminate the inefficient use of natural resources. With the modernization of global agriculture, the environmental impact of the excessive use of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, and mulch is becoming more serious. The resource and environmental impacts of food waste are increasing, which includes not only the impact of producing the wasted food (which can be called the former effects), but also new resource and environmental, food safety, and even health effects on urban residents (which can be called the latter effects) caused by the wasted food entering the ecosystem [81]. It is necessary to raise awareness of the dangers of food waste in academic and policy-making communities and even in society as a whole.
The implied ineffective occupation of land by food waste is mainly measured by the ecological footprint, which imposes an additional burden on regional resources and ecology, e.g., the ecological footprint of urban dining waste in China far exceeds the arable land area of the region, reflecting characteristics of unsustainability [82,83]. In addition, food waste represents an inefficient use of water resources [47]. Reducing food waste can be an effective response to water scarcity [6]. Some studies have estimated that the loss of water resources (blue and green water) due to consumption waste in China accounts for more than 10% of the country’s total water use [5]. The implicit carbon emissions of wasted food also represent a driver of climate change [80,84]. Estimates of carbon emissions from food waste at the national level in Turkey and the per capita level in the US indicate a staggering environmental cost [85]; the US, for example, generates 673 + 114 kg of CO2 equivalent per capita per year [86]. At the same time, the implied environmental impact varies by food type, with animal products having larger environmental and energy footprints. Although animal products account for only 34% of the total food waste in the US downstream of the food supply chain, they generate 60% of the implied energy waste [75]. The carbon reduction effect of changing consumer behavior to reduce waste would be significant. Table 4 summarizes academic estimates of the resource and environmental impacts of food waste in different countries.

4.3. Drivers of Food Waste

Food waste behavior is the result of a combination of personal characteristics, regional culture, economics, and other factors, and the influencing factors are complex. Studies on the drivers of food waste and consumption behavior for households, restaurants, and public canteens (schools) are not the same. The discussion and scientific analysis of the drivers of food waste behavior on the consumption end can provide scientific support for the formulation of sustainable food development strategies [92].
Using the search results from the Web of Science core collection of food waste literature, and then consumption, behavior, and management based on several keywords in behavioral science, economics, and agricultural economic policy categories after refinement, the citation frequency of papers was determined. This was done mainly to explore global food waste consumption behavior, intervention measures, and policy analysis in the high-quality literature for future related research, which has important guidance, but also to lay a foundation for subsequent in-depth research. The top eight highly cited papers are listed in Table 5.
The occurrence of food waste may be related to opportunity cost and income, as consumers have no incentive to avoid wasting food if the expenditure is only a small part of total household expenditure [43]. At the same time, income growth significantly increases the amount of food waste [99]. Research suggests that demographic factors, purchase planning (excessive or impulsive shopping), misunderstanding labels, storage conditions, excessive food preparation, catering to family members’ tastes, and food safety concerns have significant effects on food waste behavior. Contextual factors such as travel status [83,100], plate size [101], and information intervention [102] can also have an impact. Compared to other countries, food waste in China is more context-dependent, with irrational components such as comparative or conspicuous consumption when eating out exacerbating waste. In turn, wasteful behavior is influenced by reference groups, notions of saving face, and the social culture of extravagance and wastefulness, which leads to event-based consumption [103]. This results in increased waste in contexts such as events and business dinners. In addition, psychological factors, such as consumer awareness and cognition, have also received attention from scholars; for example, a study on the prerequisites for consumer participation in reducing food waste in restaurants in Poland introduced knowledge of the public environment as an influencing factor [104]. Price awareness [105], subjective norms [40], environmental concerns [106], and a range of psychosocial factors [93] can all influence food waste behavior by influencing people’s behavioral intentions. Table 6 summarizes studies on some representative food waste behaviors and their findings and influencing factors.

4.4. Food Waste Management Policies

Policies for reducing food waste should target the circumstances and actions that lead to food wastage and should be informed by motivations for producing waste. Academics have conducted research on government interventions, subsidies, legislation, and other food waste management policies from upstream of the food supply chain to consumption, and comprehensive public policies at the municipal level addressing consumer behavior are important for reducing food waste [28]. Management innovations to reduce food waste fall into three broad categories: using technology-based innovations; expanding the use of existing technologies; and implementing strategic planning, policy, and social practices regarding producer, retailer, and consumer behavior, with a significant amount of research devoted to improving management at the retail and restaurant levels [30].
Promoting surplus food redistribution is an important means of reducing food waste in consumption, such as promoting the donation of surplus and suboptimal food. Food rescue organizations in the United States identify the value of food that has exceeded its recommended “sell-by” date and partner with grocery stores and restaurants to collect such food and disperse it quickly with the help of supply chain management tools [18]. A study of the 2013 Ontario Food Donation Tax Credit policy case shows that incentivizing such donations presents administrative cost challenges, and the policy does not address the issue of food waste [115]. There are barriers to donating. A study on expired food donation in Italy revealed serious reputational risks that limit the supply of and demand for food past its best-before date, despite legal provisions promoting donation [116].
In a study involving an objective assessment of EU legislation directly or indirectly related to food waste, Eriksson et al. identified the responsibility for donated food, date marking regulations, the flexibility provided by EU food packaging, and fiscal rules as the main policy factors influencing the creation of food waste [117]. However, some current legislation does not directly affect food waste and often creates inconsistent incentives among stakeholders, thus weakening the desired impact. A comprehensive policy framework based on empirical studies of the interaction of various food waste policies is needed to address the problem. In addition, the effect of fiscal policies on food waste at the consumption end is controversial. Chalak et al. collected data from 44 countries at different income levels to investigate the impact of legislative and economic incentives on household food waste and found that explicit regulations, policies, and strategies were more effective than fiscal measures in reducing household food waste [118].
Many policy initiatives have been used around the world to reduce food waste, in addition to legislation and donations, with controversial effects [115,117]. Countries around the world have also introduced regional systems to reduce food waste, such as the food waste hierarchy suggested by the UK government (Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/food-and-drink-waste-hierarchy-deal-with-surplus-and-waste/food-and-drink-waste-hierarchy-deal-with-surplus-and-waste. accessed on 1 April 2021) and the Clean Your Plate campaign in China.
Since comprehensive municipal public policies and consumer behaviors are important in reducing food waste [28], innovations based on technology and the expansion of existing technologies are required to develop strategic measures for changing the behaviors of producers, retailers, and consumers [30]. Nowadays, there is significant use of lean techniques and digitalization to reduce food waste. Luca et al. proposed an approach to reduce out-of-home food waste in Italy by combining surplus food management and digital solutions with profitable business model innovations. The results supported the need for companies to invest in innovative and digital solutions to reduce food surpluses and waste [119]. The implementation of an Internet of Things-based food waste tracking system can help identify food waste hotspots [120], and a categorization scheme for digital food waste technologies (forecasting, waste analysis, redistribution, and measures) can also be used for food waste prevention [121]. Based on three case studies from Poland [122], lean management methods for food services can not only achieve efficient operations, but also potentially eliminate food waste. Thus, such methods are worth promoting in the restaurant industry.
Since food waste is a complex, interdisciplinary, international issue that can have profound effects on regional and global sustainability, China has promoted food conservation and low-carbon consumption in recent years, such as the introduction of the “Eight Provisions” in 2012 and the restriction of official consumption in 2013, which significantly curbed food waste in large restaurants [123]. The promulgation of the Anti-Food Waste Law of the People’s Republic of China also contains restrictions on food waste in different aspects, guiding localities and industries to develop appropriate regulations or rules to reduce waste.

5. Conclusions and Future Research

5.1. Conclusions

With the help of CiteSpace, this study used quantitative and qualitative analysis methods to systematically organize the progress of global food waste research. The results show that from 2002 to 2022, food waste gradually received attention from scholars, and the research field is a fusion of resource and environmental science, economics, management, and behavioral psychology, with researchers from various countries learning from each other and working closely together; the research is dominated by developed countries in Europe, the United States, and China. Research hotspots have gradually transitioned from an early focus on treatment processes to the quantification of food waste, resource and environmental impacts, and consumption behavior and interventions. Quantification and food waste research in the restaurant industry are the emergent hotspots in recent years. Food waste quantification methods are mainly divided into two categories: direct measurement (or approximate and indirect measurement) based on first-hand data and indirect measurement derived from secondary data. In addition, there is a great lack of research based on first-hand microdata, different quantification methods have advantages and disadvantages, and quantification methods need to be carefully developed according to research questions and purposes. The amount of food waste in China cannot be ignored. The implied environmental footprint of food waste reflects the inefficiency and unsustainability of the food supply chain, with the environmental footprint of meat being much larger than that of other food types. In recent years, research on food waste behavior and its drivers has been increasing. Consumer waste behavior is mostly related to individual characteristics, household characteristics, and contextual factors and can be traced to deeper psychological factors such as awareness, cognition, and so on.

5.2. Future Research

Reducing food waste by half by 2030 is part of the global SDGs. As China implements a comprehensive conservation strategy, advocates a simple, moderate, and green low-carbon lifestyle, and pursues sustainable food consumption, research in the following areas deserves further attention:
(1) Increasing the standardization of food waste quantification methods is inevitable for international research and an important means for enhancing the comparability of studies. Although international organizations have attempted to develop food loss and waste guidelines [124,125] to promote scientificity, consistency, and transparency in quantification (including quantification content and methods), there are still few studies based on micro-measurement data; the lack of uniformity in quantification methods makes inter-regional comparisons difficult and there is a need to develop and standardize the workflows and criteria for first-hand food waste data collection. Developing and standardizing the workflows and criteria for primary food waste data collection will facilitate accurate identification of the current situation and differences across regions as well as key loss points, and thus the implementation of interventions. In addition, the nature of research and policy objectives will influence the choice of food waste concepts and quantification methods, while research on food waste in the restaurant industry will be more concerned with changes in the flow of food in the kitchen life cycle.
(2) Research on the mechanisms of food waste behavior needs to be improved. The current research either ignores the relationship between external contextual factors and individual psychological factors or focuses only on the role of one individual or certain types of factors, resulting in a lack of profound analysis of individual psychological factors in the constructed intervention strategies, and thus a lack of a theoretical basis. Consumer food waste behavior belongs to the micro category, as it is a kind of subjective behavior implying both self-interested and altruistic motives and is disturbed by external contextual factors. By constructing a comprehensive framework of influencing factors on consumer food waste, we can test theories based on individual consumers and external contexts and explore such factors and their relative importance. This would expand the perspective of related theories in the field of food waste behavior and facilitate the transition to a theory of induced measures so that public policy theory can be combined with the theory of subjective behavioral choice.
(3) Exploring the effectiveness of interventions in reducing consumer food waste and their causal relationships is the key to studying consumer food waste behavior. Global research on food waste interventions only began in the past decade, mainly involving prior interventions (information interventions, prompts, modeling (social norms), and commitment) and outcome interventions (feedback, rewards, and punishments). In such cases, appropriate and reasonable interventions can change or further influence food waste behavior by affecting consumers’ perceptions and attitudes toward food waste. Information interventions are currently the most commonly used type of intervention, and the evidence of their effectiveness is controversial; other interventions should be considered in follow-up studies. In addition, current research is less concerned with evaluating the effects of implemented interventions. Theoretically, effective consumer interventions must undergo experimentation and evaluation in specific contexts to further analyze their effects and causal relationships.
(4) Combining multiple objectives in order to provide a basis for public policy interventions on food waste is needed. The economic logic of food waste is mainly related to cost versus benefit. On the one hand, private benefits and costs determine consumer behavior, and on the other hand, social benefits and costs determine whether to intervene in this behavior; the type, cost, and effect of interventions needs to be considered. In addition to professional analysis and data support, such as assessing the benefits of reducing food waste from three environmental dimensions (greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and water use), behavioral interventions, randomized experiments, and cost–benefit analysis of interventions can be combined with economics, sociology, psychology, and other fields. It is of great scientific value and social significance to propose food waste and resource reduction targets, as well as countermeasures with scientific value and operability according to regional and national conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.Q. and L.J.; methodology, G.Q.; software, L.J.; validation, G.Q. and L.J.; resources, G.Q.; data curation, L.J.; writing—original draft preparation, L.J.; writing—visualization, L.J.; supervision, G.Q.; funding acquisition, G.Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Social Science Foundation of China (20BGL165).

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Food Security Information Network. The Global Report on Food Crises; World Food Programme: Rome, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gustavsson, J.; Cederberg, C.; Sonesson, U. Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
  3. HLPE. Food Loss and Waste in the Context of Sustainable Food Systems; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  4. Campoy-Muñoz, P.; Cardenete, M.A.; Delgado, M.C. Economic impact assessment of food waste reduction on European countries through social accounting matrices. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 122, 202–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sun, S.K.; Lu, Y.J.; Gao, H.; Jiang, T.T.; Du, X.Y.; Shen, T.X.; Wu, P.T.; Wang, Y.B. Impacts of food wastage on water resources and environment in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 185, 732–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Marston, L.T.; Read, Q.D.; Brown, S.P.; Muth, M.K. Reducing Water Scarcity by Reducing Food Loss and Waste. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 105106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ranjbari, M.; Shams Esfandabadi, Z.; Gautam, S.; Ferraris, A.; Scagnelli, S.D. Waste management beyond the COVID-19 pandemic: Bibliometric and text mining analyses. Gondwana Res. 2022. [CrossRef]
  8. Aldaco, R.; Hoehn, D.; Laso, J.; Margallo, M.; Ruiz-Salmón, J.; Cristobal, J.; Kahhat, R.; Villanueva-Rey, P.; Bala, A.; Batlle-Bayer, L.; et al. Food waste management during the COVID-19 outbreak: A holistic climate, economic and nutritional approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 742, 140524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Brizi, A.; Biraglia, A. “Do I have enough food?” How need for cognitive closure and gender impact stockpiling and food waste during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-national study in India and the United States of America. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 168, 110396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Music, J.; Charlebois, S.; Spiteri, L.; Farrell, S.; Griffin, A. Increases in Household Food Waste in Canada as a Result of COVID-19: An Exploratory Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, L.; Yang, Y.; Wang, G. The Clean Your Plate Campaign: Resisting Table Food Waste in an Unstable World. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jribi, S.; Ben Ismail, H.; Doggui, D.; Debbabi, H. COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 22, 3939–3955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Iranmanesh, M.; Ghobakhloo, M.; Nilashi, M.; Tseng, M.-L.; Senali, M.G.; Abbasi, G.A. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on household food waste behaviour: A systematic review. Appetite 2022, 176, 106127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Davison, N.; Young, W.; Ross, A.; Cockerill, T.; Rajput, S. Investigating the Impacts of Behavioural-Change Interventions and COVID-19 on the Food-Waste-Generation Behaviours of Catered Students in the UK and India. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Stenmarck, Å.; Jensen, C.; Quested, T.; Moates, G. Estimates of European Food Waste Levels; IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  16. Parfitt, J.; Barthel, M.; Macnaughton, S. Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 3065–3081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019: Moving Forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  18. Buzby, J.C.; Hyman, J. Total and per capita value of food loss in the United States. Food Policy 2012, 37, 561–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Malefors, C.; Callewaert, P.; Hansson, P.-A.; Hartikainen, H.; Pietilainen, O.; Strid, I.; Strotmann, C.; Eriksson, M. Towards a Baseline for Food-Waste Quantification in the Hospitality Sector-Quantities and Data Processing Criteria. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Langley, J.; Yoxall, A.; Heppell, G.; Rodriguez, E.M.; Bradbury, S.; Lewis, R.; Luxmoore, J.; Hodzic, A.; Rowson, J. Food for Thought? A UK pilot study testing a methodology for compositional domestic food waste analysis. Waste Manag. Res. 2010, 28, 220–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Leverenz, D.; Moussawel, S.; Maurer, C.; Hafner, G.; Schneider, F.; Schmidt, T.; Kranert, M. Quantifying the prevention potential of avoidable food waste in households using a self-reporting approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 150, 104417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Giordano, C.; Alboni, F.; Falasconi, L. Quantities, Determinants, and Awareness of Households’ Food Waste in Italy: A Comparison between Diary and Questionnaires Quantities. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Barrera, E.L.; Hertel, T. Global food waste across the income spectrum: Implications for food prices, production and resource use. Food Policy 2021, 98, 101874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Xue, L.; Liu, X.; Lu, S.; Cheng, G.; Hu, Y.; Liu, J.; Dou, Z.; Cheng, S.; Liu, G. China’s food loss and waste embodies increasing environmental impacts. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 519–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, X.; Liu, G.; Parfitt, J.; Liu, X.; van Herpen, E.; Stenmarck, Å.; O’Connor, C.; Östergren, K.; Cheng, S. Missing Food, Missing Data? A Critical Review of Global Food Losses and Food Waste Data. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 6618–6633. [Google Scholar]
  26. Cattaneo, A.; Sánchez, M.V.; Torero, M.; Vos, R. Reducing food loss and waste: Five challenges for policy and research. Food Policy 2021, 98, 101974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Do, Q.; Ramudhin, A.; Colicchia, C.; Creazza, A.; Li, D. A systematic review of research on food loss and waste prevention and management for the circular economy. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 239, 108209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Walia, B.; Sanders, S. Curbing food waste: A review of recent policy and action in the USA. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2019, 34, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhu, S.; Gao, H.; Duan, L. Latest research progress on food waste management: A comprehensive review. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 153, 62043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Żmieńka, E.; Staniszewski, J. Food management innovations for reducing food wastage—A systematic literature review. Management 2020, 24, 193–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Barker, H.; Shaw, P.J.; Richards, B.; Clegg, Z.; Smith, D. What Nudge Techniques Work for Food Waste Behaviour Change at the Consumer Level? A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chen, C.M. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2006, 57, 359–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Xia, L.; Chai, L.; Zhang, H.; Sun, Z. Mapping the Global Landscape of Long-Term Care Insurance Research: A Scientometric Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hou, J.; Yang, X.; Chen, C. Emerging trends and new developments in information science: A document co-citation analysis (2009–2016). Scientometrics 2018, 115, 869–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chen, C.; Hu, Z.; Liu, S.; Tseng, H. Emerging trends in regenerative medicine: A scientometric analysis in CiteSpace. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2012, 12, 593–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chaboud, G. Assessing food losses and waste with a methodological framework: Insights from a case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 125, 188–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Eriksson, M.; Osowski, C.P.; Malefors, C.; Björkman, J.; Eriksson, E. Quantification of food waste in public catering services—A case study from a Swedish municipality. Waste Manag. 2017, 61, 415–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Quested, T.E.; Palmer, G.; Moreno, L.C.; McDermott, C.; Schumacher, K. Comparing diaries and waste compositional analysis for measuring food waste in the home. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 262, 121263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, L.-E.; Liu, G.; Liu, X.; LIU, Y.; Gao, J.; Zhou, B.; Gao, S.; Cheng, S. The weight of unfinished plate: A survey based characterization of restaurant food waste in Chinese cities. Waste Manag. 2017, 66, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Teng, C.-C.; Chih, C.; Wang, Y.-C. Decisional Factors Driving Household Food Waste Prevention: Evidence from Taiwanese Families. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Giménez, A.; Ares, G. Household food waste in an emerging country and the reasons why: Consumer´s own accounts and how it differs for target groups. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 145, 332–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Abdelradi, F. Food waste behaviour at the household level: A conceptual framework. Waste Manag. 2018, 71, 485–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mattar, L.; Abiad, M.G.; Chalak, A.; Diab, M.; Hassan, H. Attitudes and behaviors shaping household food waste generation: Lessons from Lebanon. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 1219–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gutiérrez-Barba, B.E.; Ortega-Rubio, A. Household food-waste production and a proposal for its minimization in Mexico. Life Sci. J. 2013, 10, 1772–1783. [Google Scholar]
  45. Amicarelli, V.; Bux, C.; Lagioia, G. How to measure food loss and waste?: A material flow analysis application. Br. Food J. 2020, 123, 67–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kasavan, S.; Ali, N.I.B.M.; Ali, S.S.B.S.; Masarudin, N.A.B.; Yusoff, S.B. Quantification of food waste in school canteens: A mass flow analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Liu, J.; Lundqvist, J.; Weinberg, J.; Gustafsson, J. Food losses and waste in China and their implication for water and land. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 10137–10144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Thyberg, K.L.; Tonjes, D.J.; Gurevitch, J. Quantification of Food Waste Disposal in the United States: A Meta-Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 13946–13953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Li, B.; Yin, T.; Udugama, I.A.; Dong, S.L.; Yu, W.; Huang, Y.F.; Young, B. Food waste and the embedded phosphorus footprint in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Delley, M.; Brunner, T.A. Food waste within Swiss households: A segmentation of the population and suggestions for preventive measures. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 122, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Adelodun, B.; Kim, S.H.; Choi, K.-S. Assessment of food waste generation and composition among Korean households using novel sampling and statistical approaches. Waste Manag. 2021, 122, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Beretta, C.; Hellweg, S. Potential environmental benefits from food waste prevention in the food service sector. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 147, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Boschini, M.; Falasconi, L.; Cicatiello, C.; Franco, S. Why the waste? A large-scale study on the causes of food waste at school canteens. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 246, 118994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chakona, G.; Shackleton, C.M. Local setting influences the quantity of household food waste in mid-sized South African towns. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0189407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Costello, C.; Birisci, E.; McGarvey, R.G. Food waste in campus dining operations: Inventory of pre- and post-consumer mass by food category, and estimation of embodied greenhouse gas emissions. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2016, 31, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Delley, M.; Brunner, T.A. Household food waste quantification: Comparison of two methods. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 1504–1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Djekic, I.; Operta, S.; Djulancic, N.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Barba, F.J.; Djordjevic, V.; Tomasevic, I. Quantities, environmental footprints and beliefs associated with household food waste in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Waste Manag. Res. 2019, 37, 1250–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Elimelech, E.; Ert, E.; Ayalon, O. Bridging the gap between self-assessments and measured household food waste: A hybrid valuation approach. Waste Manag. 2019, 95, 259–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Eriksson, M.; Malefors, C.; Bergstrom, P.; Eriksson, E.; Osowski, C.P. Quantities and Quantification Methodologies of Food Waste in Swedish Hospitals. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ilakovac, B.; Voca, N.; Pezo, L.; Cerjak, M. Quantification and determination of household food waste and its relation to sociodemographic characteristics in Croatia. Waste Manag. 2020, 102, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Katajajuuri, J.-M.; Silvennoinen, K.; Hartikainen, H.; Heikkila, L.; Reinikainen, A. Food waste in the Finnish food chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 73, 322–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Khalid, S.; Naseer, A.; Shahid, M.; Shah, G.M.; Ullah, M.I.; Waqar, A.; Abbas, T.; Imran, M.; Rehman, F. Assessment of nutritional loss with food waste and factors governing this waste at household level in Pakistan. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 206, 1015–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Li, Y.; Wang, L.-E.; Liu, G.; Cheng, S. Rural household food waste characteristics and driving factors in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Marzena, T.; Beata, B.; Agnieszka, T.; Danuta, K. Estimation of the Scale of Food Waste in Hotel Food Services—A Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 421. [Google Scholar]
  65. Myra, Z.; Samer, K.; Ali, C.; Hussein, H.; Abiad, M.G. Post-consumer food waste generation while dining out: A close-up view. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0251947. [Google Scholar]
  66. Prescott, M.P.; Herrin, C.; Bunning, M.; Cunningham-Sabo, L. Resources, Barriers, and Tradeoffs: A Mixed Methods Analysis of School Pre-Consumer Food Waste. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2019, 119, 1270–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Silvennoinen, K.; Katajajuuri, J.-M.; Hartikainen, H.; Heikkila, L.; Reinikainen, A. Food waste volume and composition in Finnish households. Br. Food J. 2014, 116, 1058–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Strotmann, C.; Friedrich, S.; Kreyenschmidt, J.; Teitscheid, P.; Ritter, G. Comparing Food Provided and Wasted before and after Implementing Measures against Food Waste in Three Healthcare Food Service Facilities. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Szabo-Bodi, B.; Kasza, G.; Szakos, D. Assessment of household food waste in Hungary. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 625–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. van Dooren, C.; Mensink, F.; Eversteijn, K.; Schrijnen, M. Development and Evaluation of the Eetmaatje Measuring Cup for Rice and Pasta as an Intervention to Reduce Food Waste. Front. Nutr. 2020, 6, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Xu, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, H.; Zhong, F.; Bai, J.; Cheng, S. Food-away-from-home plate waste in China: Preference for variety and quantity. Food Policy 2020, 97, 101918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhang, P.; Zhang, D.; Cheng, S. The Effect of Consumer Perception on Food Waste Behavior of Urban Households in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhang, P.; Wang, L.; Bai, J.; Liu, X.; Cheng, S.; Fu, S. A study on food waste behavior of restaurant consumers in tourist cities. Resour. Sci. 2018, 40, 1186–1195. [Google Scholar]
  74. Cuéllar, A.D.; Webber, M.E. Wasted food, wasted energy: The embedded energy in food waste in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 6464–6469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Vittuari, M.; Pagani, M.; Johnson, T.G.; de Menna, F. Impacts and costs of embodied and nutritional energy of food waste in the US food system: Distribution and consumption (Part B). J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Cicatiello, C.; Franco, S.; Pancino, B.; Blasi, E.; Falasconi, L. The dark side of retail food waste: Evidences from in-store data. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 125, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Reynolds, C.; Mirosa, M.; Clothier, B. New Zealand’s Food Waste: Estimating the Tonnes, Value, Calories and Resources Wasted. Agriculture 2016, 6, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Harrison, G.G.; Rathje, W.L.; Hughes, W.W. Food waste behavior in an urban population. J. Nutr. Educ. 1975, 7, 13–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ellison, B.; Muth, M.K.; Golan, E. Opportunities and Challenges in Conducting Economic Research on Food Loss and Waste. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2019, 41, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Song, G.; Li, M.; Semakula, H.M.; Zhang, S. Food consumption and waste and the embedded carbon, water and ecological footprints of households in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 529, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cheng, S.K.; Gao, L.W.; Xu, Z.; Tang, C.; Wang, L.E.; Dhruba Bijaya, G.C. Reflections on food waste and its resource and environmental effects in Chinese catering industry. China Soft Sci. 2012, 7, 106–114. [Google Scholar]
  82. Wang, L.; Xue, L.; Li, Y.; Liu, X.; Cheng, S.; Liu, G. Horeca food waste and its ecological footprint in Lhasa, Tibet, China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 136, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Li, Y.; Filimonau, V.; Wang, L.; Cheng, S. Tourist food consumption and its arable land requirements in a popular tourist destination. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153, 104587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Adelodun, B.; Choi, K.S. Impact of food wastage on water resources and GHG emissions in Korea: A trend-based prediction modeling study. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 271, 122562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Cakar, B.; Aydin, S.; Varank, G.; Ozcan, H.K. Assessment of environmental impact of FOOD waste in Turkey. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Birney, C.I.; Franklin, K.F.; Davidson, F.T.; Webber, M.E. An assessment of individual foodprints attributed to diets and food waste in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 105008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kummu, M.; de Moel, H.; Porkka, M.; Siebert, S.; Varis, O.; Ward, P.J. Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 438, 477–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Le Roux, B.; van der Laan, M.; Vahrmeijer, T.; Annandale, J.; Bristow, K. Water Footprints of Vegetable Crop Wastage along the Supply Chain in Gauteng, South Africa. Water 2018, 10, 539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Meier, T.; von Borstel, T.; Welte, B.; Hogan, B.; Finn, S.M.; Bonaventura, M.; Friedrich, S.; Weber, K.; de Teran, T.D. Food Waste in Healthcare, Business and Hospitality Catering: Composition, Environmental Impacts and Reduction Potential on Company and National Levels. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Scholz, K.; Eriksson, M.; Strid, I. Carbon footprint of supermarket food waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 94, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wang, L.; Ni, X.; Li, Y.; Cheng, S. Measurement of the scale of food waste and its resources and environmental effects at the consumer segment in China. J. Nat. Resour. 2021, 36, 1455–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Principato, L.; Mattia, G.; Di Leo, A.; Pratesi, C.A. The household wasteful behaviour framework: A systematic review of consumer food waste. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 93, 641–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Stancu, V.; Haugaard, P.; Lahteenmaki, L. Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste. Appetite 2016, 96, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Secondi, L.; Principato, L.; Laureti, T. Household food waste behaviour in EU-27 countries: A multilevel analysis. Food Policy 2015, 56, 25–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Principato, L.; Secondi, L.; Pratesi, C.A. Reducing food waste: An investigation on the behaviour of Italian youths. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 731–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Jensen, J.H.; Jensen, M.H.; Kulikovskaja, V. Consumer behaviour towards price-reduced suboptimal foods in the supermarket and the relation to food waste in households. Appetite 2017, 116, 246–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Byker, C.J.; Farris, A.R.; Marcenelle, M.; Davis, G.C.; Serrano, E.L. Food Waste in a School Nutrition Program after Implementation of New Lunch Program Guidelines. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2014, 46, 406–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Reynolds, C.; Goucher, L.; Quested, T.; Bromley, S.; Gillick, S.; Wells, V.K.; Evans, D.; Koh, L.; Kanyama, A.C.; Katzeff, C.; et al. Review: Consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions—What works and how to design better interventions. Food Policy 2019, 83, 7–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Zhang, Z.; Xu, Z. Income Elasticity, Effect Analysis and Simulation Analysis of Chinese Household Food Waste. J. Issues Agric. Econ. 2022, 5, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Wang, L.-E.; Filimonau, V.; Li, Y. Exploring the patterns of food waste generation by tourists in a popular destination. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Betz, A.; Buchli, J.; Göbel, C.; Müller, C. Food waste in the Swiss food service industry—Magnitude and potential for reduction. Waste Manag. 2015, 35, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Zhang, P.; Bai, J.; Cheng, S.; Liu, X. Does Information Intervention Affect Food Waste?—Randomized Controlled Trials in Catering Industry. J. Nat. Resour. 2018, 33, 1439–1450. [Google Scholar]
  103. Cao, X. A Study on Event Consumption Food Waste in China’s Restaurant Industry. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  104. Filimonau, V.; Matute, J.; Kubal-Czerwińska, M.; Krzesiwo, K.; Mika, M. The determinants of consumer engagement in restaurant food waste mitigation in Poland: An exploratory study. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Katt, F.; Meixner, O. Food waste prevention behavior in the context of hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 273, 122878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Tsai, W.-C.; Chen, X.; Yang, C. Consumer Food Waste Behavior among Emerging Adults: Evidence from China. Foods 2020, 9, 961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Yunyun, L.; Lingen, W.; Shengkui, C. Food consumption characteristics of tourists in highland tourism cities and its influencing factors-Lhasa city as an example. Resour. Sci. 2019, 41, 494–508. [Google Scholar]
  108. Min, S.; Wang, X.; Yu, X. Does dietary knowledge affect household food waste in the developing economy of China? Food Policy 2021, 98, 101896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Pellegrini, G.; Sillani, S.; Gregori, M.; Spada, A. Household food waste reduction: Italian consumers’ analysis for improving food management. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 1382–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ellison, B.; Lusk, J.L. Examining Household Food Waste Decisions: A Vignette Approach. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2018, 40, 613–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zhang, H.; Duan, H.; Andric, J.M.; Song, M.; Yang, B. Characterization of household food waste and strategies for its reduction: A Shenzhen City case study. Waste Manag. 2018, 78, 426–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Russell, S.V.; Young, C.W.; Unsworth, K.L.; Robinson, C. Bringing habits and emotions into food waste behaviour. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 125, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Yu, Y.; Jaenicke, E.C. The effect of sell-by dates on purchase volume and food waste. Food Policy 2021, 98, 101879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Makov, T.; Shepon, A.; Krones, J.; Gupta, C.; Chertow, M. Social and environmental analysis of food waste abatement via the peer-to-peer sharing economy. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Kinach, L.; Parizeau, K.; Fraser, E.D.G. Do food donation tax credits for farmers address food loss/waste and food insecurity? A case study from Ontario. Agric. Hum. Values 2020, 37, 383–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Busetti, S. A theory-based evaluation of food waste policy: Evidence from Italy. Food Policy 2019, 88, 101749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Eriksson, M.; Giovannini, S.; Ghosh, R.K. Is there a need for greater integration and shift in policy to tackle food waste? Insights from a review of European Union legislations. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Chalak, A.; Abou-Daher, C.; Chaaban, J.; Abiad, M.G. The global economic and regulatory determinants of household food waste generation: A cross-country analysis. Waste Manag. 2016, 48, 418–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Secondi, L.; Principato, L.; Mattia, G. Can digital solutions help in the minimization of out-of-home waste? An analysis from the client and business perspective. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 1341–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. 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]
  121. Strotmann, C.; Baur, V.; Börnert, N.; Gerwin, P. Generation and prevention of food waste in the German food service sector in the COVID-19—Digital approaches to encounter the pandemic related crisis. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2022, 82, 101104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Gładysz, B.; Buczacki, A.; Haskins, C. Lean Management Approach to Reduce Waste in HoReCa Food Services. Resources 2020, 9, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Gao, L.W.; Cheng, S.K.; Xu, W.H.O.; Li, Z.; Liu, X.J.; Zhang, D.; Yu, W.; Cao, X.C.; Wang, L.E.; Liu, Y. Analysis of the impact of policies on the changing characteristics of food waste in urban catering industry—A case study in Lhasa. China Food Nutr. 2017, 23, 44–48. [Google Scholar]
  124. FLW Protocol Steering Committee. Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard; World Business Council for Sustainable Development: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  125. Forbes, H.; Quested, T.; O’Connor, C. Food Waste Index Report 2021; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2021. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 14 11293 g001 550
Figure 1. The process of data collection.
Figure 1. The process of data collection.
Sustainability 14 11293 g001
Sustainability 14 11293 g002 550
Figure 2. Number of published articles and citations in the field of food waste.
Figure 2. Number of published articles and citations in the field of food waste.
Sustainability 14 11293 g002
Sustainability 14 11293 g003 550
Figure 3. Co-occurrence network of countries.
Figure 3. Co-occurrence network of countries.
Sustainability 14 11293 g003
Sustainability 14 11293 g004 550
Figure 4. Keyword co-occurrence and clustering visualization map.
Figure 4. Keyword co-occurrence and clustering visualization map.
Sustainability 14 11293 g004
Sustainability 14 11293 g005 550
Figure 5. Findings of quantitative studies on food waste from households and eating out. The mentioned references in figure are [18,19,20,21,22,37,39,46,49,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,60,61,62,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73].
Figure 5. Findings of quantitative studies on food waste from households and eating out. The mentioned references in figure are [18,19,20,21,22,37,39,46,49,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,60,61,62,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73].
Sustainability 14 11293 g005
Table
Table 1. Top 25 burst keywords.
Table 1. Top 25 burst keywords.
KeywordsYearStrengthBeginEnd2002–2022
plate waste20025.1120022014▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
accuracy20024.2620022014▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
food intake20023.6320032013▂▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
household waste20029.7720042017▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂
organic waste20024.9920042013▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
temperature20024.5620042010▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
municipal solid waste20024.6620072016▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂
children20027.4720092016▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂
adolescent20023.9920092014▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
sewage sludge20023.7120092013▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
ammonia20023.5920092014▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
manure20024.3220102017▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂
program20024.520142017▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂
student20024.1920142018▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂
system20024.0520162017▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▂▂▂▂▂
chain20024.0120162018▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▂▂▂▂
China20023.6120162017▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▂▂▂▂▂
carbon footprint20024.6120172018▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▂▂▂▂
biogas production20024.1420172018▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▂▂▂▂
selection20023.5820172019▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▂▂▂
supermarket20024.6520182019▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▂▂▂
barrier20025.9720192020▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▂▂
circular economy20023.4720192020▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▂▂
restaurant2002420202022▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃
quantification20023.9920202022▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃
Table
Table 2. Methods of quantitative studies in different countries and their findings.
Table 2. Methods of quantitative studies in different countries and their findings.
ReferenceScenes of Food WasteQuantification MethodsFood Waste
Quantitative Result		Study Countries
Retail DistributionEating OutHouseholdDiaryDirect MeasurementSecond-Hand DataMass BalanceQuestionnaire/Interview/SurveyWaste Composition Analysis
[51] √ √ √√260 g per person per dayKorea
[52] √ √√ 202 g per person per mealSwitzerland, Germany, Australia, Finland, United Kingdom
[53] √ √ 107 g per person per mealItaly
[54] √ √ 32 g per person per daySouth Africa
[55] √ √ 56 g per person per mealUnited States
[56] √√ √24 g per person per daySwitzerland
[57] √ √ 136 g per person per dayBosnia and Herzegovina
[58] √ √ 132 g per person per dayIsrael
[37] √ √ 75 g per person per mealSweden
[59] √ √ 111 g per person per mealSweden
[22] √√ √ 76 g per person per dayItaly
[60] √√ 210 g per person per dayCroatia
[46] √ √ √ √6 g per person per mealMalaysia
[61]√√√√ √ 63 g per person per dayFinland
[62] √ √ 61 g per person per dayPakistan
[20] √√ 136 g per person per dayUnited Kingdom
[21] √√ 50 g per person per dayGermany
[63] √ √ 26 g per person per dayChina
[19] √ √ 192 g per person per mealSweden, Norway, Finland, Germany
[64] √ √ √ 46 g per person per mealPoland
[65] √ √ 73 g per person per mealLebanon
[66] √ √ √ 33 g per person per mealUnited States
[67] √√ 63 g per person per dayFinland
[68] √ √ 128 g per person per mealGermany
[69] √ √ 91 g per person per dayHungary
[70] √ √ 90 g per person per dayNetherlands
[39] √ √ √ 93 g per person per mealChina
[71] √ √ 172 g per person per mealChina
[72] √ √ √ 17 g per person per dayChina
[73] √ √ √ 80 g per person per mealChina
Table
Table 3. Economic loss of food waste.
Table 3. Economic loss of food waste.
CountryReferenceJournalEconomic Loss
United States[75]Journal of Cleaner ProductionCost of energy waste is nearly USD 28 billion
Italy[76]Resources, Conservation and RecyclingRetail stores waste 70.6 tons of food a year (worth almost EUR 170,000)
New Zealand[77]AgricultureNZD 568 million (2011)
United States [18]Food PolicyFood waste equivalent retail price of USD 390 per person per year, or 10% of average food expenditures (2008)
EU28[15]FUSIONS (report)EUR 143 billion
United States[78]Journal of Nutrition EducationAverage USD 80–100 per household (1973–1974)
Table
Table 4. Environmental impacts of food waste.
Table 4. Environmental impacts of food waste.
ReferenceFood Supply Chain LinksFood TypesResource and Environmental ImpactFindingsCountries
Ecological FootprintWater FootprintCarbon FootprintPhosphorus FootprintEnergy Footprint
[84]Total supply chainAll √√ National water footprint and greenhouse gas emissions associated with food waste in 2007–2017 were 15.24 ± 1.95 billion m3 and 20.08 ± 6.14 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, respectively.Korea
[86]Total supply chainAll√√√ Annual per capita food waste-related blue water consumption in the US: 54,000 L; green water consumption: 397,000 L; generated carbon dioxide equivalent: 673 + 114 kg; ecological footprint: 1051 m2.United States
[85]Total supply chainAll √√ √Turkey’s food waste in 2016 reflected 23.7 million tons of CO2 equivalent, 6.2 × 109 m3 of water, and 13.5 × 10 TJ of energy.Turkey
[87]Total supply chainAll√√ √ Food losses and wasted food crop production represent 24% of total freshwater resources required for production of all food crops (about 27 m3/person/year), 23% of total global arable land area (about 31 × 103 ha/person/year), and 23% of total global fertilizer use (about 4.3 kg/person/year).Global
[88]Total supply chainVegetables √ Loss of blue water from Steenkoppies aquifer in South Africa due to waste of vegetable crops (carrots, cabbage, beetroot, cauliflower, and lettuce) was about 4 million m3/year, which was 25% of the sustainable use limit.South Africa
[49]ConsumptionAll √ In 2015, total phosphorus loss due to food waste from restaurants was 424,400 tons, equivalent to 16.4% of China’s total phosphate fertilizer use.China
[47]Total supply chainGrains√√ In 2010, China’s total water footprint associated with food loss and waste was estimated at 135 ± 60 billion m3, equivalent to the total water footprint of Canada, and the total ecological footprint was 26 ± 11 million ha, equivalent to the total arable land area of Mexico.China
[89]ConsumptionAll√√√ Annual food waste-related greenhouse gas emissions in the German food service sector were 4.9 million tons of CO2 equivalent, water footprint was 103,057 m3, and ecological footprint was 322,838 ha.Germany
[90]RetailAll √ Six supermarkets in Sweden wasted 1570 tons of fresh food (excluding bread) in three years, for a total carbon footprint of 2500 tons of CO2 equivalent.Sweden
[5]ConsumptionAll √√ China’s water loss (blue water and green water) from food waste in 2010 was 60.5 billion m3, accounting for more than 10% of total water consumption. Food waste has a serious impact on agricultural non-point source pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, resulting in a grey water footprint of 16.292 billion m3 and 60.85 million tons of carbon emissions.China
[82]ConsumptionAll√ In 2015, the total ecological footprint of restaurant food waste in Lhasa, China, was 71,516 ± 7705 hectares, almost twice the area of cultivated land.China
[91] ConsumptionAll√ The ecological footprint of food waste from consumption in the nation in 2018 amounted to 62.54 million hm2, with a per capita ecological footprint of 448 m2.China
Table
Table 5. Top eight citations in global research related to food waste behavior and management.
Table 5. Top eight citations in global research related to food waste behavior and management.
ReferenceTitleJournalNo. of CitationsKey Results
[18]Total and per capita value of food loss in the United StatesFood Policy327In 2008, the estimated total value of food loss at retail and consumer levels in the US as purchased at retail prices was USD 165.6 billion, representing almost 124 kg (273 lb) of food lost from human consumption per capita, at an estimated retail price of USD 390/capita/year.
[93]Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: Two routes to food wasteAppetite322Perceived behavioral control, routines related to shopping, and reuse of leftovers are the main drivers of food waste; planning routines contribute indirectly.
[94]Household food waste behaviour in EU-27 countries: A multilevel analysisFood Policy206People living in towns and large cities tend to produce more waste. Education level, sorting practices, attitudes, and concerns regarding food waste proved to be associated with individual behaviors.
[95]Reducing food waste: an investigation on the behaviour of Italian youthsBritish Food Journal133The more aware youths are concerning food waste, the more likely they are to reduce leftovers. In contrast, the concern about food freshness increases waste. Greater awareness of the consequences of food wasted increases the likelihood that youths will make a shopping list.
[67]Food waste volume and composition in Finnish householdsBritish Food Journal110About 20% of all food handled and prepared in the Finnish food service sector was wasted, and main drivers were buffet services and overproduction.
[96]Consumer behaviour towards price-reduced suboptimal foods in the supermarket and the relation to food waste in householdsAppetite90In Denmark, consumers who are more price-focused report lower food waste levels and a lower tendency to choose optimal food items first at home than those who do not emphasize the price–quality relation or search for price offers to the same extent. Price focus is lower in high-income groups and single households.
[97]Food Waste in a School Nutrition Program After Implementation of New Lunch Program GuidelinesJournal of Nutrition Education and Behavior94During 1 school week, of 4988 oz of food and beverages served, 2261 oz (45.3%) were wasted, totaling 141 lb; the largest amounts of food waste were generated from vegetables, main entrees, and milk, respectively.
[98]Review: Consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions: what works and how to design better interventionsFood Policy88Some interventions were proposed to achieve reduced food waste, such as changing the size or type of plates, changing nutritional guidelines in schools, information campaigns, cooking classes, fridge cameras, food sharing apps, advertising, information sharing, and so on, but there is a lack of reproducible quantified evidence to assure credibility or success.
Table
Table 6. Studies related to food waste behavior and influencing factors.
Table 6. Studies related to food waste behavior and influencing factors.
CountryReferenceJournalMain Influencing Factors of Food Waste
China[107]Resource ScienceTravel status, age, marital status, number of days of travel, place of dining, form of dining
China[73]Resource SciencePersonal characteristics (education level, age structure, income), meal times, meal frequency, reasons for eating
China[102]Journal of Natural ResourcesInformation intervention
China[108]Food PolicyFood knowledge
United States[105]Journal of Cleaner ProductionPrice consciousness, environmental concerns, health consciousness, utilitarian and hedonistic shopping values
China[40]SustainabilityEthical norms, perceived behavioral control, food choices, home storage and cooking practices, unexpected events
Italy[109]British Food JournalPrice awareness, environmental concerns, time management
United States[110]Applied Economic Perspectives and PolicyDemographic variables, dining environment, household composition
China[111]Waste ManagementEffects of demographic variables, food costs, education level, consumer awareness and attitudes
Denmark[93]AppetitePsychosocial factors, food-related habits, family perceived competence, sociodemographic characteristics
China[106]FoodsEnvironmental concerns, behavioral attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control
United Kingdom[112]Resources, Conservation and RecyclingEmotions, habits, attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control
United States[113]Food PolicyChange of sales date regulations
United Kingdom[114]Nature CommunicationsImpact of sharing economy on food waste
Lebanon[43]Journal of Cleaner ProductionDemographic variables, number of household members, income
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jia, L.; Qiao, G. Quantification, Environmental Impact, and Behavior Management: A Bibliometric Analysis and Review of Global Food Waste Research Based on CiteSpace. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11293. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811293

AMA Style

Jia L, Qiao G. Quantification, Environmental Impact, and Behavior Management: A Bibliometric Analysis and Review of Global Food Waste Research Based on CiteSpace. Sustainability. 2022; 14(18):11293. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811293

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jia, Li, and Guanghua Qiao. 2022. "Quantification, Environmental Impact, and Behavior Management: A Bibliometric Analysis and Review of Global Food Waste Research Based on CiteSpace" Sustainability 14, no. 18: 11293. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811293

APA Style

Jia, L., & Qiao, G. (2022). Quantification, Environmental Impact, and Behavior Management: A Bibliometric Analysis and Review of Global Food Waste Research Based on CiteSpace. Sustainability, 14(18), 11293. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811293

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop