What Are the Environmental Benefits and Costs of Reducing Food Waste? Bristol as a Case Study in the WASTE FEW Urban Living Lab Project
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- What are the non-market and socio-environmental benefits of reduced food waste along the food/waste cycle through increased food waste recycling?
- What reductions in energy and other resource usage in food production/transport and waste disposal might be gained from reducing food waste by 20%?
1.1. Related Literature
1.2. What This Paper Adds
- Specifically advancing a methodology which allows the policy maker to quantify environmental impacts at the city scale.
- Incorporating a whole food life cycle approach to compare options for food waste minimisation against food waste management optimisation.
- Using valuation of environmental externalities to compare scenarios and inform policy appraisal.
1.3. Structure of the Paper
2. Materials and Methods
- Baseline Production. Define the baseline production of household food waste for the City of Bristol in the year ending March 2019, separated into avoidable and non-avoidable food waste.We follow here the definitions of “avoidable” and “unavoidable” food waste as used by Tonini et al. [7]; avoidable refers to that part of food which prior to being disposed of was edible at some point. Unavoidable food waste refers to the components of food waste which could not be consumed, such as bones, eggshells, etc.
- Scenario Development. Model two scenarios:
- A 20% increase in food waste recycling.
- A 20% reduction in food waste, from, e.g., improved food preparation methods.
- Measurement of Environmental Impact. Calculate the baseline environmental impacts at current levels of food waste and model the changes which the different scenarios have at different levels of reduction.
- Valuation of Environmental Impact. Derive values per tonne of household food waste, estimated by the monetary valuation of the environmental impacts of resources which are used in the production and supply of food to households and food preparation methods—“pre-loaded resources”.
- Calculate the costs and benefits of different scenarios.
2.1. Baseline Production
2.2. Scenario Development
2.2.1. Scenario 1: More Food Waste Recycling (20% Increase)
2.2.2. Scenario 2: Reduction in Food Waste (20% Decrease)
2.3. Measurement of Environmental Impact
- T (adjusted) = total burden of life cycle of wasted food, tailored to Bristol context.
- WDUK = Net impact attributed to waste disposal methods tailored to UK specific practices.
- WDBristol = Net impact attributed to waste disposal methods tailored to Bristol specific practices.
2.4. Valuation of Environmental Impact
3. Results
3.1. Quantities and Disposal Method of Food Waste
3.2. The Impact of Resources Pre-Loaded into Food before It Becomes Waste
3.3. The Impact of Waste Disposal
3.3.1. Baseline
3.3.2. Changes to the Impact of Waste Disposal Method under Each Scenario
Scenario 1 (20% Change in Recycling Behaviour)
Scenario 2 (20% Reduction in All Food Waste)
3.4. The Whole Food Cycle: The Combined Impact of Embodied Resource Use and Waste Disposal
3.4.1. Baseline Impacts for the Whole Food Cycle
3.4.2. Comparison of Impacts for the Whole Food Cycle under Each Scenario
Scenario 1: Increased Recycling
Scenario 2: Reduction in Food Waste
3.5. The Value of Food Waste to Households
4. Discussion
4.1. Limitations
4.2. Key Points for Environmental Improvement and Policy
4.3. Comparison of Results with Other Studies
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gustavsson, J.; Cederberg, C.; Sonesson, U. Global Food Losses and Food Waste; FAO: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2011; Available online: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ags/publications/GFL_web.pdf (accessed on 21 April 2022).
- WRAP. Food Surplus and Waste in the UK—Key Facts; Updated January 2020; WRAP: Banbury, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- HLPE. Food Losses and Waste in the Context of Sustainable Food Systems; A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security; HLPE: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- WRAP. Courtauld Commitment 2025 Milestone Progress Report; WRAP: Banbury, UK, 2020; Available online: https://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Courtauld_Commitment_2025_Milestone_Progress_Report.pdf (accessed on 21 April 2022).
- Bristol City Council. Environmental Policy; Bristol City Council: Bristol, UK, 2017. Available online: https://www.bristol.gov.uk/policies-plans-strategies/energy-and-environment (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- Bristol Bites Back Better. Available online: https://www.goingforgoldbristol.co.uk (accessed on 22 March 2022).
- Tonini, D.; Albizzati, P.; Fruergaard, A.T. Environmental impacts of food waste: Learnings and challenges from a case study on UK. Waste Manag. 2018, 76, 744–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reynolds, C.; Goucher, L.; Quested, T.; Bromley, S.; Gillick, S.; Wells, V.K.; Evans, D.; Koh, L.; Carlsson Kanyama, A.; 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]
- House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Food Waste in England; House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Swaffield, J.; Evans, D.; Welch, D. Profit, reputation and ‘doing the right thing’: Convention theory and the problem of food waste in the UK retail sector. Geoforum 2018, 89, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WRAP. Love Food Hate Waste. Available online: https://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- Saleemdeeb, R.; Font Vivanco, D.; Al-Tabbaa, A.; zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. A holistic approach to the environmental evaluation of food waste prevention. Waste Manag. 2017, 59, 442–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Bank. Addressing Food Loss and Waste: A Global Problem with Local Solutions; The World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/34521 (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- Chapagain, A.; James, K. The Water and Carbon Footprint of Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK; WRAP: Banbury, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Lenzen, M.; Dey, C. Truncation error in embodied energy analyses of basic iron and steel products. Energy 2000, 25, 577–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majeau-Bettez, G.; Strømman, A.H.; Hertwich, E.G. Evaluation of process- and input-output-based life cycle inventory data with regard to truncation and aggregation issues. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 10170–10177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Philippidis, G.; Sartori, M.; Ferrari, E.; M’Barek, R. Waste not, want not: A bio-economic impact assessment of household food waste reductions in the EU. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 514–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reutter, B.; Lant, P.; Reynolds, C.; Lane, J. Food waste consequences: Environmentally extended input-output as a framework for analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 506–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oldfield, T.L.; White, E.; Holden, N.M. An environmental analysis of options for utilising wasted food and food residue. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 183, 826–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Evangelisti, S.; Lettieri, P.; Borello, D.; Clift, R. Life cycle assessment of energy from waste via anaerobic digestion: A UK case study. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 226–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Parkes, O.; Lettieri, P.; Bogle, D. Life cycle assessment of integrated waste management systems for alternative legacy scenarios of the London Olympic Park. Waste Manag. 2015, 40, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Turner, D.; Williams, I.; Kemp, S. Combined material flow analysis and life cycle assessment as a support tool for solid waste management decision making. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 129, 234–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Slorach, P.; Jeswani, H.; Cuéllar-Franca, R.; Azapagic, A. Environmental Sustainability of Anaerobic Digestion of Household Food Waste. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 236, 798–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kibler, K.M.; Reinhart, D.; Hawkins, C.; Motlagh, A.M.; Wright, J. Food waste and the food-energy-water nexus: A review of food waste management alternatives. Waste Manag. 2018, 74, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, P.; Parfitt, J.; Fryer, A. The True Cost of Food Waste within Hospitality and Food Service; WRAP: Banbury, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Scialabba, N.; Müller, A.; Schader, C.; Schmidt, U.; Schwegler, P.; Fujiwara, D.; Ghoreishi, Y. Food Wastage Footprint: Full-Cost Accounting; Final Report; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Bonfert, B.; Burke, M.; Caffrey, A.; Maderson, S.; Molotoks, A.; Pearce, J.; Tak, M. A Tool in the Toolkit: Can True Cost Accounting Remove Siloed Thinking about Food Loss and Waste? Global Food Security Programme: Swindon, UK, 2021; Available online: www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/publications (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- DEFRA. WasteDataFlow. Material Collected Report, April 2018—March 2019. Available online: www.WasteDataFlow.org (accessed on 22 March 2022).
- Frost, G.; Bristol Waste Company, Bristol, UK. Personal communication, 2020.
- Dundon, C. (Resource Futures), Waste Composition Analysis Results by Resource Futures for Bristol City, Confidential Report. Unpublished Work. 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Gillick, S.; Quested, T. Household Food Wasted Data Restated; WRAP: Banbury, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Bristol City Council. Where Your Recycling Goes; Bristol City Council: Bristol, UK, 2021. Available online: https://www.bristol.gov.uk/bins-recycling/where-your-recycling-goes (accessed on 30 September 2020).
- Consultation Meeting (Bristol Waste Company, Bristol, UK). Unpublished Work. 2020.
- WRAP. Estimates of Food Waste Arisings in the UK; WRAP: Banbury, UK, 2017; Available online: https://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Estimates_%20in_the_UK_Jan17.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2019).
- Bristol Waste Company. Slim my Waste, Feed My Face. Available online: https://www.bristolwastecompany.co.uk/whats-happening/slim-my-waste-citywide (accessed on 22 March 2022).
- Trinomics. Final Report—External Costs: Energy Costs, Taxes and the Impact of Government Interventions on Investments; European Commission DG Energy Unit: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- De Bruyen, S.; Bijleveld, M.; de Graaff, L.; Schep, E.; Schroten, A.; Vergeer, R.; Ahdour, S. Environmental Prices Handbook EU28 Version; CE Delft: Delft, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Black, D.; Orme, J.; Scally, G.; Hunt, A.; Pilkington, P.; Carmichael, L.; Williams, B.; Ige, J.; Eaton, E.; The UPSTREAM Project Team; et al. UPSTREAM Project Report. 2018. Available online: https://urban-health-upstream.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Upstream_Brochure_WEB_single.pdf (accessed on 4 December 2018).
- Nematchouaa, M.K.; Reiter, S. Analysis, reduction and comparison of the life cycle environmental costs of an eco-neighborhood in Belgium. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 48, 101558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinez-Sanchez, V.; Tonini, D.; Møller, F.; Fruergaard Astrup, T. Life-Cycle Costing of Food Waste Management in Denmark: Importance of Indirect Effects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 4513–4523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS); Energy Trends UK, January to March 2021. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/997347/Energy_Trends_June_2021.pdf (accessed on 3 September 2021).
- Whiting, A.; Azapagic, A. Life cycle environmental impacts of generating electricity and heat from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion. Energy 2014, 70, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ward, H.; Wenz, L.; Steckel, J.C.; Minx, J.C. Truncation Error Estimates in Process Life Cycle Assessment Using Input-Output Analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 2018, 22, 1080–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fusi, A.; Bacenetti, J.; Fiala, M.; Azapagic, A. Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Electricity from Biogas Produced by Anaerobic Digestion. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2016, 4, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nicholson, F.; Taylor, M.; Bhogal, A.; Rollett, A.; Williams, J.; Newell, P.; Price, B.C.; Becvar, A.; Wood, M.; Litterick, A.; et al. For WRAP, Field Experiments for Quality Digestate and Compost in Agriculture; WRAP: Banbury, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- EU Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008. On waste and repealing certain Directives. Off. J. 2008, 3, L312.
- WRAP. Estimates for Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK 2011; WRAP: Banbury, UK, 2011; Available online: http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/estimates-household-food-and-drink-waste-uk-2011 (accessed on 21 April 2022).
- Black, D.; Eaton, E.; Wei, T. Developing Valuation Approaches to Help Identify and Reduce Inefficiencies in Bristol’s FEW Systems, WasteFEWULL Project. 2022. Available online: https://wastefewull.weebly.com/project-outputs.html (accessed on 21 April 2022).
% | Tonnes per Year | |
---|---|---|
Recycled via caddy—avoidable | 58% | 7868 |
Recycled via caddy—non-avoidable | 42% | 5792 |
Food waste in residual—avoidable | 83% | 16,194 |
Food waste in residual—non-avoidable | 17% | 3247 |
Sewer—avoidable | 70% | 7773 |
Sewer—non-avoidable | 30% | 3331 |
Composting—avoidable | 70% | 2487 |
Composting—non-avoidable | 30% | 1066 |
Other—avoidable | 70% | 149 |
Other—non-avoidable | 30% | 64 |
Total | 100% | 47,972 |
Waste Processing Method | UK * | Bristol ** |
---|---|---|
Anaerobic Digestion (AD) | 8% | 29% |
Composting | 8% | 7% |
Incineration | 33% | 41% |
Sewer | 23% | 23% |
Landfill | 28% | 0% |
Other | 0% | 0% |
TOTAL | 100% | 100% |
Unit | T (Base) | WDUK | T − WDUK | WDBristol | T (Adjusted) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AC Acidification * | Mol H+ | 29.00 | −0.41 | 29.00 | - | 29.00 |
ECO Ecotoxicity * | CTUe | 3546.00 | −31.00 | 3546.00 | - | 3546.00 |
FE Freshwater Eutrophication Phosphorous | kg P-eq. | 0.33 | 0.00 | 0.33 | 0.00 | 0.33 |
FRD Fossil Resource Depletion | MJ | 16,824.00 | −2120.00 | 18,944.00 | −551.79 | 18,392.21 |
GWP Global Warming Potential | kg CO2-eq. | 2413.00 | 111.00 | 2302.00 | −21.97 | 2280.03 |
HT Human Toxicity ** | kg 1,4-DB eq. | - | - | - | −8.79 | −8.79 |
HT Human Toxicity Cancer | CTUh | 3.36 × 10−5 | −2.40 × 10−6 | 3.60 × 10−5 | - | 3.60 × 10−5 |
ME Marine Eutrophication Nitrogen | kg N-eq. | 13.00 | 0.36 | 12.64 | 0.35 | 12.99 |
PED Primary Energy Demand $ | Gj | - | - | - | −1.37 | −1.37 |
PM10 Particulate Matter ** | kg PM10-eq. | - | - | - | 0.51 | 0.51 |
PM2.5 Particulate Matter | kg PM2.5-eq. | 1.95 | −0.05 | 2.00 | - | 2.00 |
POF Photochemical Ozone Formation | kg NMVOC-eq. | 7.00 | 0.25 | 6.75 | 0.56 | 7.31 |
WD Water Depletion | m3 water | 3.81 | −0.36 | 4.17 | −180.87 | −176.71 |
Impact | Source | Unit | Unit Value | Low | High |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
AC Acidification | Trinomics (2020) [36] | £/Mol H+ | 0.29 | 0.15 | 1.39 |
ECO Ecotoxicity | Trinomics (2020) [36] | £/CTUe | 3.27 × 10−5 | 2.05 × 10−24 | 1.61 × 10−4 |
FD Fossil Resource Depletion | Trinomics (2020) [36] | £/MJ | 1.11 × 10−3 | 1.11 × 10−3 | 5.83 × 10−3 |
FE Freshwater Eutrophication | De Bruyen (2018) [37] | £/kg P-eq. | 1.59 | 0.52 | 34.29 |
GWP Global Warming Potential | De Bruyen (2018) [37] | £/kg CO2-eq. | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.09 |
HT Human Toxicity | De Bruyen (2018) [37] | £/kg 1,4 DB-eq. | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 |
HT Human Toxicity Cancer | UPSTREAM (2019) [38] | Per case cancer | 32,487 | 31,425 | 975,505 |
ME Marine Eutrophication | De Bruyen (2018) [37] | £/kg N | 2.67 | 2.67 | 2.67 |
PED Primary Energy Demand | De Bruyen (2018) [37] | £/Kwh | 25 | 25 | 25 |
PMF Particulate matter formation | De Bruyen (2018) [37] | £/kg PM10-eq. | 22.80 | 19 | 41 |
PMF Particulate Matter Formation | De Bruyen (2018) [37] | £/kg PM2.5-eq. | 33.18 | 27.7 | 59.5 |
POF Photochemical Ozone Formation | De Bruyen (2018) [37] | £/kg NMVOC-eq. | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
Value of Food Waste (avoidable only) | WRAP (2020) [2] | £/tonne | 2850 | 2850 | 2850 |
WD Water Depletion | Nematchoua (2019) [39] | £/m3 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.07 |
Collection Method | Scenario 1 (20%) Change in Recycling | Scenario 2: (20%) Reduction in Waste | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Avoidable | Non-Avoidable | Total | % | Change | Avoidable | Non-Avoidable | Total | % | Change | |
Recycled (Caddy) | 10,108 | 7440 | 17,548 | 37% | 3888 | 6295 | 4634 | 10,928 | 28% | −2732 |
Residual | 12,955 | 2597 | 15,552 | 32% | −3888 | 12,955 | 2597 | 15,552 | 41% | −3888 |
Sewer | 7773 | 3331 | 11,105 | 23% | - | 6219 | 2665 | 8884 | 23% | −2221 |
Home Composted | 2487 | 1066 | 3553 | 7% | - | 1990 | 853 | 2843 | 7% | −711 |
Other | 149 | 64 | 213 | 0% | - | 119 | 51 | 171 | 0% | −43 |
Collected at Doorstep | 23,063 | 10,038 | 33,101 | 69% | - | 19,250 | 7231 | 26,480 | 69% | −6620 |
All Food Waste | 33,473 | 14,499 | 47,972 | 100% | - | 27,578 | 10,800 | 38,377 | 100% | −9594 |
Baseline | Scenario 1 (20%) Change in Recycling | Scenario 2: (20%) Reduced Food Waste | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unit | Total FW | Avoidable Collected | Total FW | Avoidable Collected | Total FW | Avoidable Collected | |
Global Warming | t CO2-eq. | 110,400 | 55,400 | 0 | −2300 | −22,100 | −11,100 |
Acidification | Mol H+ × 1000 | 1500 | 700 | 0 | −29 | −280 | −140 |
Photochemical Ozone Formation | t NMVOC-eq. | 300 | 200 | 0 | −7 | −60 | −30 |
Particulate Matter | t PM2.5-eq | 100 | 50 | 0 | −2 | −19 | −10 |
Marine Eutrophication | t N-eq. | 600 | 300 | 0 | −13 | −120 | −60 |
Freshwater Eutrophication | t P-eq | 20 | 10 | 0 | −0.3 | −3 | −2 |
Human Toxicity * | CTUh | 2 | 1 | 0 | <1 | <1 | <1 |
Ecotoxicity | CTUe × 1000 | 170,000 | 85,300 | 0 | −3500 | −34,000 | −17,100 |
Fossil Resource Depletion | GJ | 909,000 | 456,000 | 0 | −18,900 | −181,800 | −91,200 |
Water Depletion | m3 water | 200,000 | 100,000 | 0 | −4000 | −40,000 | −20,000 |
Unit | Baseline | Scenario 1 (20%) Change in Recycling | Scenario 2 (20%) Reduced Food Waste | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary Energy Demand | GJ | −1.37 | −1.50 | 1.37 |
Global Warming | t CO2-eq. | −21.97 | −25.37 | 21.97 |
Marine Eutrophication | t N-eq. | 0.35 | 0.42 | −0.35 |
Freshwater Eutrophication | t P-eq. | −0.00 | −0.01 | 0.00 |
Fossil Resource Depletion | MJ | −551.79 | −629.00 | 551.79 |
Human Toxicity | t 1,4-DB-eq. | −8.79 | −11.49 | 8.79 |
Photochemical Ozone Formation | t NMVOC-eq. | 0.56 | 0.47 | −0.56 |
Particulate Matter | t PM10-eq. | 0.51 | 0.60 | −0.51 |
Water Depletion | m3 water | −180.87 | −194.50 | 180.87 |
Unit | Base Collected | 20% Change | Net Change | Value of Change GBP | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PED Primary Energy Demand | GJ | −45,500 | −50,000 | −4000 | −102,062 |
GWP Global Warming Potential | t CO2-eq. | −730 | −800 | −110 | −5510 |
ME Marine Eutrophication | t N-eq. | 12 | 14 | 2 | 6220 |
FE Freshwater Eutrophication | t P-eq. | −0.12 | −0.06 | −0.07 | −106 |
FD Fossil Depletion | GJ | −18,300 | −21,000 | −2560 | −2848 |
HT Human Toxicity | t 1,4-DB-eq. | −290 | −400 | −100 | −7598 |
POF Photochemical Oxidant Formation | t NMVOC-eq. | 18 | 16 | −3 | −2645 |
PMF Particulate Matter Formation | t PM10-eq. | 17 | 20 | 3 | 72,706 |
WD Water Depletion | m3 water | −6,000,000 | −6,500,000 | −451,000 | −30,546 |
Unit | Base Collected | 20% Change | Net Change | Value of Change GBP | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PED Primary Energy Demand | GJ | −45,500 | −36,400 | 9100 | 227,300 |
GWP Global Warming Potential | t CO2-eq. | −730 | −580 | 150 | 7100 |
ME Marine Eutrophication | t N-eq. | 12 | 9 | −2 | −6140 |
FE Freshwater Eutrophication | t P-eq. | −0.12 | −0.10 | 0.02 | 40 |
FD Fossil Depletion | GJ | −18,300 | −14,600 | 3700 | 4071 |
HT Human Toxicity | t 1,4-DB-eq. | −290 | −230 | 60 | 4950 |
POF Photochemical Oxidant Formation | t NMVOC-eq. | 18 | 15 | −4 | −3600 |
PMF Particulate Matter Formation | t PM10-eq. | 17 | 13 | −3 | −76,750 |
WD Water Depletion | m3 water | −6,000,000 | −4,800,000 | 1,200,000 | 81,100 |
Unit | All Collected | All AFW Collected | Value (All) GBP | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Acidification | Mol H+ × 1000 | 1000 | 700 | 283,095 |
Ecotoxicity | CTUe × 1000 | 117,000 | 85,000 | 3844 |
FRD Fossil Resource Depletion | GJ | 609,000 | 444,000 | 678,505 |
GWP Global Warming Potential | t CO2-eq. | 75,000 | 55,000 | 3,688,000 |
HT Human Toxicity | t 1,4-DB-eq. | −300 | −160 | −24,700 |
HT Human Toxicity Cancer | CTUh | 1 | 1 | 38,700 |
N Aquatic Eutrophication Nitrogen | t N-eq. | 430 | 311 | 1,146,200 |
P Aquatic Eutrophication Phosphorous | t P-eq. | 11 | 8 | 17,200 |
PED Primary Energy Demand | GJ | −45,000 | −31,000 | −1,136,500 |
PM Particulate Matter | t PM10-eq. | 17 | 11 | 383,800 |
PM Particulate Matter | t PM2.5-eq. | 66 | 48 | 2,196,400 |
POF Photochemical Ozone Formation | t NMVOC-eq. | 200 | 200 | 238,400 |
WD Water Depletion | m3 water | −6,000,000 | −4,000,000 | −396,100 |
Unit | All Collected | All AFW Collected | Value (All) GBP | Value (AFW) GBP | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PED Primary Energy Demand | GJ | −4000 | −1400 | −102,062 | −35,306 |
GWP Global Warming Potential | t CO2-eq. | −113 | −2355 | −5510 | −115,091 |
Acidification | Mol H+ × 1000 | 0 | −29 | 0 | −8546 |
POF Photochemical Ozone Formation | t NMVOC-eq. | −3 | −9 | −2645 | −9001 |
PM Particulate Matter | t PM10-eq. | 3 | 2 | 72,706 | 38,005 |
PM Particulate Matter | t PM2.5-eq. | 0 | −2 | 0 | −66,305 |
N Aquatic Eutrophication Nitrogen | t N-eq. | 2 | −11 | 6220 | −30,359 |
P Aquatic Eutrophication Phosphorous | t P-eq. | 0 | 0 | −106 | −592 |
HT Human Toxicity Cancer | CTUh | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1169 |
HT Human Toxicity | t 1,4-DB-eq. | −89 | −52 | −7598 | −4436 |
Ecotoxicity | CTUe × 1000 | 0 | −4000 | 0 | −116 |
FRD Fossil Resource Depletion | GJ | −2600 | −20,100 | −2848 | −22,425 |
WD Water Depletion | m3 water | −450,000 | −130,000 | −30,546 | −8876 |
Unit | All Collected | All AFW Collected | Value (All) GBP | Value (AFW) GBP | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PED Primary Energy Demand | GJ | 9000 | 6000 | 227,290 | 154,400 |
GWP Global Warming Potential | tCO2-eq. | −15,000 | −11,000 | −737,600 | −536,775 |
Acidification | Mol H+ × 1000 | −192 | −140 | −56,619 | −41,159 |
POF Photochemical Ozone Formation | t NMVOC-eq. | −48 | −35 | −47,680 | −34,940 |
PM Particulate Matter | t PM10-eq. | −3 | −2 | −76,750 | −48,080 |
PM Particulate Matter | t PM2.5-eq. | −13 | −10 | −439,285 | −319,330 |
N Aquatic Eutrophication Nitrogen | t N-eq. | −86 | −62 | −229,240 | −165,990 |
P Aquatic Eutrophication Phosphorous | t P-eq. | −2 | −1.5 | −3440 | −2515 |
HT Human Toxicity Cancer | CTUh | −0.2 | −0.2 | −7742 | −5628 |
HT Human Toxicity | t 1,4-DB-eq. | 58 | 33 | 4945 | 2789 |
Ecotoxicity | CTUe × 1000 | −23,000 | −17,000 | −769 | −559 |
FRD Fossil Resource Depletion | GJ | −122,000 | −89,000 | −135,701 | −98,948 |
WD Water Depletion | m3 water | 1,170,000 | 803,000 | 79,229 | 54,355 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Eaton, E.; Hunt, A.; Di Leo, A.; Black, D.; Frost, G.; Hargreaves, S. What Are the Environmental Benefits and Costs of Reducing Food Waste? Bristol as a Case Study in the WASTE FEW Urban Living Lab Project. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5573. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095573
Eaton E, Hunt A, Di Leo A, Black D, Frost G, Hargreaves S. What Are the Environmental Benefits and Costs of Reducing Food Waste? Bristol as a Case Study in the WASTE FEW Urban Living Lab Project. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9):5573. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095573
Chicago/Turabian StyleEaton, Eleanor, Alistair Hunt, Anastasia Di Leo, Daniel Black, Gwen Frost, and Sarah Hargreaves. 2022. "What Are the Environmental Benefits and Costs of Reducing Food Waste? Bristol as a Case Study in the WASTE FEW Urban Living Lab Project" Sustainability 14, no. 9: 5573. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095573
APA StyleEaton, E., Hunt, A., Di Leo, A., Black, D., Frost, G., & Hargreaves, S. (2022). What Are the Environmental Benefits and Costs of Reducing Food Waste? Bristol as a Case Study in the WASTE FEW Urban Living Lab Project. Sustainability, 14(9), 5573. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095573