Next Article in Journal
Natural Environmental Change and Firm Sustainable Development in China: The Moderating Effect of Slack Resources and Digital Transformation
Previous Article in Journal
Will Participation in Dual Value Chains Promote Manufacturing Upgrades and Green Development?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 9
10.3390/su17094236
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

Understanding Food Waste Sorting Practices: Insights from a Systematic Review

by
Gediminas Naujokas
and
Viktorija Bobinaite
*
Laboratory for Energy System Research, Lithuanian Energy Institute, Breslaujos Street 3, 44403 Kaunas, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(9), 4236; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094236
Submission received: 8 January 2025 / Revised: 21 February 2025 / Accepted: 4 March 2025 / Published: 7 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Waste and Recycling)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Approximately 2.5 billion tons of waste are generated annually worldwide, with food waste constituting a significant portion: 88 million tons in the European Union (EU) alone. Food waste has severe societal, economic, and environmental consequences, contributing 15–16% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the food supply chain. In response, many countries, including EU member states, the United States of America (USA), and China, have introduced policies mandating food waste sorting. These regulations are informed by scientific research on waste prevention, environmental impact assessments, and cost–benefit analyses of waste reduction strategies. For example, studies on organic waste treatment technologies, economic incentives for waste sorting, and the effectiveness of landfill bans have influenced the development of the EU Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC), China’s National Waste Classification Policy (2017), and the USA Food Recovery Act (2015). As waste management continues to evolve, understanding the economic, technological, and policy dimensions of food waste sorting remains crucial for achieving sustainable development and circular economy goals globally. This study systematically reviews the international literature on food waste sorting, analyzing sorting behaviors and identifying theoretical frameworks that explain these behaviors. Using the PSALSAR systematic review methodology, 67 relevant studies from diverse geographic regions were analyzed. The findings highlight the critical influence of external factors in shaping sorting behaviors, such as financial incentives and infrastructure, alongside internal drivers, such as environmental awareness and social norms. While external measures often yield immediate compliance, internal motivation fosters long-term behavioral changes. Moreover, significant regional and cultural variations in food waste sorting practices were identified. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) emerged as a dominant framework in the study of waste sorting behaviors, often complemented by other models such as Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). Policy recommendations emphasize the need for tailored interventions that address regional and demographic differences, community-driven educational initiatives, and the integration of innovative waste sorting technologies. Future research should focus on assessing the economic and psychological impacts of waste sorting policies across different socio-cultural contexts and exploring innovative strategies to enhance global public participation in food waste management.

1. Introduction

The global waste management issue has garnered significant attention due to its environmental, economic, and social implications. Within the European Union (EU), approximately 2.5 billion tons of waste are generated annually, of which 88 million tons are attributed to food waste. The environmental consequences are severe, with food waste accounting for 15–16% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the food supply chain, exacerbating climate change challenges. These alarming statistics highlight the urgency of addressing food waste management and aligning with the EU’s waste directive, including Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002, which emphasizes waste prevention and efficient resource utilization. Moreover, the mandatory food waste sorting policy, effective in the EU from 2024, underscores the need for research into household behaviors to ensure successful implementation.
Despite the policy focus, research on waste management behaviors, particularly food waste sorting, remains fragmented. Scholars have extensively explored waste sorting from technological and operational perspectives, focusing on material recovery facilities, composting methods, and waste-to-energy solutions [1]. However, studies on the behavioral dimensions of household food waste sorting are limited, especially in understanding motivational, psychological, and socio-economic factors [2]. This gap in the literature represents a critical area for exploration, as households are pivotal in the success of waste sorting systems.
The novelty of this study lies in its systematic approach to analyzing food waste sorting behaviors through a comprehensive review of the scientific literature. It identifies and classifies factors influencing these behaviors and synthesizes key theoretical models, such as the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [2]. This study constructs a detailed framework for understanding and enhancing household food waste sorting practices by bridging the existing research gap, contributing to theoretical advancements, and developing practical policy.
This paper analyzes and classifies factors influencing food waste sorting behaviors and their underlying theories.
To achieve this aim, the following tasks are undertaken:
  • Classify the analyzed studies based on research methods, assessing the use of qualitative and quantitative methodologies and their applicability in studying food waste sorting behavior.
  • Identify geographical differences in food waste sorting research, considering national policies, infrastructure, and cultural factors.
  • Evaluate the most frequently examined factors (economic, social, psychological) in the literature to understand key motivations and barriers influencing food waste sorting behavior.
  • Analyze the theoretical frameworks commonly applied in waste sorting research, highlighting the use of TPB, TRA, NAM, and VBN theories and their specific applications.
  • Examine how policy interventions are assessed in the reviewed studies, identifying commonly used indicators such as financial incentives, regulatory mechanisms, or educational campaigns.
  • Develop a systematic synthesis of these studies, enabling the formulation of recommendations for future research and policymaking to improve food waste sorting strategies.
This research employs systematic literature review methodology following the PSALSAR approach (Protocol, Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis, Report) [1]. This study utilizes databases such as Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar to gather the relevant literature, ensuring a robust and comprehensive analysis [3].
This paper is organized as follows: The second section details the methodology used in this research. The third section presents the results and discusses them, providing insights into food waste sorting behaviors and theoretical frameworks. Finally, the paper concludes with recommendations for future research and practical applications.

2. Materials and Methods

According to “Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review” [3], the SALSA methodology (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis) should be applied when conducting a systematic literature review. In agreement with [1], an extended version of the methodology was used in this study by adding a Protocol at the beginning and a Report at the end (the methodology is called PSALSAR). The framework for systematic analysis is shown in Table 1.
As is shown in Table 1, the Protocol step involves defining the study’s scope. For this research, the scope was restricted to municipal waste sorting behavior, with a focus on food waste. As Booth et al. (2016) [3] emphasize, a well-defined Protocol ensures clarity in research objectives and boundaries, preventing scope creep.
The Search step employed specific search strategies, including predefined keywords, in databases such as Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. As suggested by Mengist et al. (2020) [1], systematic search strategies are crucial to identify relevant and high-quality studies. In addition to automated searches, handpicked studies were incorporated to ensure the inclusion of the most recent and relevant research on food waste sorting behaviors. This approach was necessary to cover emerging research areas not yet indexed in significant databases at the time of the search. However, an essential limitation of the search phase was restricted access to full-text articles. Some relevant studies were identified through their abstracts but could not be thoroughly analyzed due to paywall restrictions in academic databases. Only available abstracts were reviewed in such cases. This limitation means that, while the systematic review includes a broad range of studies, detailed insights from paywalled articles could not be incorporated into the analysis. To mitigate this issue, whenever possible, alternative sources such as open-access repositories (e.g., ResearchGate, PubMed Central) or preprint archives were explored to obtain full versions of the papers.
The Appraisal step focused on evaluating the quality and relevance of the studies. Based on the research questions, criteria for inclusion and exclusion were established, and the quality of studies was assessed using standardized criteria. According to Cooper (1998) [4], rigorous appraisal enhances the reliability and validity of literature review findings. This step also involved comparing newly selected research against existing systematic reviews to ensure novel insights were incorporated.
The Synthesis step involved extracting and categorizing relevant data from the selected studies. This process was iterative, allowing for the refinement of categories based on emerging patterns. Hart (2018) [5] notes that synthesis is critical for identifying trends and gaps within the literature. The newly included studies (e.g., recent research on behavioral interventions in household waste sorting (Journals.sagepub.com, accessed on 14 February 2025) and the role of social norms in food waste reduction (ResearchGate, accessed on 14 February 2025)) were particularly relevant in identifying new motivators and deterrents affecting food waste sorting behaviors.
The Analysis step consisted of the quantitative categorization and narrative analysis of the data, enabling the identification of key trends and gaps. Cooper (2016) [4] suggests that this stage provides the foundation for drawing meaningful conclusions from the literature. This stage was further enriched by the incorporation of recent meta-analyses on food waste behavior (ResearchGate, 2023), which provided deeper statistical insights into the comparative effectiveness of different interventions across global contexts.
Finally, the Report step involves compiling and presenting the findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was employed to ensure transparency and comprehensiveness in reporting, as recommended by Moher et al. (2009) [6]. To reflect the expanded dataset, the PRISMA flowchart was adjusted to include a separate category for handpicked studies, which were integrated as a supplementary validation step to strengthen the review’s comprehensiveness.
The PICOC model (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Context) was utilized to define the scope of this systematic literature review (Table 2). Booth, Sutton, and Papaioannou (2016) [3] describe this model as a structured approach to refining research questions and delineating the study boundaries.
Despite access limitations to specific full-text articles, this review integrates a wide range of open-access and paywalled research to provide a balanced and comprehensive overview of food waste sorting behaviors. The findings contribute to a better understanding of individual and policy-driven factors influencing food waste sorting while highlighting gaps for future research.

3. Results

3.1. Step 1—Protocol

Based on the PICOC framework, the following research questions were developed to guide the analysis:
  • What are the latest studies currently available to investigate the motives for sorting food waste?
  • Can other waste or secondary raw material sorting research be used in the food waste sector?
  • What economic factors—external or internal—are studied most often?
  • What are the main problems in the study of waste sorting?
  • How are data usually collected?
  • What are the prospects for further research?
The following analysis should provide answers to these questions.

3.2. Step 2—Search

To locate the relevant literature for the systematic review, a structured search was conducted across three databases: Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. These databases were selected due to their comprehensive coverage of the academic literature, ensuring access to a wide range of studies on municipal and food waste sorting behaviors [1,3]. Additionally, handpicked articles were included to ensure the inclusion of the most recent and relevant research on food waste sorting behaviors. The search results are presented in Table 3.
It was found that Scopus database yielded relatively few results about municipal waste sorting, with 37 articles on “municipal solid waste sorting” or “municipal solid waste separation”, 21 articles on “municipal waste sorting” or “municipal waste separation”, and only 13 on “food waste sorting” or “food waste separation”. This limited result pool suggests that, while Scopus indexes high-quality academic publications, the specific topic of food waste sorting behavior remains underexplored in this database. ScienceDirect produced a more substantial number of results compared to Scopus, with 53 articles related to “municipal solid waste sorting”, 35 on “municipal waste sorting”, and 78 articles focusing specifically on “food waste sorting”. This reflects the strong presence of applied research in waste management within ScienceDirect’s indexed journals, which often address the environmental and policy implications of sorting practices. Google Scholar provided significantly higher numbers of articles across all search terms, with 67 articles on “municipal solid waste sorting”, 249 on “municipal waste sorting”, and 37 on “food waste sorting”. While Google Scholar’s inclusivity of non-peer-reviewed materials broadens the range of results, it also necessitates careful appraisal to ensure the academic rigor and relevance of the selected studies.
Through the secondary terms “secondary raw materials sorting” and “secondary raw materials separation”, no relevant information could be found in Scopus or Google Scholar, and only two relevant articles in ScienceDirect. This is because there is a limited interrelation between the research on general raw material sorting and food waste sorting. The current literature on secondary raw materials is mostly focused on technological and environmental aspects, and only a limited number of studies focus on the economic incentives and policy instruments that stimulate sorting behavior. The current literature on food waste sorting is mainly focused on solid food waste because it is the largest part of household food waste and the primary focus of regulatory policies. However, some liquid food waste streams like used cooking oil are separated from other wastes in some areas; their management is different and involves collection from households to industrial treatment, not sorting. Due to these differences, a comparison of the practices in the case of liquid and solid food waste sorting is less relevant for this study. Economic factors include the costs of waste management, financial incentives that households may receive, and the legal frameworks that affect both general waste sorting and food waste reduction. Understanding how financial incentives and market mechanisms affect sorting behavior in secondary raw materials can provide important lessons for enhancing food waste sorting efficiency. Hence, this study aims to address this gap by examining the economic effects of waste sorting policies on household and institutional participation with special reference to solid food waste streams.
Given the limitations of database searches, 12 additional articles were identified manually, ensuring the inclusion of the most recent findings and critical perspectives that were not retrieved through systematic searches. They are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Handpicked articles.
Table 4. Handpicked articles.
ArticleDirect LinkCountry
Systematic review of factors influencing household food waste behaviour: Applying the theory of planned behaviour (2024) [7]https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X241285423 accessed on 14 February 2025Not specified
The Role of Social Norms and Behavior on Household Food Waste (2022) [8]https://doi.org/10.30918/NJSS.103.22.020 accessed on 14 February 2025Philippines
Food waste in hospitality and food services: A systematic literature review and framework development approach (2020) [9]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122861 accessed on 14 February 2025Not specified
Forecasting the different influencing factors of household food waste behavior in China under the COVID-19 pandemic (2023) [10]https://doi.org/10.1002/for.3017 accessed on 14 February 2025China
Food for Thought: Can Social Norms and Food Habit Curtail Household Food Waste (2023) [11]https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/rtass/v5/5873B accessed on 14 February 2025Philippines
Assumptions and perceptions of food wasting behavior and intention among different consumer groups (2025) [12]https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-86252-z accessed on 14 February 2025Hungary
Household Food Waste Intervention Is Feasible, Acceptable, and Effective (2024) [13]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2023.11.004 accessed on 14 February 2025Canada
Analysis of factors influencing college students’ food waste behavior (2024) [14]https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1372430 accessed on 14 February 2025China
Understanding household food waste using a psychographic segmentation approach (2025) [15]https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2024.2439837 accessed on 14 February 2025Australia
Factors influencing food-waste behaviors at university canteens in Beijing, China: an investigation based on the theory of planned behavior (2023) [16]https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2022472 accessed on 14 February 2025China
Households’ food waste behavior prediction from a moral perspective: a case of China(2023) [17]https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03136-w accessed on 14 February 2025China
Household food waste: A meta-analysis(2024) [18]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2023.100809 accessed on 14 February 2025Not specified
The results from the database search highlight several key points:
  • Scarcity of research on food waste sorting: The relatively low number of articles focusing specifically on food waste sorting, especially in Scopus and ScienceDirect, underscores this study area’s novelty and emerging nature. It aligns with the literature gap identified in the introduction, where food waste sorting behavior is underexplored compared to broader waste management topics.
  • Disparity in database coverage: The variation in results across the three databases demonstrates differences in indexing priorities. Scopus leans toward high-impact peer-reviewed journals, while ScienceDirect includes more applied and technical studies. Google Scholar, while broad in scope, requires additional scrutiny due to its inclusion of non-academic sources.
  • Economic context of sorting: The scarcity of articles with explicit economic evaluations or behavioral insights into food waste sorting suggests an opportunity to contribute to the literature by integrating economic analyses, such as cost–benefit studies and policy impact assessments.
  • Policy implications: The limited focus on economic and behavioral dimensions indicates a gap in understanding the role of financial incentives, household decision-making processes, and policy measures in shaping food waste sorting behaviors.
The findings from the search step validate the importance of conducting a systematic review to address the identified gaps. By analyzing the economic and behavioral aspects of food waste sorting, this study will contribute to the literature, providing actionable insights for policymakers and stakeholders aiming to enhance waste management practices.

3.3. Step 3—Appraisal

During the Appraisal step, relevant articles are selected for further review. First, the articles are selectively assessed according to the selected criteria, followed by an initial assessment of their quality. Table 5 presents the selection process of reviewed articles, outlining the number of studies retrieved, filtered, and retained at each stage. The table details the inclusion and exclusion criteria applied to ensure that only relevant studies focusing on the economic and social aspects of waste sorting were considered. It also highlights the impact of keyword matching, duplication removal, and accessibility constraints on the final dataset.
The data in Table 5 are also visually represented in Figure 1, illustrating the article selection process across different databases. The figure provides a graphical overview of the number of articles retrieved, filtered, and retained at each stage, highlighting the impact of keyword filtering, duplicate removal, and access limitations on the final dataset.
Table 5 and Figure 1 show that, after the initial selection, 139 articles, or 23%, remained, according to their external characteristics, out of all primary articles (out of 604 articles). Next, abstracts were evaluated to ensure that the selected articles met the set goals.
After evaluating the abstracts of the articles, 78 articles were selected, or 13% of the original number of selected articles. The main reasons that led to the rejection of articles were articles about the physical or chemical composition of waste, articles about waste sorting solutions or benefits in waste sorting plants, and articles about other sources of waste generation (non-household). Furthermore, it is important to point out that some relevant articles were not freely available. Because of the limitations on institutional access, they could not be included in the review. Although the paywalled studies may be useful for brainstorming ideas, this study is based only on open-access sources to guarantee the data’s transparency, reproducibility, and openness. The fact that a sufficiently large number of articles were reviewed makes the analysis sufficient. It enables the drawing of sound conclusions on food waste sorting behaviors and policy implications. Future work could build on this by including restricted-access articles, which may offer a more detailed view.

3.4. Step 4—Synthesis

In the synthesis step, it is essential to select certain pieces of necessary information from each selected article, which allow for presenting generalized conclusions. A multi-criteria map (Table 6) of possible analysis is developed to guarantee a systematic analysis of the identified literature. The review does not include studies published before the year 2000 because waste sorting practices and consumer behavior have experienced substantial transformations during the last twenty years due to regulatory actions, technological developments, and rising public knowledge. The failure to retrieve older publications through the analyzed databases does not necessarily indicate a deficiency in research regarding the topic, but it could be attributed to either indexing limitations or the practice of earlier studies appearing in region-specific or non-digitized journals. For example, Japan is famous for its structured waste sorting system. Still, very few studies were found in this review due to either language limitations or the fact that such studies were published in non-indexed journals. The literature analysis revealed several key trends. Since 2010, there has been a noticeable rise in the number of papers regarding food waste sorting behavior, which shows that academic and policy makers’ attention to this subject is on the rise. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries where waste sorting is compulsory, and there is limited research in the middle- and low-income regions. It was also observed that methodological diversity was used where studies used statistical modeling, behavioral experiments, and policy evaluations to analyze waste sorting behavior. A gap in economic and policy-oriented analyses of waste sorting was also noted, especially around household waste management, where more research is needed to examine the effects of financial incentives and regulatory measures. These findings, therefore, support the utility of the contemporary literature in formulating effective waste management policies and present important implications that can be used in both academic and policy-making contexts. It would be helpful for future work to expand this review by including studies that are not indexed or region-specific to provide a more complete picture of historical and local-level waste sorting practices.
According to the criteria listed in the table, all 78 selected articles are examined and general conclusions are made.

3.5. Step 5—Analysis

3.5.1. Research Methods, Geographic Distribution, and Trends in Waste Sorting Studies

During the analysis, selected articles were analyzed according to the criteria selected in the previous section. The dynamics of the number of articles are presented in Figure 2.
The analysis of articles by year reveals (Figure 2) that the science focusing on waste sorting behavior was studied in only 8% of the articles reviewed before 2015. This indicates that waste sorting is an emerging field of study that has attracted more attention from academics in the last ten years. The increase in the number of articles published from 2015 and onwards shows an increasing awareness of the relevance of waste sorting in the context of sustainable development, following changes in policy and in the face of increasing waste management issues worldwide. It is important to note that the data for 2024 only includes publications up to March, as this study was conducted within the first quarter of the year. As a result, the lower number of articles for 2024 does not indicate a downward trend but, rather, reflects an incomplete dataset due to the ongoing publication cycle. Future analyses incorporating the full-year data may provide a clearer picture of whether the upward trend in waste sorting research continues.
Table 7 shows the distribution of articles by the name of the journal.
The analysis of the sources of publication of articles showed that as many as 42 articles (54%) are published in eight journals (Table 7). The three main journals that usually provide information about the sorting behavior of consumers are the Journal of Cleaner Production, Resources, Conservation and Recycling and Waste Management. It is also important to note that eight articles were published during forums and conferences; this shows that the topic is relevant and presented immediately, as soon as the conclusions are received.
In Table 8, the number of articles by the country where each study was conducted is shown.
As can be seen in Table 8, the analysis of the countries to which the articles are addressed, most articles are devoted to the situation in China (37%). This is not surprising, since China has been strongly promoting waste sorting in major cities since 2017. Many articles are devoted to Scandinavia: 9%. The Czech Republic and Slovakia are allocated 8% of the articles. One article is dedicated to Lithuania, and another article, by Lithuanian authors, is dedicated to Sweden.
In Table 9, the number of articles by data sample size is presented.
As Table 9 shows, most articles that do not have a set sample size examine the information provided in statistical portals or do not even set such a goal. Also, several articles that analyzed the literature or used the crawling method were found here. Also included here is an Australian article in which the survey was conducted by a specially hired professional polling company who did not specify the sample size (they only provided the survey results). The authors usually used a small sample when conducting a controlled experiment, comparing the behavior of several groups under different conditions or conducting interviews (based on a prepared questionnaire). Average sampling is primarily used in smaller countries or electronic surveys. The large sample is mainly associated with the situation in China. Since sample sizes between 300 and 2000 individuals are the most prevalent, this is the most common practice that allows for generalizable conclusions.
In Table 10, the number of articles by research method is given.
As can be seen in Table 10, most articles (63%) in which the behavior of residents in waste sorting is studied are based on statistical studies. Even some of the articles that simulate a certain situation also use separately collected statistical data. This is completely understandable because, to understand the motives of the population’s behavior (which also differs according to territory, education, etc.), it is necessary to rely on the latest statistical studies, while generalized statistical information or information available on the Internet can distort the real facts (especially if the internal motives of the population are evaluated). Therefore, modeling is mainly used to assess external effects (mainly the influence of external policies).
When evaluating all the articles, it was found that only one, [19], does not specify the method of data analysis. However, article [19] is more intended to evaluate the theoretical replacement of a natural person by artificial intelligence in waste sorting (both at the point of generation and in sorting plants) and the possible economic benefits of such a replacement. The behavior of the population is not studied in this article.

3.5.2. Application of Behavioral Theories to Waste Sorting Practices

The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) is behavioral science theory developed by Fishbein and Ajzen in 1975 [20] to explain how attitudes and subjective norms affect behavioral intentions. This is because the TRA does not include the perceived behavioral control, which means that it is less useful in situations where external barriers such as infrastructure, financial, or policy constraints affect behavior. This limitation was addressed by Ajzen (1991) [2] when he developed the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which included Perceived Behavioral Control as an extension of the original model. This enhancement helps the TPB to encompass a wider range of influences on behavior that range from within the individual (attitudes, social norms) to aspects outside the individual (waste collection, incentives, regulations). Although the TPB is acknowledged to be one of the best models for predicting waste sorting behavior, the TRA remains relevant for use when the decision to sort is mainly influenced by self-centered motivations and social pressures such as individual environmental responsibility, moral norms, or cultural norms. Hence, both theories offer different and complementary views on the same topic, with the TPB offering more specific and situational details, especially when analyzing the multi-factorial influences of psychological, economic, and policy-related factors in food waste classification. The relationship between the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is illustrated in Figure 3, highlighting the key components that differentiate the two theories and their applicability to waste sorting behavior analysis.
Figure 3 shows that, while the TRA is based on attitudes and subjective norms, the TPB is an extension of the model, which includes perceived behavioral control, in situations where other factors such as infrastructure and regulations affect behavior. This visual representation shows that both theories are related, but the TPB offers a more general analytical framework, especially when investigating various influences of food waste sorting behavior, including psychological, economic, and policy factors.
Table 11 presents the classification of motivational factors of waste sorting based on external and internal influences, as identified in the reviewed articles.
As shown in Table 11, external factors of waste sorting dominate in the reviewed articles, with 43% of the articles focusing on external influences. These include the following:
  • Economic incentives: Financial rewards, penalties, and subsidies are significant motivators, especially in Eastern Europe and China. For instance, fines for non-compliance and subsidies for sorting bins have been proven effective in these regions [21,22].
  • Infrastructure availability: Convenience and accessibility of sorting facilities are critical, as seen in Scandinavian countries. Studies emphasize that well-designed infrastructure significantly increases sorting rates [23].
  • Policy and regulation: Mandatory sorting policies, such as the 2024 EU waste directive, play a crucial role in enforcing compliance.
Internal factors of waste sorting are less frequently studied, but remain crucial. These include the following:
  • Environmental awareness: Individuals’ concern for the environment is a key motivator, especially in developed countries. For example, studies from the USA and Norway show that households with higher environmental awareness exhibit better sorting practices [24,25].
  • Social responsibility: A sense of moral obligation to contribute to sustainability often drives sorting behaviors [20,26].
Some articles explore the combined influence of external and internal factors of waste sorting, revealing the following:
  • Education can act as both an external (through public campaigns) and internal (through personal conviction) motivator [24,26].
  • Financial incentives are more effective when paired with educational initiatives that foster environmental awareness [21,23].
To further illustrate the application of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) in waste sorting behavior research, Figure 4 summarizes the key psychological and external factors influencing individuals’ waste separation decisions.
Figure 4 highlights three core elements: attitudes, which refer to personal beliefs and emotional responses towards waste separation; subjective norms, representing the influence of social expectations from family, friends, and the community; and perceived behavioral control (only in the TPB), which encompasses both the perceived ease or difficulty of sorting waste and the availability of necessary resources and infrastructure.
This structured representation reinforces the distinction between the TRA and the TPB, emphasizing how the TPB extends the TRA by considering external constraints, making it more applicable in contexts where infrastructure, policies, and economic incentives impact food waste sorting behaviors.
A significant portion of the articles (30%) do not directly study behavior, but instead focus on the following:
  • The population’s understanding of waste types [24,25].
  • The impact of educational campaigns on sorting knowledge [23,26].
This highlights a gap in understanding the interplay between knowledge and actual behavior, which requires further exploration. By analyzing the reviewed literature, this study identifies the following key gaps and trends in waste sorting research:
  • Dominance of external factors of waste sorting: While external influences are more frequently studied, the long-term sustainability of such measures requires integration with internal motivators [21,23].
  • Underexplored internal motivators: More studies are needed that examine the psychological and moral drivers of sorting behavior [24,25].
  • Regional variations: The effectiveness of motivators varies significantly across regions, emphasizing the need for localized strategies [23,26,27].
  • TPB as a robust framework: The TPB remains the most comprehensive tool for studying waste sorting behaviors, but its integration with other models, such as Social Cognitive Theory, can provide deeper insights [2,25].
This analysis contributes to the field through the systematic categorization of motivational factors and an in-depth analysis of the TPB [2] and the TRA [20] within waste sorting research. The research shows that an interdisciplinary approach, including economic, psychological, and societal perspectives, is necessary for comprehensive understanding [21,24,26].
The TRA and TPB remain central frameworks, while several other theories present different viewpoints. The Norm Activation Model (NAM) identifies personal moral norms as the main motivators of pro-environmental actions because it uses the awareness of consequences and personal responsibility to support sustainable waste management practices [17]. Value–Belief–Norm (VBN) Theory combines values with beliefs and personal norms because environmental concern emerges from altruistic and biospheric values [28]. The models demonstrate strong explanatory power for voluntary actions that reduce food waste through ethical decision making.
Quantitative research methods, including multiple regression analysis structural equation modeling (SEM) and meta-analytic methods, allow food waste behavior research to evaluate psychological and socio-demographic causal relationships [18]. Through Qualitative Comparative Analysis and textual analysis, researchers investigated individual and cultural waste management perceptions to discover hidden behavioral patterns that surveys and experiments sometimes fail to detect [9].
Waste behavior research uses multiple theories and methods, despite the TPB remaining the most popular and comprehensive model to explain intention-driven actions [29], including food waste sorting and reduction. This section investigates the TPB framework together with its application in analyzing household food waste behaviors.

3.5.3. Consumer Behavior and Motivations

Several key psychological, economic, and social factors [10] that influence household food waste sorting behavior have been identified in the reviewed studies. Lack of awareness and inadequate infrastructure are the main barriers, especially in developing countries, as indicated by Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2019) [30]. This means that there is a need to educate people and improve waste management systems to enhance participation. Berglund (2006) [31] also established that economic incentives and personal environmental consciousness are significant motivators of food waste management, which means that financial rewards, penalties, and motivational campaigns play a significant role in determining sorting behavior. In addition, Perceived Behavioral Control, which is self-efficacy in performing a specific behavior, is a key determinant of participation [16,32] thus indicating that removing perceived barriers [7,33,34], and increasing convenience may lead to higher compliance. Moreover, recent studies have established that public perception and psychological barriers are the major determinants of sorting behavior [35,36]. One of the significant reasons for non-participation in proper waste separation is the perceived difficulty of the process and the doubt about the effectiveness of the process [37,38]. Organizational recommendations include integrating environmental education into school curricula, as shown by Nguyen [39], who stated that this will help develop sustainable habits among the next generation. Therefore, this study’s findings indicate that policy enforcement, economic incentives, awareness campaigns, and educational initiatives should be combined to ensure long-term change in food waste sorting behavior.

3.5.4. Strategies and Policies for Waste Management

Several reviewed studies also focus on the importance of policy compliance, individual motivation, and engineered waste management approaches as predictors of food waste recycling. The results show that direct personal contact through door-to-door delivery stands as a chief means of enhancing household participation in waste separation programs, according to both Bernstad [40] and Dai [41]. The results demonstrate that face-to-face contact and community-based interventions produce better behavioral outcomes than information-only campaigns, which call for more localized outreach strategies. Structured waste policies represent a critical component that ensures compliance with established regulations [42,43,44]. Standardizing waste management through deposit practices at specific times and locations yields effective results in increasing recycling rates, according to Bian [45]. Mandated policies and strict regulations are more effective in achieving higher participation rates than voluntary programs in specific settings. Sorting behavior is most influenced by awareness levels, convenience factors, and economic incentives, according to research by Bazargani [46]. Without sufficient funding and precise policies and public involvement, waste sorting participation remains irregular, according to Čonková [47,48]. Policymakers need to direct their efforts toward establishing financial and infrastructural support that incentivizes households and businesses to maintain long-term compliance [19,49]. Govindan’s research [50] reinforces the necessity of government intervention together with education programs to enhance policy-driven waste sorting behavior. Tian’s [51] study, which compares waste sorting behavior in Chinese regions with and without sorting policies, demonstrates that strong government mandates produce higher compliance rates. This result strengthens the argument for holistic policy approaches that integrate forceful regulations with public awareness campaigns and financial motivations to establish widespread behavioral changes. The results indicate that personal engagement tactics, together with policy enforcement and financial rewards, are needed to enhance food waste sorting behaviors. More research should be conducted to evaluate the lasting effects of implemented policies [52,53] while studying how diverse socio-economic groups react to different regulatory methods.

3.5.5. Technological and Methodological Advances

The reviewed studies identify technological improvements in waste sorting methods and municipal infrastructure design as key factors that enhance waste sorting efficiency. Different locations and social contexts require specific effective waste separation methods and influencing factors which call for customized approaches to maximize participation [54]. The results indicate that universal waste sorting approaches are not suitable because local economic status and physical infrastructure along with social customs must be considered by policymakers when developing waste management programs. Smart waste classification systems represent technological solutions that show growing relevance. Public willingness to participate in waste sorting depends heavily on their technological acceptance and their assessment of how easy the systems are to use [55]. Without benefit-oriented features and an intuitive interface, system adoption remains low. Future initiatives should focus on making systems accessible [56] and automated, while offering financial rewards to increase participation in technology-based waste sorting programs [57]. Technological advancements alongside consumer eating practices [58] directly affect the amount of waste generated. The waste generation data shows that fresh foods produce more waste than both frozen and ambient foods, which suggests that consumer education about food storage and purchase planning might help decrease waste [59]. Waste reduction initiatives would benefit from policies which promote food preservation methods alongside improved supply chain practices. Waste sorting behavior is substantially influenced by the characteristics of physical infrastructure systems. Participation rates show substantial improvement when food waste collection points are closer to residents and sorting instructions are explicitly provided [60]. The results show that urban planning measures must focus on easy access and straightforward waste disposal directions to achieve maximum efficiency. The results clearly demonstrate that waste sorting behaviors require simultaneous advancements in technological solutions along with motivational incentives [61] and improved waste management infrastructure. Future studies should evaluate smart waste systems’ long-term performance alongside consumer behavior in food waste production and waste separation efficiency through optimal infrastructure designs.

3.5.6. Economic and Cost Analysis

Research papers highlight the quantitative impacts of waste sorting both in terms of costs and benefits. Berglund (2006) [31] found that the most important factors for encouraging people to sort waste include personal motivation, financial rewards, and regulatory incentives. Despite municipalities perceiving financial incentives as additional costs, research shows that they scale back overall waste management costs and enhance environmental performance [21]. The financial benefits of recyclable separation are verified through cost–benefit analyses of waste sorting programs that demonstrate reduced landfill expenses and better resource recovery practices [62]. Evidence from Japan and China indicates that incorporating economic incentives such as penalty or reward systems leads to sustained participation and better environmental results [63,64]. Research has shown that coupon incentive systems enhance sorting rates and support efforts toward a sustainable economy in municipal waste management plans [65]. Non-market advantages of waste sorting consist of environmental protection, decreased pollution, and positive impacts on population health despite not being derived from economic calculations [66]. Municipalities should consider these indirect advantages when creating waste sorting policies since they advance economic and environmental sustainability in the long run [67,68]. The results clearly indicate that economic and financial incentives are the main motivators for people to practice waste sorting behavior [69]. Further work should be directed towards the assessment of the long-term impact of financial incentives, the comparison of cost-effectiveness in different areas, and the search for new funding models for municipal waste management.

3.5.7. Community and Behavioral Insights

The research papers demonstrate that social norms, community engagement, and behavioral interventions play a key role in promoting waste sorting. Public awareness, along with accessibility and local context, acts as vital elements that determine household waste separation behaviors, according to Bergeron (2016) [70] and Cantillo [71]. The results indicate that generic waste sorting systems fail to work effectively because targeted policy and program interventions that match community needs and socio-economic conditions deliver better participation outcomes. Research demonstrates both social-influence- and education-based interventions as principal motivators for waste sorting behavior. Grytli and Birgen’s research [72] reveals that educational programs, together with peer-led engagement initiatives and economic incentives [73,74], lead to improved compliance while fostering lasting behavioral changes. Household waste separation intentions strongly depend on two critical factors, which include social responsibility and perceived behavioral control, as well as normative and attitudinal elements [75]. Though financial investment proves effective for waste management, research shows that monetary support alone fails to secure broad participation. A blend of economic rewards with community involvement along with focused messaging techniques produces enduring behavioral changes, according to research by Huang [76]. TPB-based interventions demonstrate that attitudes, along with subjective norms and perceived behavioral control, drive household decisions to sort waste [77]. The research results clearly show that incorporating social, economic, and educational strategies [78] will enhance waste sorting participation rates. Future studies should evaluate community-led initiatives’ long-term effects while comparing waste sorting norms across cultures [12] and developing behavioral interventions [79,80,81] that transition intentions into actions [8,11].

3.5.8. Educational and Community-Based Interventions

The research findings highlight the necessity of educational programs and social rewards together with community involvement for improving waste sorting practices. The research demonstrates that game-based learning, together with interactive educational methods, serves as an effective method to strengthen long-term sorting practices. According to Hoffmann and Pfeiffer (2022) [82], game-based learning produced substantial improvements in waste sorting practices. Public education campaigns that utilize interactive reward-based learning tools represent a potentially practical approach. Local authorities, alongside community-driven initiatives, demonstrate that they have a critical role in promoting waste separation practices. Jamal [83] completed their study by showing that resident education programs, together with community involvement activities, boost waste sorting participation rates. Stričík, Bačová, and Čonková [84] concluded that social norms alongside convenience stand as major motivators, which suggests that public recognition programs together with social campaigns should be implemented [85]. Sorting facilities must be accessible and convenient to influence people’s behavior in waste management. According to Kamarudin and Jody [86], awareness levels, together with accessibility and social norms, directly impact participation. The findings of Miliute-Plepiene and Plepys [26] reveal that enhanced food waste sorting practices produce better overall waste management results [13,15], which supports the necessity of supportive infrastructure and policy actions. The research demonstrates that waste sorting programs must combine educational components [87] with community activities [88] and improved infrastructure to achieve behavioral change [14,89]. Future research needs to analyze the durability of gamified learning approaches and digital engagement methods while evaluating community-led initiative scalability and investigating how convenience, alongside social norms and policy frameworks, influences sustainable waste management practices [90,91].

3.5.9. Recommendations for Further Studies

To improve the current understanding and effectiveness of food waste sorting behaviors, future work should examine several important areas. Another important way to explore this topic is to investigate psychological and behavioral aspects more extensively. Even though the TPB is the most popular framework, other models, such as the VBN theory and the SCT, should also be employed to understand the role of moral reasoning, social norms, and community identification in waste sorting behavior. Longitudinal designs could also help in understanding the lasting impact of educational campaigns and incentive programs, and whether people keep on practicing waste sorting over time and whether they need to be reminded to do so. Another important subject for future work is economic incentives and financial means. Studies should also look at the cost-effectiveness of different incentive-based interventions like pay-as-you-throw, deposit–refund, and tax reduction. International comparisons of countries with different waste management policies (mandatory sorting laws vs. voluntary incentive-based arrangements) may help to identify which approaches foster greater engagement and compliance. Moreover, the research should involve the analysis of how socio-economic factors affect the response to economic incentives so that the financial measures are equitable and effective for all the target groups. Another promising area of further research is related to technological advancements. The use of artificial intelligence in waste sorting, the use of the Internet of Things in smart bins, and the use of mobile applications can enhance the sorting efficiency and the level of public engagement. It would be beneficial to investigate the effects of computerized nudges, game-based mobile applications, and social media interventions on waste sorting behavior. Furthermore, a comparative analysis of automated waste management systems across countries can help in identifying the best practices for the implementation of these technologies in urban and rural settings. Another important direction for further research is the cultural and regional differences in waste sorting behavior. Most of the existing research has been conducted in developed countries, while the understanding of how waste sorting practices develop in low- and middle-income countries with different infrastructure, policy compliance, and social norms is lacking. Cross-cultural research can provide valuable lessons on how community engagement, traditional waste management practices, and collective identity influence sorting behaviors. This would give a full picture of how to design waste management policies for different cultural settings. More work needs to be completed to assess the impact of policy interventions and community engagement strategies. Those countries that have recently enacted mandatory sorting regulations should be observed in the long run to determine the effects of legislation. Moreover, studies should look at the role of local governments, Non-Governmental Organizations, and community-based organizations in enhancing the participation of the public. Randomized experiments could provide valuable information on the most appropriate kinds of communication strategies, such as fear appeals, social norm messaging, or positive reinforcement, that can be used to promote waste sorting. One of the most common problems in waste sorting research is the intention–action gap, where people who have pro-environmental beliefs do not necessarily practice what they preach in terms of waste management. Future work should also address the reasons why people fail to act on their intentions, such as inconvenience, ignorance, skepticism towards waste management policies, and barriers. Experimental field studies can offer important lessons as to how this gap can be closed through specific interventions. Lastly, future work should build on household food waste sorting and explore institutional and commercial food waste segregation. However, while most research concentration is on residential waste management, food waste is also produced in schools, universities, offices, and the food service industry. Studying waste management practices in these contexts will offer a more complete and applicable perspective on how waste management policies can be implemented in various settings.

3.6. Step 6—Report

This article examines food waste sorting behavior through a literature review and analysis of theoretical and practical elements. The findings demonstrate the rising academic and policy attention to food waste management due to its importance for circular economy objectives and environmental protection.
Research shows that food waste continues to pose significant problems because millions of tons of waste are produced every year throughout the EU and United States as well as China and major countries worldwide. Research has been conducted to thoroughly study technological aspects and logistical aspects of waste sorting, but behavioral studies now play a crucial role in understanding household participation in waste management initiatives. The research shows that the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) stands as the leading framework for understanding food waste sorting behavior while providing clear insights into how attitudes and social norms together with perceived control influence behavioral decisions. The Norm Activation Model (NAM) and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) provide additional insights by stressing the importance of moral responsibility and social influences, especially in collectivist societies, which complement the TPB framework. This article further examines how socio-economic and psychological factors affect food waste sorting behaviors. Financial incentives together with accessible infrastructure function as essential factors that drive participation, but internal motivations such as environmental awareness together with moral responsibility maintain equal importance. Different regions show varying patterns because economic incentives function best in areas with low environmental awareness; yet, social and moral norms dominate in communities that value waste sorting. The results indicate that both external policy measures and internal motivational strategies must work together to produce lasting behavioral change. Different policy interventions designed to enhance waste sorting behaviors have produced differing levels of success. Door-to-door community engagement programs show superior results in increasing participation compared to general awareness campaigns through educational initiatives. The availability of accessible sorting facilities continues to be critical for facilitating convenience, which drives compliance. Pay-as-you-throw schemes together with penalty-based systems have shown effectiveness in boosting participation in places where mandatory policy implementation exists. This study integrates research findings from multiple geographic regions and methodological approaches to better understand food waste sorting behaviors. The results demonstrate the necessity of targeted policy actions that consider socio-economic and cultural variations alongside the significance of behavioral science in waste management strategy development. Future studies should analyze the financial effects of waste sorting policies while studying long-term behavioral patterns and developing new strategies including digital rewards and game-based interventions to boost worldwide food waste management participation.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Mengist, W.; Soromessa, T.; Legese, G. Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental science research. Methodsx 2020, 7, 100777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Booth, A.; Sutton, A.; Papaioannou, D. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review, 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  4. Cooper, H. Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hart, C. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Research Imagination, 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  6. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2009, 62, 1006–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Etim, E.; Choedron, K.T.; Ajai, O.; Duke, O.; Jijingi, H.E. Systematic review of factors influencing household food waste behaviour: Applying the theory of planned behaviour. Waste Manag. Res. 2024. [CrossRef]
  8. Apolonio, R.; Lacaza, R. The role of social norms and behavior on household food waste. Net J. Soc. Sci. 2022, 10, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dhir, A.; Talwar, S.; Kaur, P.; Malibari, A. Food waste in hospitality and food services: A systematic literature review and framework development approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 270, 122861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shen, X.; Wang, J.; Wang, L.; Jiao, C. Forecasting the different influencing factors of household food waste behavior in China under the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Forecast. 2023, 42, 2322–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Apolonio, R.; Lacaza, R.M. Food for thought: Can social norms and food habit curtail household food waste. Recent Trends Arts Soc. Stud. 2023, 5, 124–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mucha, L.; Oravecz, T. Assumptions and perceptions of food wasting behavior and intention to reduce food waste in the case of Generation Y and Generation X. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 2991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Laila, A.; Gallant, M.; Bain, M.; Alexander, C.; Reis, L.; Welboren, A.; von Massow, M.; Parizeau, K.; Walton, K.; Ma, D.W.; et al. Household food waste intervention is feasible, acceptable, and effective. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2024, 56, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, D.; Zhang, K.; Lv, X.; Xue, L.; Yang, Z.; Li, P. Analysis of factors influencing college students’ food waste behavior and evaluation of labor education intervention. Front. Public Health 2024, 12, 1372430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Kansal, M.; Mitsis, A.; Haque, A.; Ananda, J.; Pearson, D. Understanding household food waste using a psychographic segmentation: The cautious-engage-creative framework. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chuah, S.-C.; Putit, L.; Singh, J.K. Assessing residents’ intention towards municipal solid waste source separation: A case study of malaysia. Plan. Malays. J. 2023, 21, 382–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Obuobi, B.; Zhang, Y.; Adu-Gyamfi, G.; Nketiah, E. Households’ food waste behavior prediction from a moral perspective: A case of China. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 26, 10085–10104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hermanussen, H.; Loy, J.-P. Household food waste: A meta-analysis. Environ. Challenges 2023, 14, 100809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wu, X.; Zhang, L.; Huang, J.; Li, W.; Chen, Y.; Qiu, W. Evolutionary game analysis on behavioral strategies of government and residents in municipal household waste separation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Philos. Rhetor. 1975, 6, 244–245. [Google Scholar]
  21. Li, C.; Huang, Y.; Harder, M. Incentives for food waste diversion: Exploration of a long term successful Chinese city residential scheme. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 156, 491–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Li, W.; Wang, J. Household waste management in Shanghai and its implications for the second-tier cities in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 321, 128980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sandhi, A.; Rosenlund, J. Municipal solid waste management in Scandinavia and key factors for improved waste segregation: A review. Clean. Waste Syst. 2024, 8, 100144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nilssen, M.E.D. Is It Easier Than you Think? A Case of Food Waste Sorting Behaviour in Follo, Norway. Master’s Thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway, 2022. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3005732 (accessed on 5 March 2024).
  25. Oehman, J.M.; Babbitt, C.W.; Flynn, C. What predicts and prevents source separation of household food waste? An application of the theory of planned behavior. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 186, 106492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Miliute-Plepiene, J.; Plepys, A. Does food sorting prevents and improves sorting of household waste? A case in Sweden. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 101, 182–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Teplická, K.; Kádárová, J.; Kováč, M. Implementation of a coupon system in municipalities and its significance in the area of waste sorting as a green economy. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2021, 30, 4719–4730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Guichard, E.; Jouffre, S.; Bouquet, C.A.; Autin, F. An integrative model exploring normative, situational, attitudinal, and self-related determinants of household food waste separation intention and habit and intention to change behavior. PsyEcology Biling. J. Environ. Psychol. 2024, 15, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ajzen, I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 32, 665–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. 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]
  31. Berglund, C. The assessment of households’ recycling costs: The role of personal motives. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 56, 560–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. De Feo, G.; De Gisi, S. Domestic separation and collection of municipal solid waste: Opinion and awareness of citizens and workers. Sustainability 2010, 2, 1297–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Erami, S.; Pashaei, T.; Shahmoradi, B. Developing a questionnaire on strategies for increasing housewives’ participation in source separation of municipal solid waste based on the theory of planned behavior. J. Adv. Environ. Health Res. 2015, 3, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fan, H.; Wang, J.; Lu, X.; Fan, S. Factors influencing food-waste behaviors at university canteens in Beijing, China: An investigation based on the theory of planned behavior. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng. 2023, 10, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Refsgaard, K.; Magnussen, K. Household behaviour and attitudes with respect to recycling food waste—Experiences from focus groups. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 760–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, Y.; Hao, F. Public perception matters: Individual waste sorting in Chinese communities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 159, 104860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Veselá, L.; Antošová, I.; Kubíčková, L.; Vršanská, M.; vaverková, M.D.; Voběrková, S.; Kovaříková, E.; Martínez barroso, P.; Urbanová, M. Beyond the bin: Dissecting factors and barriers in food waste sorting among Czech households. Waste Forum 2023, 3, 183–195. Available online: https://www.wasteforum.cz/cisla/WF_3_2023.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2024).
  38. Vršanská, M.; Veselá, L.; Baláková, I.; Kovaříková, E.; Jansová, E.; Knoll, A.; Voběrková, S.; Kubíčková, L.; Vaverková, M.D. A comprehensive study of food waste management and processing in the Czech Republic: Potential health risks and consumer behavior. Sci. Total. Environ. 2024, 927, 172214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nguyen, Q.N.; Hoang, H.Y.; Ho, N.N.Y.; Tran, T.T.A. Factors influencing municipal solid waste sorting behavioral intention: A study among pupils in Hanoi urban areas. CEUR Workshop Proc. 2021, 3026, 57–66. Available online: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3026/paper6.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2024).
  40. Bernstad, A.; Jansen, J.l.C.; Aspegren, A. Door-stepping as a strategy for improved food waste recycling behaviour—Evaluation of a full-scale experiment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 73, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dai, Y.; Lin, Z.; Li, C.; Xu, D.; Huang, W.; Harder, M. Information strategy failure: Personal interaction success, in urban residential food waste segregation. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 298–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Xu, J.; Zhang, Z.; Xu, Y.; Liu, L.; Pei, T. Quantitative evaluation of waste sorting management policies in China’s major cities based on the PMC index model. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1065900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yang, L.; Li, Z.-S.; Fu, H.-Z. Model of municipal solid waste source separation activity: A case study of Beijing. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2011, 61, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yu, Q.; Li, H. Moderate separation of household kitchen waste towards global optimization of municipal solid waste management. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 123330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bian, S.; Xue, Y.; Li, C.; Wu, W.; Ma, Z.; Okoro, J.O.; Harder, M.K. Depositing waste in ‘certain place’ at ‘certain time’: Does this policy improve recycling performance? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 176, 105935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bazargani, H.; Zandieh, M.; Taghizadeh-Yazdi, M. Modeling the network of municipal solid waste separation factors using fuzzy cognitive mapping: A case study in Tehran. Environ. Energy Econ. Res. 2019, 3, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Čonková, M.; Stričík, M.; Bačová, M. Views of Municipalities on Selected Municipal Waste Management Issues. Waste Forum 2018, 544–559. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330636970_Views_of_municipalities_on_selected_municipal_waste_management_issues_Monika_CONKOVA_Michal_STRICIK_Monika_BACOVA (accessed on 5 March 2024).
  48. Stričík, M.; Čonková, M. Key Determinants of Municipal Waste Sorting in Slovakia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Q.; Wang, H. Attitude of Chinese public towards municipal solid waste sorting policy: A text mining study. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 756, 142674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Govindan, K.; Zhuang, Y.; Chen, G. Analysis of factors influencing residents’ waste sorting behavior: A case study of Shanghai. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 349, 131126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tian, J.; Gong, Y.; Li, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhang, L.; Sun, Y. Can policy implementation increase public waste sorting behavior? The comparison between regions with and without waste sorting policy implementation in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 363, 132401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tan, S.; Li, W.; Liu, X.; Wang, Y.; Wang, M. Exploring paths underpinning the implementation of municipal waste sorting: Evidence from China. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2024, 106, 107510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Thyberg, K.L.; Tonjes, D.J. Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 106, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chen, H.; Yang, Y.; Jiang, W.; Song, M.; Wang, Y.; Xiang, T. Source separation of municipal solid waste: The effects of different separation methods and citizens’ inclination—Case study of Changsha, China. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2017, 67, 182–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sun, Y.; Wang, D.; Li, X.; Chen, Y.; Guo, H. Public attitudes toward the whole life cycle management of plastics: A text-mining study in China. Sci. Total. Environ. 2023, 859, 159981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lemeshko, M.A.; Bashnyak, S.E.; Karelin, A.E.; Stuzhenko, N.I.; Bondareva, A.S. A rational way of sorting municipal solid waste. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2023, 1154, 012074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. WRAP. Evaluation of the WRAP Separate Food Waste Collection Trials. 2009. Available online: https://www.wrap.ngo/resources/report/evaluation-wrap-separate-food-waste-collection-trials (accessed on 5 March 2024).
  58. Parizeau, K.; von Massow, M.; Martin, R.C. Directly observing household food waste generation using composition audits in a Canadian municipality. Waste Manag. 2021, 135, 229–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Janssen, A.M.; Vries, M.A.N.-D.; Boer, E.P.; Kremer, S. Fresh, frozen, or ambient food equivalents and their impact on food waste generation in Dutch households. Waste Manag. 2017, 67, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rousta, K.; Bolton, K.; Lundin, M.; Dahlén, L. Quantitative assessment of distance to collection point and improved sorting information on source separation of household waste. Waste Manag. 2015, 40, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cudjoe, D.; Zhang, H.; Wang, H. Predicting residents’ adoption intention for smart waste classification and collection system. Technol. Soc. 2023, 75, 102381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chifari, R.; Piano, S.L.; Matsumoto, S.; Tasaki, T. Does recyclable separation reduce the cost of municipal waste management in Japan? Waste Manag. 2017, 60, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ren, Y.; Yang, J.J. Eco-efficiency assessment of municipal solid waste sorting treatment mode. China Environ. Sci. 2020, 40, 1166–1175. Available online: http://www.zghjkx.com.cn/EN/Y2020/V40/I3/1166 (accessed on 5 March 2024).
  64. Ragazzi, M.; Fedrizzi, S.; Rada, E.C.; Ionescu, G.; Ciudin, R.; Cioca, L.I. Experiencing urban mining in an Italian municipality towards a circular economy vision. Energy Procedia 2017, 119, 192–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Vazquez, Y.V.; Barragán, F.; Castillo, L.A.; Barbosa, S.E. Analysis of the relationship between the amount and type of MSW and population socioeconomic level: Bahía Blanca case study, Argentina. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Struk, M.; Pojezdná, M. Non-market value of waste separation from municipal perspective. In Proceedings of the 17th International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, Cagliari, Italy, 30 September–4 October 2019; pp. 1–10. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336460481_Non-Market_Value_of_Waste_Separation_from_Municipal_Perspective (accessed on 5 March 2024).
  67. Hogg, D.; Favoino, E.; Centemero, M.; Caimi, V.; Amlinger, F.; Devliegher, W.; Brinton, W.; Antler, S. Economic Analysis of Options for Managing Biodegradable Municipal Waste: Final Report to the European Commission. Eunomia Research & Consulting. 2002. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/waste/compost/econanalysis_finalreport.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2024).
  68. Janssen, M.A.; Ostrom, E. Governing social-ecological systems. Handb. Comput. Econ. 2006, 2, 1465–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Xu, D.; Lin, Z.; Gordon, M.; Robinson, N.; Harder, M. Perceived key elements of a successful residential food waste sorting program in urban apartments: Stakeholder views. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 362–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bergeron, F.C. Multi-method assessment of household waste management in Geneva regarding sorting and recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 115, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Cantillo, T.; Notaro, S.; Bonini, N.; Hadjichristidis, C. Assessing Italian household preferences for waste sorting systems: The role of environmental awareness, socioeconomic characteristics, and local contexts. Waste Manag. 2023, 163, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Grytli, T.; Birgen, C. Enabling circularity: Analysis of factors influencing MSW sorting behaviour in Central Norway. Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 2023, 52, 2143–2148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Dai, Y.; Gordon, M.; Ye, J.; Xu, D.; Lin, Z.; Robinson, N.; Woodard, R.; Harder, M. Why doorstepping can increase household waste recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 102, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Shi, J.-G.; Xu, K.; Si, H.; Song, L.; Duan, K. Investigating intention and behaviour towards sorting household waste in Chinese rural and urban–rural integration areas. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 298, 126827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Rispo, A.; Williams, I.; Shaw, P. Source segregation and food waste prevention activities in high-density households in a deprived urban area. Waste Manag. 2015, 44, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Huang, W.; Wang, J.; Dai, X.; Li, M.; Harder, M.K. More than financial investment is needed: Food waste recycling pilots in Shanghai, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 67, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Niero, M.; Drejer, Y.K.; Hägerstrand, L.L.; Thulstrup, N.H.; Jensen, C.L. Combining Life Cycle Assessment and Practice Theory to understand the influence of consumers’ practices on food waste sorting. In Proceedings of the XVII Convegno dell’Associazione Rete Italiana LCA, Milan, Italy, 28–30 June 2023; pp. 1–8. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/11382/564655 (accessed on 5 March 2024).
  78. Matiiuk, Y.; Liobikienė, G. The impact of informational, social, convenience and financial tools on waste sorting behavior: Assumptions and reflections of the real situation. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 297, 113323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Nguyen, T.T.T.; Malek, L.; Umberger, W.J.; O’Connor, P.J. Food waste ‘Warriors’, ‘Strugglers’ and ‘Slackers’: Segmenting households based on food waste generation and sorting behaviours. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 112, 105000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wei, Y.L.; Li, K.C.; Hwang, H.Y. Strategy study of in-family municipal solid waste sorting in Taiwan, ROC. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 17–20 November 1996; p. 7. [Google Scholar]
  81. Zhang, H.; Liu, J.; Wen, Z.-G.; Chen, Y.-X. College students’ municipal solid waste source separation behavior and its influential factors: A case study in Beijing, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hoffmann, G.; Pfeiffer, J. Gameful learning for a more sustainable world. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2022, 64, 459–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Jamal, M.; Szefler, A.; Kelly, C.; Bond, N. Commercial and household food waste separation behaviour and the role of Local Authority: A case study. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2019, 8, S281–S290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Stričík, M.; Bačová, M.; Čonková, M. Motivation of citizens of the Slovak Republic to separate municipal waste. Waste Forum 2019, 4, 399–413. Available online: http://www.wasteforum.cz/cisla/WF_4_2019.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2024).
  85. Chen, J.; Mu, X.; Tu, C.; Hu, G. Influence of ecological cognition on consumers’ willingness to participate in beverage packaging recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 2022, 14, 200070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kamarudin, N.A.; Jody, J.M. Influencing Factors on the Community Participation in Food Waste Separation. Asian J. Behav. Sci. 2022, 4, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Favoino, E.; Hogg, D. The potential role of compost in reducing greenhouse gases. Waste Manag. Res. J. A Sustain. Circ. Econ. 2008, 26, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Oduro-Appiah, K.; Afful, A.; Osei-Tutu, H. Assessment of belief constructs to support an intervention in municipal solid waste separation at the source in low-middle-income countries: Observations from Ghana. Recycling 2022, 7, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wang, J.; Nketiah, E.; Cai, X.; Obuobi, B.; Adu-Gyamfi, G.; Adjei, M. What establishes citizens’ household intention and behavior regarding municipal solid waste separation? A case study in Jiangsu province. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 423, 138642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Shu, Y.; Booker, A.; Karetny, J.; O’Keefe, K.; Rees, K.; Schroder, L.; Roe, B.E. Evaluation of a community-based food waste campaign using a national control group. Waste Manag. 2023, 160, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Wang, C.; Chu, Z.; Gu, W. Participate or not: Impact of information intervention on residents’ willingness of sorting municipal solid waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 318, 128591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 04236 g001
Figure 1. Article selection process.
Figure 1. Article selection process.
Sustainability 17 04236 g001
Sustainability 17 04236 g002
Figure 2. Dynamics of the number of articles.
Figure 2. Dynamics of the number of articles.
Sustainability 17 04236 g002
Sustainability 17 04236 g003
Figure 3. Summary of the TPB and TRA.
Figure 3. Summary of the TPB and TRA.
Sustainability 17 04236 g003
Sustainability 17 04236 g004
Figure 4. Key factors of the TPB and TRA.
Figure 4. Key factors of the TPB and TRA.
Sustainability 17 04236 g004
Table 1. The frameworks for systematic and meta-analysis studies [1].
Table 1. The frameworks for systematic and meta-analysis studies [1].
StepsOutcomesMethods
Protocol SearchDefine study scopeOnly the municipal waste sorting behavior
SearchDefine the search strategySearch strings
Search studiesSearch databases
AppraisalSelect studiesDefine inclusion and exclusion criteria
Quality assessment of studiesQuality criteria
SynthesisExtract dataExtraction template
Categorize the dataCategorize the data on the iterative definition and prepare them for further analysis work
AnalysisData analysisQuantitative categories, description, and narrative analysis of the organized data
Results and discussionBased on the analysis, show the trends, identify gap, and compare results
ConclusionDerive conclusions and recommendations
ReportReport writingPRISMA methodology
Article productionSummarize the Report result
Table 2. PICOC framework [3].
Table 2. PICOC framework [3].
ConceptDefinition (According to [3])Application (by Authors)
PopulationWho or what is the problem or situation you are dealing with?Scientific articles dedicated to the sorting of mixed municipal waste
Intervention or ExposureIn what ways are you considering intervening in the situation? What sort of options do you have for tackling the problem?Economic calculations evaluating the willingness of households to sort mixed municipal waste
ComparisonWhat is the alternative?Sorting of secondary raw materials
OutcomeHow is it measured?Cost per one household/person
ContextWhat is the context of your question?The economic effect of food waste sorting and whether it is possible to apply the economic evaluations of other waste sorting
Table 3. Database search results.
Table 3. Database search results.
DatabaseSearch String and Search TermsNumber of ArticlesDate of Acquisition
ScopusMain search terms“Municipal solid waste sorting” OR “municipal solid waste separation”375 March 2024
“Municipal waste sorting” OR “municipal waste separation”215 March 2024
“Food waste sorting” OR “food waste separation”135 March 2024
Secondary search terms“Secondary raw materials sorting” “secondary raw materials separation”05 March 2024
ScienceDirectMain search terms“Municipal solid waste sorting” OR “municipal solid waste separation”535 March 2024
“Municipal waste sorting” OR “municipal waste separation”355 March 2024
“Food waste sorting” OR “food waste separation”785 March 2024
Secondary search terms“Secondary raw materials sorting” “secondary raw materials separation”25 March 2024
Google ScholarMain search terms“Municipal solid waste sorting” OR “municipal solid waste separation”675 March 2024
“Municipal waste sorting” OR “municipal waste separation”2495 March 2024
“Food waste sorting” OR “food waste separation”375 March 2024
Secondary search terms“Secondary raw materials sorting” “Secondary raw materials separation”05 March 2024
Handpicked 122 March 2025
Table 5. Database search results.
Table 5. Database search results.
CriteriaDecisionScopusScience DirectGoogle ScholarHandpicked
The initial number of articles7116835312
When the predefined keywords exist as a wholeInclusion6110435312
Number of articles remaining after this stage
The paper is intended to provide an economic or social description (not a technological or engineering description) of the sorting systemInclusion417614512
Number of articles remaining after this stage
Papers that are duplicated within the search documentsExclusion256811611
Number of articles remaining after this stage
Papers that are not accessible (free reading), review papers, and meta-dataExclusion14664811
Number of articles remaining after this stage
Table 6. The multi-criteria map for synthesis.
Table 6. The multi-criteria map for synthesis.
NoCriteriaCategories ConsideredJustification
1Year of publicationFrom 2000 onwardStudies before 2000 were discarded
2Name of journal-To describe the distribution of the work
3The country where the study was conductedName of the countryGeographical distribution
4Data sample sizeSmallUp to 300 respondents
AverageUp to 2000 respondents
LargeMore than 2000 respondents
No dataNo respondents, or data collected in a different way
4Which research method was usedStudy of statistical dataThe study examines the collected statistical data
Forecasting or modelingThe study predicts possible changes based on various modeling methods
OtherStudies for which both above methods are not suitable
5The chosen method of data analysisThe method is clearly statedThe analysis method is clearly indicated in the study, and it is applied
The method is not clearly statedThe study does not specify the method of analysis, or the collected data are not analyzed
6Reasons for sortingExternal influencesWhen the article mentions taxes, legal framework, education, etc., as the main reason for sorting
Internal motivational elementsWhen the article cites internal motives, environmental concerns, etc., as the main reason for sorting
A mixture of elementsWhen the article mentions external and internal motives as the main reason for sorting or does not clearly distinguish specific motives
Effects not studied or expressedWhen the article does not address the reasons for sorting
Table 7. Name of journal.
Table 7. Name of journal.
SourceNo of Articles
Journal of Cleaner Production14
Resources, Conservation, and Recycling9
Waste Management7
Science of the Total Environment3
Sustainability3
Journal of Environmental Management2
Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association2
Waste Management and Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy2
The article has been published in other sources28
The article is presented in a forum or conference8
Table 8. Country where each study was conducted.
Table 8. Country where each study was conducted.
CountryNo. of Articles
Ireland1
UK1
Argentina1
Australia2
Denmark1
Ghana1
Iran2
Spain1
Italy3
USA3
Japan2
Canada2
China29
Lithuania1
Malaysia2
Norway3
Holand1
Slovakia4
Taiwan1
Uruguay1
Vietnam1
Czech Republic3
Sweden3
Switzerland1
Philippines1
Hungary1
More than one country or no country specified6
Table 9. Data sample size.
Table 9. Data sample size.
Sample SizeNo. of Articles
No data29
Small14
Average30
Large5
Table 10. Research method used.
Table 10. Research method used.
Research MethodNo. of Articles
Study of statistical data49
Forecasting or modeling26
Other3
Table 11. Reasons for sorting.
Table 11. Reasons for sorting.
ReasonNo of Articles
External influences29
Internal motivational elements13
A mixture of elements5
Effects not studied or expressed20
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Naujokas, G.; Bobinaite, V. Understanding Food Waste Sorting Practices: Insights from a Systematic Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4236. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094236

AMA Style

Naujokas G, Bobinaite V. Understanding Food Waste Sorting Practices: Insights from a Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2025; 17(9):4236. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094236

Chicago/Turabian Style

Naujokas, Gediminas, and Viktorija Bobinaite. 2025. "Understanding Food Waste Sorting Practices: Insights from a Systematic Review" Sustainability 17, no. 9: 4236. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094236

APA Style

Naujokas, G., & Bobinaite, V. (2025). Understanding Food Waste Sorting Practices: Insights from a Systematic Review. Sustainability, 17(9), 4236. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094236

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