4.7 Article

Measuring food waste in Dutch households: A synthesis of three studies

Journal

WASTE MANAGEMENT
Volume 94, Issue -, Pages 153-164

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.05.025

Keywords

Solid food waste; Liquid food waste; Dutch households; Waste sorting analysis; Consumer survey

Funding

  1. Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment
  2. Ministry of Economic Affairs of the Netherlands

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to measure the food waste that occurs in Dutch households through a new, combined approach. The methods used were a sorting analysis of solid household waste from 130 households in 13 municipalities and a consumer survey given to 763 respondents. An estimation survey on liquid waste was given to 1105 respondents via a phone app. According to the consumer survey, consumers throw away 21.2 kg of food (solid and liquid) per person, per year. This appears to be an underestimation. The main part, 60.2%, is discarded via household waste, 29.6% goes down the sink or toilet and 10.2% is thrown away via other pathways. The sorting analysis shows that solid food waste (including sauces, fats and dairy products) via household waste amounts to 30.4 kilo per person, per year. Based on the distribution across the various pathways, it is calculated that 10.8 kg of solid food is wasted via other pathways. Together, this was 41.2 kg per person in 2016 (less than the 48 kg in 2010 and 47 kg in 2013). This decrease is not significant. Solid food waste accounts for 13.0% of all food purchased. The most wasted solid foods are bread (22%), dairy products (17%), vegetables (14%), fruit (12%) and meat (7%) (See Table 1). A new method is used to estimate liquid waste via sinks and toilets; this waste amounts to 57.3 L per person, per year: 50.7 L of beverages (including milk) and 6.6 L of thick liquids. The waste volumes for coffee and tea (30.7 L) and milk (10 L) are large. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available