4.7 Article

Sustainable management practices of food waste in Asia: Technological and policy drivers

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 247, 期 -, 页码 538-550

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.079

关键词

anaerobic digestion; Decentralised anaerobic digestion; Food waste; Policies; Treatment

资金

  1. British Council Newton Fund Institutional Links [216423359]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The policies and technological drivers to manage food waste in Asia have been shaped by the increasing awareness of the countries to this issue, their commitment to national and international development goals, their socio-economic constraints, and their recognition of the potency to recover nutrients and energy from food waste. The concept of reduce, reuse and recycle (the 3R principles) streamline the existing food waste management policies, and scrutinising the gaps and challenges led to a conclusion that most of the countries emphasise food waste segregation and treatment instead of prevention at source itself. Furthermore, a qualitative SWOT analysis of five prevailing treatment options led to a conclusion that animal feeding, incineration, and landfilling are unsustainable since they pose various health and environmental hazard risks. It was further concluded that anaerobic digestion was the preferred option than aerobic digestion (composting) considering the characteristics of the available food waste in Asia as well as the underlying environmental and economic benefits. Moreover, decentralised, community-scale, anaerobic digestion system has been gaining traction over centralised, large-scale system because of their lower energy footprint, ease of operation, need for lesser resources, lower operation and maintenance costs, and higher chances of public acceptance. It was also observed that the policy to gain energy from segregated food waste is a larger driving force for the efforts to promote anaerobic digestion and thereby manage food waste sustainably.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据