Table 2

Selected studies on food waste measurement by methodologies and boundaries (2010–2019)

MethodologyBoundaries
Selected referencesDi1)DM2)IS3)MB4)PDR5)WCA6)AP7)Pr8)DR9)Co10)
Abdelaal et al. (2019)  X       X
Caldeira et al. (2019)*   X    X 
Elimelech et al. (2019)  X       X
Garcia-Garcia et al., 2019* XXX   X  
Poças Ribeiro et al., 2019  X        
Read et al. (2019)    XX XXXX
Sakaguchi et al. (2018)   X      X
Schneider et al. (2019)  X    X   
Silvennoinen et al. (2019)  X       X
Thamagasorn and Pharino (2019)    XX  XX 
van Dooren et al. (2019)   X  X   X
van Herpen et al. (2019) XXX  X   X
Boschini et al. (2018)  X       X
De Laurentiis et al. (2018)     X    X
Delley and Brunner (2018)   X  X   X
Elimelech et al. (2018)   X      X
Giordano et al. (2018) X        X
Hartikainen et al., 2018   X X X   
Szabó-Bódi et al., 2018   X      X
Cicatiello et al. (2017)     X   X 
Eriksson et al. (2017)  X       X
Ju et al., 2017*   X  XXXX
Tostivint et al. (2017)  X  X XX  
EssonanaweEdjabou et al. (2016)  X       X
Dias-Ferreira et al. (2015)  X       X
Love et al. (2015)     X XXXX
Silvennoinen et al. (2015)  X       X
Katajajuuri et al., 2014 X        X
Beretta et al., 2013*   X  XXXX
Nahman et al. (2012)     X    X

Note(s): i) Di = Diaries; 2) DM = Direct measurement; 3) IS = Interviews and surveys; 4) MB = Material balance; 5) PDR = Proxy data; 6) WCA = Waste composition analysis; 7) AP = Agricultural production; 8) Pr = Processing; 9) DR = Distribution and retail and 10) Co = Consumption; *) Studies including MFA methodology

Source(s): (Personal elaboration by the authors)

[ViewLarge]
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal