IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i9p4236-d1650908.html

Understanding Food Waste Sorting Practices: Insights from a Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Gediminas Naujokas

    (Laboratory for Energy System Research, Lithuanian Energy Institute, Breslaujos Street 3, 44403 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Viktorija Bobinaite

    (Laboratory for Energy System Research, Lithuanian Energy Institute, Breslaujos Street 3, 44403 Kaunas, Lithuania)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Gediminas Naujokas & Viktorija Bobinaite, 2025. "Understanding Food Waste Sorting Practices: Insights from a Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-25, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:9:p:4236-:d:1650908
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/9/4236/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/9/4236/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xueping Wu & Liping Zhang & Jianhua Huang & Wei Li & Yanhua Chen & Wenhai Qiu, 2021. "Evolutionary Game Analysis on Behavioral Strategies of Government and Residents in Municipal Household Waste Separation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Bergeron, Francis C., 2016. "Multi-method assessment of household waste management in Geneva regarding sorting and recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 50-62.
    4. Dai, Y.C. & Gordon, M.P.R. & Ye, J.Y. & Xu, D.Y. & Lin, Z.Y. & Robinson, N.K.L. & Woodard, R. & Harder, M.K., 2015. "Why doorstepping can increase household waste recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 9-19.
    5. Bright Obuobi & Yifeng Zhang & Gibbson Adu-Gyamfi & Emmanuel Nketiah, 2024. "Households’ food waste behavior prediction from a moral perspective: a case of China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 10085-10104, April.
    6. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    7. Berglund, Christer, 2006. "The assessment of households' recycling costs: The role of personal motives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 560-569, April.
    8. Giovanni De Feo & Sabino De Gisi, 2010. "Domestic Separation and Collection of Municipal Solid Waste: Opinion and Awareness of Citizens and Workers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(5), pages 1-30, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alessandro Concari & Gerjo Kok & Pim Martens, 2020. "A Systematic Literature Review of Concepts and Factors Related to Pro-Environmental Consumer Behaviour in Relation to Waste Management Through an Interdisciplinary Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-50, May.
    2. Ivan De Battista & Franco Curmi & Emanuel Said, 2021. "Influencing Factors Affecting Young People’s Attitude Towards Online Advertising: A Systematic Literature Review," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 11(3), pages 58-72.
    3. Marco Antonio Vieira da Silva & Thaís Moreira São-João & Valéria Cândido Brizon & Décio Henrique Franco & Fábio Luiz Mialhe, 2018. "Impact of implementation intentions on physical activity practice in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-15, November.
    4. Casey S. Hopkins & Chris Hopkins & Samantha Kanny & Amanda Watson, 2022. "A Systematic Review of Factors Associated with Sport Participation among Adolescent Females," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-16, March.
    5. Cássia Rita Pereira Veiga & Yngrid Larissa Costa Santana & Wanessa Debôrtoli Miranda & Claudimar Pereira Veiga, 2025. "Private health insurance acquisition: a global perspective," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 30(1), pages 1-20, March.
    6. Samer Elhajjar & Laurent Yacoub & Hala Yaacoub, 2023. "Automation in business research: systematic literature review," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 675-698, September.
    7. Geoffrey L Dickens & Emma Lamont & Sarah Gray, 2016. "Mental health nurses’ attitudes, behaviour, experience and knowledge regarding adults with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder: systematic, integrative literature review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(13-14), pages 1848-1875, July.
    8. Zhang, Suopeng & Zhang, Mingli & Yu, Xueying & Ren, Hao, 2016. "What keeps Chinese from recycling: Accessibility of recycling facilities and the behavior," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 176-186.
    9. Faulkner, Nicholas & Jorgensen, Bradley & Borg, Kim, 2017. "What encourages citizens to use e-government? A rapid review and comprehensive model," OSF Preprints e58bg, Center for Open Science.
    10. Michael B Wells & Sarah N Lang, 2016. "Supporting same‐sex mothers in the Nordic child health field: a systematic literature review and meta‐synthesis of the most gender equal countries," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(23-24), pages 3469-3483, December.
    11. Peng Jing & Gang Xu & Yuexia Chen & Yuji Shi & Fengping Zhan, 2020. "The Determinants behind the Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-26, February.
    12. Sai Leung Ng, 2026. "Development of Tourism Research in Taiwan: A Triple Helix and Glocalization Perspective," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 17(1), pages 860-887, February.
    13. Andrea Guazzini & Giulia Valdrighi & Maria Fiorenza & Mirko Duradoni, 2025. "The Relationship Between Connectedness to Nature and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-43, April.
    14. Thanos Ioannou & Katerina Bazigou & Afroditi Katsigianni & Michalis Fotiadis & Christina Chroni & Thrassyvoulos Manios & Ioannis Daliakopoulos & Christos Tsompanidis & Eleni Michalodimitraki & Katia L, 2022. "The “A2UFood Training Kit”: Participatory Workshops to Minimize Food Loss and Waste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-24, February.
    15. Iuliana Raluca Gheorghe & Victor Lorin Purcarea & Consuela Madalina Gheorghe, 2023. "Antecedents of Consumer Intentions towards E-waste Recycling. A Perspective on the Toy Industry from Romania," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 25(62), pages 163-163, February.
    16. Saha, Sajeeb & Ranjan, Kumar Rakesh & Pappu, Ravi & Akhlaghpour, Saeed, 2023. "Corporate giving and its impact on consumer evaluations: A meta-analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    17. Feiyu Chen & Fang Wang & Jing Hou, 2020. "Individual Preference Framework or Group Preference Framework? Which Will Regulate the Impact Path of Product Facilities on Residents’ Waste-Sorting Behavior Better," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-19, March.
    18. Anabel Orellano & Carmen Valor & Emilio Chuvieco, 2020. "The Influence of Religion on Sustainable Consumption: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-21, September.
    19. Joana Gonçalves & Ricardo Mateus & José Dinis Silvestre & Ana Pereira Roders, 2020. "Going beyond Good Intentions for the Sustainable Conservation of Built Heritage: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-28, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:9:p:4236-:d:1650908. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.