IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i9p4236-d1650908.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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. 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.
    4. Berglund, Christer, 2006. "The assessment of households' recycling costs: The role of personal motives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 560-569, April.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. Hancong Ma & Mei Li & Xin Tong & Ping Dong, 2023. "Community-Level Household Waste Disposal Behavior Simulation and Visualization under Multiple Incentive Policies—An Agent-Based Modelling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-15, July.
    2. Pfister, Naomi & Mathys, Nicole A., 2022. "Waste taxes at work: Evidence from the canton of Vaud in Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Prestin, Abby & Pearce, Katy E., 2010. "We care a lot: Formative research for a social marketing campaign to promote school-based recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(11), pages 1017-1026.
    5. Luisa Corrado & Andrea Fazio & Alessandra Pelloni, 2020. "Pro-environmental attitudes, local environmental conditions and recycling behavior," Working Paper series 20-21, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis, revised Nov 2021.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Ossama Ahmed Labib & Latifah Manaf & Amir Hamzah Sharaai & Siti Sarah Mohamad Zaid, 2021. "Understanding the Effect of Internal and External Factors on Households’ Willingness to Sort Waste in Dammam City, Saudi Arabia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-18, September.
    10. Yalin Yuan & Hisako Nomura & Yoshifumi Takahashi & Mitsuyasu Yabe, 2016. "Model of Chinese Household Kitchen Waste Separation Behavior: A Case Study in Beijing City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-15, October.
    11. Caroline M. Y. Law & Ernest K. S. Lee & K. L. Au, 2022. "Hong Kong Citizens’ Socio-Demographic Dynamics of Urban Yard Waste Facilities Siting and Legislation Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-13, May.
    12. Kun Shi & Yi Zhou & Zhen Zhang, 2021. "Mapping the Research Trends of Household Waste Recycling: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-23, May.
    13. Maria Andersson & Ola Eriksson & Chris Von Borgstede, 2012. "The Effects of Environmental Management Systems on Source Separation in the Work and Home Settings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-17, June.
    14. Tran Huy Phuong & Thanh Trung Hieu, 2015. "Predictors of Entrepreneurial Intentions of Undergraduate Students in Vietnam: An Empirical Study," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 5(8), pages 46-55, August.
    15. Clara Cardone-Riportella & María José Casasola-Martinez & Isabel Feito-Ruiz, 2014. "Do Entrepreneurs Come From Venus Or Mars? Impact Of Postgraduate Studies: Gender And Family Business Background," Working Papers 14.04, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Financial Economics and Accounting (former Department of Business Administration), revised Sep 2014.
    16. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 0. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    17. Ruijie Zhu & Guojing Zhao & Zehai Long & Yangjie Huang & Zhaoxin Huang, 2022. "Entrepreneurship or Employment? A Survey of College Students’ Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intentions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, May.
    18. Alsalem, Amani & Fry, Marie-Louise & Thaichon, Park, 2020. "To donate or to waste it: Understanding posthumous organ donation attitude," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 87-97.
    19. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    20. Mohammed Akhmaaj, Asmaeil Ali & Sharif, Mohamed Omar, 2024. "The effects of planned behavior model constructs and technology acceptance model constructs on online purchasing behavior: An empirical study on internet users in the Libya city of Tripoli," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).

    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.