Waste Management 78 (2018) 426–433

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Characterization of household food waste and strategies for its

reduction: A Shenzhen City case study
Hui Zhang a,b, Huabo Duan a,⇑, Jelena M. Andric a, Mingwei Song c,⇑, Bo Yang d
a
College of Civil Engineering, Shenzhen University, 518060 Shenzhen, China
b
School of Chemistry and Environmental, Wuhan Institute of Technology, Wuhan 430205, Hubei, China
c
College of Resources and Environment, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, Hubei, China
d
College of Chemistry and Environmental Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A clear understanding of the characteristics of generated household food waste (HFW) is necessary to for-
Received 26 December 2017 mulate an effective food waste management policy. The present study has focused on the quantity and
Revised 6 June 2018 composition of generated HFW as well as the driving forces, and further explored potential means of
Accepted 6 June 2018
reducing HFW. The quantity of avoidable HFW generated in Shenzhen City in 2015 was estimated to
be two-fold greater than that in 2001, which consequently produced 1,378 thousand metric tonnes
CO2 eq. emissions during their ultimate waste disposal. This suggests that HFW prevention can yield
Keywords:
great environment benefits by reducing carbon emissions. Based on a survey in which 418 households
Household food waste
Waste composition
in Shenzhen City participated, it was apparent that both household size and income are the major drivers
Socio-economic factors to HFW generation. A substantial reduction in HFW generation can be achieved through improvements in
Questionnaire survey consumer behaviors, consciousness and attitudes. Priority should be given to the strategies that can
Shenzhen City increase people’s awareness of HFW induced problems, with the purposes to achieve a more sustainable
development.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction produced at 7% (Liu et al., 2013). Each person in China is responsi-

China’s rapid economic development, accelerating urbanization
and improvement in living standards have raised the annual quan-
tity of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated from around 31,
000 thousand metric tons (Kt) in 1980 to 191, 000 Kt in 2015
(Gu et al., 2017). The sources of MSW generally include residential
households, markets, commercial locations, public areas, streets,
temples and religious institutions. Approximately 80% of total
MSW is generated by households among most cities in China
(Cao, 2010; Gu et al., 2015). Household food waste (HFW) accounts
for approximately 51–66% of MSW generated in China (Clercq
et al., 2016; Gu et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2014). Including that pro-
duced along the food supply chain, it has been estimated that
approximately half of all FW is generated at the household level
in developed countries such as Canada (Parizeau et al., 2015).
Although the rate of food loss in China is estimated at 19%,
household consumers account for the largest portion of total FW
⇑ Corresponding authorsat: NO. 3688 Nanhai Ave, Nanshan district, Shenzhen,
Guangdong, China.
E-mail addresses: huabo@szu.edu.cn (H. Duan), songmw@mail.hzau.edu.cn
(M. Song).
ble for 16 kg of HFW generated annually, equivalent to carbon,
water and ecological footprints of 40 kg CO2 eq., 18 m3 and 173
gm2, respectively (Song et al., 2015). Since China represents the
world’s most populous country and the largest developing econ-
omy, a reduction in the amounts of FW generated at the household
level could reduce the global demand for food production, conse-
quently reducing the pressure on natural resources such as water
and land (Liu et al., 2013). Therefore, it can be argued that reducing
the FW generated in China could make a significant positive contri-
bution to the achievements of a more sustainable environment,
both with respect to increasing food security and mitigating
climate change (Liu, 2014; Wang et al., 2017; Xue et al., 2017).
Since HFW consists of avoidable and unavoidable waste, it is
necessary to make precise differentiation between them. In current
literature, there are different definitions of avoidable and unavoid-
able HFW. The avoidable HFW relates to food products which could
have been consumed and prepared but not eaten, food which was
left to spoil and other products of edible condition, which were
disposed for whatever reason (Bernstad and Andersson, 2015;
Hanssen et al., 2016). On the other hand, unavoidable HFW can
be defined as waste produced during the preparation of food, along
with inedible items such as bones, shells, peels and etc. (Bernstad

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.06.010
0956-053X/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 78 (2018) 426–433
and Andersson, 2015; Quested and Johnson, 2009). The definitions
used above are consistent with this study.
A few studies have shown that avoidable HFW component
accounts for a large proportion of total HFW generated, e.g., approx-
imately 35–60% in developed countries (Edjabou et al., 2016;
Hanssen et al., 2016; Koivupuro et al., 2012; SEPA, 2013; WRAP,
2008, 2010); and HFW also brought out the environmental impact
(Chapagain and James, 2011; Quested and Parry, 2011). For example,
the average annual carbon footprint resulting from avoidable HFW
generation in the United Kingdom has been estimated to be 330 kg
CO2 per person, which equivalent to one third of the per capita
CO2 emissions associated with household electricity use
(Chapagain and James, 2011; Quested and Parry, 2011). Generally,
the fraction of avoidable HFW generated has been classified as
100% preventable, whereas the unavoidable HFW fraction has been
regarded as unpreventable (Bernstad and Andersson, 2015). Sus-
tainable solutions for reducing HFW and its environmental impact
require a good understanding of the amount of HFW generated
and the driving factors, particularly the voidable HFW. The quanti-
ties of both total and avoidable HFW have been correlated with both
household size and household income (Koivupuro et al., 2012;
Mallinson et al., 2016; Porpino et al., 2015; Qu et al., 2009; Secondi
et al., 2015), whereas the individual effects of those two drivers
may differ between developed and developing countries. For exam-
ple, the quantities of HFW generated by Danish and Norwegian
households tend to be correlated to both household size and income
(Edjabou et al., 2016; Hanssen et al., 2016). However, low-income
households in both Vietnam and Brazil have also been shown to
waste some food (Porpino et al., 2015; Trang et al., 2017). A number
of other factors have been identified to influence the amount of HFW
generated, including waste composition, culture, food cost, con-
sumer behavior, consciousness and attitude (Hebrok and Boks,
2017; Mallinson et al., 2016; Ponis et al., 2017; Secondi et al.,
2015). As for developing countries, such as China, previous studies
mainly focus on the quantity of restaurant waste or HFW (Wang
Kelin, 2012; Wang et al., 2017). Rarely any study on avoidable
HFW has been reported to date.
Shenzhen City is situated in a rapidly industrializing region in
China. It represents a national low-carbon demonstration city. As
a forerunner of China’s booming economy, the megacity has been
confronted with a multitude of environmental challenges, includ-
ing severe land scarcity and environmental problems associated
with the management of MSW. Shenzhen City hosts a population
of 11.9 million people, but with a significant lower per capita land
area (0.17 m2) and higher per capita gross domestic product GDP
(25,790 USD) compared to other highly populated mega cities in
China and the national level (Table S1 in Supporting Information
(SI)). Thus, taking Shenzhen City as a case study, the aim of this
study was to determine the quantity, composition of avoidable
HFW, driving forces behind HFW generation and possible strate-
gies to reduce the amount of HWF generated.
Accordingly, the main research questions are as following:
What are the amount and composition of avoidable HFW?
Whether socio-economic factors contribute to the generation of
HFW?
How these factors affect plausible strategies for reducing HFW?
2. Methods and data
A survey was conducted during April to July 2017 in Shenzhen
City (Guangdong Province, southern China) to identify major dri-
vers of HFW. Data from 418 questionnaires were analyzed statisti-
cally using routines implemented in IBM SPSS Statistics v24.
Uncertainty exists for the values of some variables used in Eqs.
(1)–(4), e.g., the percentage of HFW in total MSW and the carbon
427
emission factor (CEF) related to various FW disposal methods. Con-
sequently, Monte Carlo simulations were performed to quantify
the final uncertainty related to the quality of avoidable HFW and
the associated carbon emissions resulting during final disposal.
The Crystal Ball software package (Oracle, Redwood Shores, CA)
was used with 10,000 cycles of random sampling.
2.1. Household data collection and analysis
418 completed questionnaires were returned for the question-
naires distributed to households situated in each of the four eco-
nomic zones of Shenzhen City. The number of households
represented within each district varied from 40 to 150 (a more
specific description is shown in Section S1, Tables S2 and S3 in
SI). The total of 17 questions, as shown in Appendix 1 in SI, were
arranged into three sections. Section I presented questions related
to relevant background information of the household participants,
including regional characteristics, birthplace, household income,
house price and household size (questions 1–6). Questions in sec-
tion II explored the nature of the HFW produced, including its
quantity, the proportion of avoidable and non-avoidable waste
and the composition of the HFW generated (questions 7–9).
Finally, questions in section III investigated the influence of cul-
ture, the cost of food, consumer behavior, consumer consciousness
and attitude (questions 10–16). As the majority of the respondents
provided no answer to the question of number 17, which
addressed the issue of how to reduce HFW, the responses to this
question were not included in the analysis.
2.2. Calculation of avoidable HFW and its composition
2.2.1. The quantification of avoidable HFW
The quantity of avoidable HFW was derived from Eq. (1), shown
below:
Eq. (1): The quantity of avoidable HFW
Pn Pn 
A B
GAHFW ¼ GMSW  RHFW  RAHFW ¼ GMSW  RHFW  Pn i¼1 i i
i¼1
B
i¼1 i
ð1Þ
In which GAHFW and GMSW represent the quantities of avoidable
HFW and total MSW generated in Shenzhen City, respectively,
which are measured in thousand tonns (Kt) annually; RHFW repre-
sents the proportion of HFW (%) in total MSW (see Table S4 in SI);
RAHFW is the proportion of avoidable HFW (%) in total HFW; Ai repre-
sents the proportion of avoidable HFW (%) within the total HFW; Bi
represents the number of relevant households. Parameter i varies
from 1 to 4 according to the proportion of HFW which is avoidable:
<30%: i ¼ 1; 30–50%: i ¼ 2; 50–70%: i ¼ 3; >70%: i ¼ 4(Table S2).
2.2.2. The composition of avoidable HFW
According to the definition of avoidable HFW, cereal products
(rice, pasta and bread) belong to avoidable HFW, whereas other
components of HFW comprise a mixture of unavoidable and void-
able waste (Table S2). Packaging wastes and drinks are mixture of
impurities and wasted drinks (avoidable HFW), and the quantifica-
tion of packaging wastes are based on an investigation shown in
section S2.1 in SI. The composition of avoidable HFW was derived
from Eq. (2), shown below:
Eq. (2): The composition of avoidable HFW
Gc ¼ GHFW  Rc ð2Þ
GHFW  Rj
Gj ¼ ðGAHFW  Gc Þ  ð3Þ
P
3
GHFW  Rj
j¼1
428 H. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 78 (2018) 426–433
in which C c and Rc represent the quantity of avoidable cereal
products and its percentage in total HFW, respectively; Gj repre-
sents the quantity of other various components of avoidable
HFW; Rj represents the proportion of the total HFW taken up by
each of the various components; the parameters j indicate cereal
products (rice, pasta and bread), animal-derived waste (meat,
bones and shells) and vegetables and fruits (Table S2).
2.2.3. The environmental impact of avoidable HFW
The environmental impact of avoidable HFW was modeled
using Eq. (3) shown below:
Eq. (3): Amount of carbon emission resulting from the various
components of HFW
X
x
CEAHFW ¼ GAHFW  Pi  CEF i
i¼1
Xy
PMSW i
¼ GAHFW   ð1  RREC Þ  CEF i þ GAHFW  RREC  CEF z
i¼1
GMSW
ð4Þ
in which CEAHFW represents the carbon emission associated
with total avoidable HFW annually, in units of 104 tons; x, y and z
represent the alternative HFW disposal methods (x = 1, y = 1: sani-
tary landfill; x = 2, y = 2: incineration; x = 3, y = 3: simple landfill;
x = 4, z: biogas utilization based on anaerobic digestion technology);
Pi represents the percentage of avoidable HFW from alternative
HFW disposal methods in the total avoidable HFW; PMSWi is the
amount of MSW disposed of via different methods annually in units
of 104 tons; RREC is the recycling rate of MSW (%) (see Table S4 in
SI); CEFi represents the carbon emission factor (CEF) of HFW from
different disposal methods mentioned above, e.g., CO2 eq. emitted
from the disposal of 1 ton of FW (see Table S5 in SI).
3. Results
3.1. Estimate of avoidable HFW
Based on Eq. (1), the proportion of avoidable HFW was esti-
mated to be 56%. The total quantity of avoidable HFW produced
annually was calculated to have risen from 549 (±45) thousand
metric tons (Kt) in 2001 to 1,673 (±144) Kt in 2015, equivalent to
an annual growth rate of 8% (Fig. 1). Fig. 2(a) shows the composi-
tion of avoidable HFW generated, with the individual contributions
also increasing over time. In 2015, the largest component of avoid-
able HFW comprised cereal products (514 ± 180 Kt), followed by
fruits (375 ± 173 Kt), vegetable matters (274 ± 161 Kt) and
animal-derived wastes (256 ± 159 Kt), packaging wastes and
drinks (254 ± 157 Kt) (Fig. 2(b)).
Fig. 1. The total quantity of avoidable household food waste (HFW) generated in
Shenzhen City over the period 2001–2015 (error bars indicate one-time standard
deviation).
3.2. The influence of socio-economic factors on FW generation
Variation in the proportion of food ending up as FW existed
among the surveyed households. Approximately 19%, 46%, 31%
and 4% of households reported wastage rates of <10%, 10–30%, 30–
50% and >50%, respectively (Fig. 3). At least some of this FW was
avoidable in every household: the proportion was <30%, 30–50%,
50–70% and >70% in 8%, 26%, 46% and 20% of households, respec-
tively (Table S2). Household incomes fell into four groups (A–D), at
<10,000, 10,000–20,000, 20,000–30,000 and >30,000 Chinese yuan
per person per year, respectively. Figs. 4–6 illustrate that socio-
economic factors are responsible for FW generated at a household
level. Figs. 4 and 5 show that income level is positively correlated
with FW generated and its avoidable component; for example,
high-income households (Group C and D) produced a larger propor-
tion of avoidable FW (10–50%) than that of the middle-income group
(Group B, 10–30%) or low-income group (Group A, 0–30%) (Fig. 5). An
influence of household size was also evident, as the proportion of
avoidable HFW increased with the number of household members:
in households comprising more than four members, the proportion
of avoidable FW was generally in the range of either 10–30% or 30–
50%), whereas households comprising two or three persons reported
a 10–30% range, and single member households reported a propor-
tion of <10% (Fig. 6). A summary of drivers behind socio-economic
factors influencing HFW is given in Table S6.
4. Discussion
4.1. Quantity and composition of avoidable HFW in Shenzhen City
4.1.1. Generation of avoidable HFW
Two methods have been widely applied to quantify HFW, which
is of relevance to the calculation of avoidable HFW generation at
the regional level based on Eq. (1). One method is based on the
generation rate of FW and the other on the proportion of MSW rep-
resented by HFW (Clercq et al., 2016; Gu et al., 2017; Song et al.,
2015; Zhang and Fu, 2010). The former varies considerably accord-
ing to the literature, ranging from 11 g to 490 g per capita per day
(Song et al., 2015; Zhang and Fu, 2010), whereas the latter has been
shown to be relatively stable in China at 45%–65% (Clercq et al.,
2016; Gu et al., 2017; Huang, 2012; SMEHA, 2014; Tai et al.,
2011; Xiong, 2014). Thus, the latter method was used in the pre-
sent study. According to Eq. (1), the average yearly avoidable
HFW generation of Shenzhen City (1673 Kt) was higher than the
corresponding values of Finland and Sweden, although it must be
considered that the populations of Finland and Sweden were
approximately 50% and 80% of that of Shenzhen City, respectively
(Katajajuuri et al., 2014; SEPA, 2013). This overall estimated quan-
tity of avoidable HFW generation represents around three- to five-
fold the quantity of annual restaurant waste generated by other
mega cities such as Beijing City (417 Kt) and Shanghai City (586
Kt) (Wang et al., 2017). Our study was also compared to total
HFW production in Chengdu City (1780 Kt) in 2015 with a high
population of 14.66 million (Wang Kelin, 2012). Looking forward,
if the present study were to be extended to the national level,
the continued growth of both the economy and the population of
China will, without major intervention, inevitably result in further
increases in the annual production of both MSW and HFW, along
with further losses due to FW at the consumption stage. This trend
has implications for food security and environmental sustainability
not only within China, but globally (Wang et al., 2017).
4.1.2. Composition of avoidable HFW
As shown in Table S2 in SI, packaging wastes and drinks were
grouped into a single composition of HFW. In order to estimate the
 H. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 78 (2018) 426–433 429

Fig. 2. The components of avoidable household food waste (HFW) generated during the period 2001–2015 in Shenzhen City.

Number of households Number of households

150
400 16
<30% 30%~50%

129 100 50%~70% >70%

100
300

44 48
200 50 40
192 >50% 34 30 30
20
30%~50% 14 16
10 11
7 6 7
100 10%~30% 1
0
<10%
Income Income Income Income
81
Group A Group B Group C Group D
0
Percentage of wasted food in total food
Fig. 5. The proportion of avoidable food waste (FW) in relation to household
income.
Fig. 3. The proportion of purchased food disposed of as food waste (FW).

Number of Households
Number of households
150
100 94 <30% 30%~50% 50%~70% >70%
<10% 10%~30% 94
100
80 30%~50% >50%
54 53
50 40
60 54 55 30
24 25
20
48 14 12 11 13 13
5 6 4
40 0
40 33 persons persons persons persons
27
1 2~3 4~5 >5
20
20
10 11 Fig. 6. The proportion of avoidable food waste (FW) in relation to household size.
7 6
3 2 4 4
0 2010 and vegetables wasted during postharvest handling and stor-
Income Income Income Income
age stages in 2011, respectively (Xue et al., 2017). Because of the
Group A Group B Group C Group D
100% urbanization rate in Shenzhen City, approximately 90% of total
Fig. 4. The proportion of purchased food disposed of as food waste (FW) in relation food supplied to Shenzhen City is imported from other regions (Yang
to household income. and Zhang, 2016). The amount of avoidable vegetable HFW genera-
tion in 2015 was approximately six-fold that of vegetable products
avoidable composition of HFW, two methods were applied to ana- produced locally (63 Kt), and the amount of avoidable animal-
lyze the quantity of wasted drinks. Based on the surveys described derived HFW was over ten-fold the total sum of locally-produced
in section S2.2 in SI, the quantity of wasted drinks was 253 Kt, which meat and marine products (444 Kt) (SZSBU, 2016). Therefore, reduc-
is similar to the result obtained by questionnaire survey (254 Kt) in ing FW can contribute substantially to the sustainable provision of
section 3.1. This suggests the ‘value’ based on a questionnaire survey food to Shenzhen City.
is reliable. Specific calculations are shown in section S2.2 in SI. When
compared to the national level, the amount of avoidable cereal HFW 4.2. Environmental impacts of avoidable HFW
(rice, pasta and bread) and vegetable HFW considered in our study in
2015 was more than 2% (21, 600 Kt) and 3% (14, 000 Kt) of cereals FW has been considered to be a component of MSW in China
wasted during agricultural production and harvesting stages in (Cheng et al., 2007). Thus, it has not commonly been quantified
430 H. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 78 (2018) 426–433
separately by environmental protection agency. HFW in particular
has been categorized as MSW during source collection and final
waste disposal. In certain other waste recycling pilot cities such
as Shenzhen City, the rate of MSW separation during waste collec-
tion remains low, as shown in Table S6, at <50% and <80% in
approximately 20% and 70% of households, respectively. Even if
the separation of HFW at source was implemented efficiently,
the facilities for disposal of FW remain largely insufficient. For
FW with high moisture (80–90%) and organic matter (about 90%)
content (Grandhi and Appaiah Singh, 2016; Jin et al., 2015), proper
waste management and treatment may allow both the mitigation
of greenhouse gas (GHG)-emissions and possibilities for bioenergy
production. For example, hydrothermal carbonization and anaero-
bic digestion technologies are suitable for the treatment of organic
matter in FW, which can be converted into solid biofuel, biodiesel
and electricity (Basso et al., 2016, 2015; Wen et al., 2016; Zhang
et al., 2014). However, most HFW produced in China has been dis-
posed of by landfill (sanitary landfill) and incineration, and worry-
ingly, more harmful disposal methods (mainly simple landfill)
were used over the past 15 years. Approximately 5% of material
disposed of using these technologies was recycled in 2015, and
even in Shenzhen City, the percentage of recycled material was
only 6% in 2014 (Xiong, 2014). The environmental impact of these
disposal methods can be assessed in terms of their GHG emissions.
According to previous studies, 1 ton of HFW buried in a sanitary
landfill site or a simple landfill site generate 0.873 t CO2 eq. and
0.790 t CO2 eq., respectively (Chen et al., 2013; Hao et al., 2017;
Kim and Jung-WkKim, 2010; Wang and Geng, 2015), whereas the
same amount of waste disposed of via incineration and biogas uti-
lization based on anaerobic digestion technology produces 0.708 t
CO2 eq. and 0.097 t CO2 eq., respectively (Chen et al., 2013; Jin
et al., 2015). These data sources are shown in section S3, section
S4 and Table S5 in SI
According to Eq. (3), the calculated annual environmental
impact of HFW disposal is approximately 1378 Kt CO2 eq.
(Table S7), representing approximately half of carbon emissions
originating from urban roads in Shenzhen City (Mao et al., 2017).
Even for HFW utilized as a biological resource via anaerobic diges-
tion (AD) at a percentage of 100%, 162 Kt CO2 eq. of carbon emis-
sion was emitted in Shenzhen City in 2015. If the impacts of
waste generation on climate, water and land resources are consid-
ered in total life-cycle periods through modeling upstream and
direct emissions associated with production of HFW based on the
study by Song et al. (2015), households in Shenzhen City in 2015
were responsible for annual total carbon footprints of 3446 Kt
CO2 eq. This number is approximately 10% of carbon footprint for
cereals or meat, almost half of carbon footprint for fruits in Subsa-
hara Africa (Fao, 2013). The present study clearly shows that the
carbon emission of HFW during life-cycle periods was significantly
higher than that of final disposal periods. Consequently, we can
conclude that although modern alternatives for food waste treat-
ment can result in avoidance of carbon emissions through energy
recovery to some extent, HFW prevention yields far greater bene-
fits by reducing environment impact compared to the disposal of
waste via anaerobic digestion. In addition, substantial water and
land resources could be saved. These results are consistent with
other studies conducted in developed countries such as south Swe-
den (Bernstad and Andersson, 2015).
4.3. Avoidable HFW results in comparison with that of other studies
Compared to other developed countries, for the majority of the
sample households in the present study, the relative amount of
wasted food was higher than that in the Netherlands (8–11%) over
2008–2009 (Parfitt et al., 2010) and comparable to that of the
United Kingdom (31%) and the United States (25%) (WRAP,
2008). As shown in Table S8, the percentage of avoidable HHFW
from most households in our study are significant higher than that
of Sweden in 2012 and Finland in 2010 (Table S8), which are both
around 35% of food purchased (Katajajuuri et al., 2014; SEPA,
2013). The percentage is comparable to those reported in certain
other developed economies with a corresponding value of 56–
64% (Edjabou et al., 2016; Hanssen et al., 2016; WRAP, 2008,
2010). Some of these differences may be due to distinctive patterns
of food consumption (Hanssen et al., 2016). Moreover, avoidable
HFW could be reduced if managed better. Given the extent of the
avoidable HFW generated in China, substantial potential exists
for its reduction by altering consumer behavior. Any such reduc-
tion, in conjunction with improvements in waste management,
would not only deliver an economic saving, but would also con-
tribute to food security and help alleviate the negative environ-
mental impact of FW disposal.
4.4. Socio-economic factors influencing the amount of HFW generated
and the drivers
The present study has confirmed that both household size and
income are positively correlated with the quantity of both total
HFW and avoidable HFW, as shown in a number of cognate studies
(Edjabou et al., 2016; Hanssen et al., 2016; Koivupuro et al., 2012).
How do these factors affect the generation of avoidable HFW? In
the present study, based on the case of Shenzhen City, the drivers
behind socio-economic factors, documented in Table S6 in SI, were
firstly explored to determine the amount of HFW generated in
China. The drivers include cultural attitudes, the cost of food, waste
composition, consumer behavior, consciousness and attitude.
4.4.1. Cultural attitudes
Estimates on HFW generated in the United Kingdom have sug-
gested that 40% of HFW is generated from the preparation of an
excessive quantity of food (Kim and Jung-WkKim, 2010; Quested
and Johnson, 2009; Thyberg and Tonjes, 2016). There is an assump-
tion that this is less of an issue in developing countries, where
preparing smaller volumes of food to some extent avoid wastage
(Pearson et al., 2013). Chinese culture however places a strong
emphasis on hospitality, which places pressure on most house-
holds (83–92%) to over-cater when guests are being entertained.
If no food remains on the table at the end of a meal, the perception
is that the host prepared (or ordered) insufficient food, leading to a
loss of face (mianzi in Chinese) (Wang et al., 2017).
4.4.2. The cost of food
With a rise in income, food wastage has no longer been seen as
an important social issue since the cost of food represents a falling
proportion of total income (Thyberg and Tonjes, 2016). Data shown
in Table S6 support this assertion: the proportion of households for
which the purchase of food required an expenditure of >30% of
household income has shown a decreasing trend consistent with
household income level, ranging from 84% in Group A to 11% in
Group D. In contrast, households for which wasted food comprises
>30% of total food has increased from 53% (Group A) to 26% (Group
D), suggesting that high-income households were quite prepared
to waste food.
4.4.3. Waste composition
The components of surveyed FW can be classified into animal-
derived waste (meat, bones and shells), vegetable and fruit mat-
ters, cereal products, packaging wastes and drinks (Table S2). There
were significant differences in the relative contribution of these
components among income groups. Higher-income households
tended to produce a greater volume of vegetable and fruit matter
than less prosperous households did; therefore, this component
 H. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 78 (2018) 426–433
outweighed that of animal-derived wastes. Similar results also
show in developed economies such as Norway (Hanssen et al.,
2016). According to Ponis et al. (2017), consumers favoring fruit
and vegetable matter tend to discard less food than those favoring
high protein foods. However, in the present study, the higher-
income households, which favored vegetable and fruit matter over
animal-derived foods, appeared to generate more HFW than the
low-income households, possibly because abundant fruits are
available in south China during April and July, some of which have
large proportions of inedible parts such as heavy peel and numer-
ous seeds such as watermelon, dragon fruit, coconut, longan and
litchi. These differences suggest that unique cultural factors influ-
ence the composition of HFW. In addition, packaging wastes and
drinks were also important components of HFW, especially for
middle-income households (Group B), comprising 25% ± 13% of
total HFW, and significantly higher (P < 0.05) than the proportion
of vegetable FW, indicating that waste reduction could be achieved
by decreasing the use of packaging material.
4.4.4. Consumer behavior, consciousness and attitude
Some of the variations in the quantity of HFW generated related
to household income possibly attributable to differences in con-
sumer habits, behavior, consciousness and attitude (Table S2).
The greatest potential for the reduction of food waste in the devel-
oped world lies with consumers (Parfitt et al., 2010), as consumer
behavior is considered to be the primary driver of FW generation in
developed economies (Hebrok and Boks, 2017; Ponis et al., 2017).
In present study, shopping list was frequently used (65–70%) by
low- and middle-income households Group A and Group B, respec-
tively, whereas half of the households in the high-income groups
(Group C and D) reported no planning for shopping, a practice
which often results in overstocking (Hebrok and Boks, 2017). Addi-
tionally, >90% of surveyed households in Group C and Group D tend
to dispose of leftovers that could still be safely consumed, whereas
a relative low percentage (60%) of households in Group A admitted
to this. This mean that the results of the present study are in line
with results from consumer surveys in some developed countries,
and the high proportion of HFW generated could be attributed to
impulse buying and not re-using leftovers (Hebrok and Boks,
2017; Koivupuro et al., 2012; Mallinson et al., 2016). The present
study shows wealthier consumers are more frequently to dispose
of unused food, which is consistent with the findings of some other
studies (Hebrok and Boks, 2017).
To some extent, consumer behavior is determined by consumer
consciousness and attitude. Guilt and health concerns were also
reported as important drivers of generated HFW (Grandhi and
Appaiah Singh, 2016; Parizeau et al., 2015). The present study also
showed that most low-income households (68%) exhibit strong
feelings of guilt associated with discarding surplus food, whereas
high-income consumers usually show a perception that recycling
left overs carries some health risks (Grandhi and Appaiah Singh,
2016), which has led to a higher percentage of discarded left overs
in high-income groups (>70%) compared to the other groups (32–
45%).
4.5. Strategies for reducing HFW
Strategies for the reduction of waste have frequently been
ignored in waste management. Various 3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle)
policies have been effectively adopted in China, which reduces
waste at its origin; however, there is currently no strategy for
the reduction of HFW. The generation of HFW is dependent on
combinations of multiple and complex factors; therefore, in the
present study, waste prevention strategies are placed in the con-
text of drivers behind socio-economic factors influencing the
431
amount of HFW generated, which can be concluded to be as
following:
(1). Cultural attitudes Cultural attitudes toward hospitality with
a sense of achieving mianzhi in Chinese households often
results in over-preparation of food and leftovers. In this con-
text, it is believed that policy makers and various forms of
social media can play crucial roles in decreasing the amount
of food waste by emphasizing the importance of saving food.
These strategies can possibly eventually change the existing
cultural attitudes by changing consumer consciousness and
attitude (also see the fourth item below).
(2). The cost of food High food prices would inevitably reduce
FW produced by households, but would also negatively
affect low-income households. A high rate of waste separa-
tion is currently achieved in some high-income residential
areas (Table S6); therefore, a strategy for reducing avoidable
HFW among high-income households would be for local pol-
icy makers and waste management sectors to charge a high
fee for disposal of avoidable HFW for high-income
households.
(3). Waste composition It has been estimated that half of the
food packaging waste produced has resulted from over-
packaging of food products, including confectionaries, bread,
moon-cake and fruits (Cheng, 2017; Ren, 2015). Conse-
quently, consumers should be encouraged to purchase food
products with reduced packaging, which possibly is an
important means of practicing source reduction of HFW.
(4). Consumer behavior Many consumers do not plan their
shopping, which often results in excess food purchasing
and overstocking. Education to promote behavior changes
such as the formation of a habit that uses a shopping list
can be useful for reducing HFW to some extent.
(5). Consumer consciousness and attitude Programs should be
implemented to raise the consciousness and change con-
sumers’ attitudes toward food waste prevention and reduc-
tion. Educational campaigns can focus on the moral issues
associated with food wastage and the benefits of HFW
reduction, such as environmental benefits and sustainable
resource management.
5. Constraints and further research
The present study have some constrains. As with any question-
naire, the reliability and accuracy of the data can be compromised
by various limitations, e.g., a good memory and the honesty of the
participants (Hallström and Börjesson, 2013). Additionally, a gen-
eral ethical consideration associated with food can influence the
responses of participants, these were proved to be related to char-
acteristics of each household, such as the range of age, educational
background and gender (Hanssen et al., 2016; Parizeau et al., 2015;
Secondi et al., 2015). Consequently, the further household studies
should be conducted in suburban areas of the city to cover a wider
range of single-family household characteristics, and direct weigh-
ing of HFW are suitable for the study on the amount of HFW per
person per year do as Wang et al.’s study (2017). Given the existing
knowledge gap for the characterization of generated HFW and the
associated drivers in China, as well as the limitations of existing
studies and the fact that local circumstances and cultural norms
influence HFW generation, further studies should be conducted
to extend knowledge to a regional or national level. The underlying
reasons for the generation of avoidable HFW should be addressed
in detail in subsequent studies.
As a robust decision support tool in solid waste management,
life cycle assessment (LCA) methods have been applied to analyze
environmental impacts of HFW minimization in recent years
432 H. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 78 (2018) 426–433
(Bernstad and Andersson, 2015). Due to the complexity of data col-
lection for LCA methods, a footprint coefficient was used as the
analysis of avoidable HFW generation on the climate impact in
total life-cycle periods (Song et al., 2015) in the present study. Fur-
ther studies for supporting policies-making of the avoidable HFW
management could be conducted based on LCA methods.
6. Conclusions
In the present study, we quantitatively analyzed the amount,
composition and environmental impact of avoidable HFW genera-
tion in Shenzhen City based on questionnaires study, and then the
underlying drivers of HFW generation and strategies for reducing
HFW are proposed. The main findings were as follows:
(1). The amount of avoidable HFW in Shenzhen City reached
1,673 ± 144 Kt in 2015, with an annually increase rate of
8% since 2001, which comprised up to 56% of total HFW sug-
gesting that a reduction in the rate could considerably
reduce the total mass of HFW.
(2). Among avoidable HFW generated, cereals (rice, pasta and
bread) represented the largest component of HFW (514 ±
180 Kt), which was greater than 2% of total cereals wasted
during agricultural production and harvesting stages. These
results illustrate the importance of reducing HFW for Shen-
zhen City, where is confronted with a serious shortage of
arable land.
(3). Carbon emissions associated with HFW during life-cycle
periods was significantly higher than that associated with
ultimate disposal. This result indicates that a strategy for
reducing HFW during the consumption stage will be more
beneficial than resource utilization during its ultimate dis-
posal stage.
(4). Both the size of a household and its income were the major
drivers to HFW generation. Considerable potential exists to
reduce the scale of HFW generated via interventions target-
ing consumer behaviors, consciousness and attitudes. Speci-
fic strategies could be educated to emphasize the
importance of HFW reduction, and to encourage better plan-
ning of food shopping.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Scientific Research Foundation
of Introduced High Talent Financial Subsidies of Shenzhen Univer-
sity (000044).
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.06.
010.
References
Basso, D., Patuzzi, F., Castello, D., Baratieri, M., Rada, E.C., Weiss-Hortala, E., Fiori, L.,
2016. Agro-industrial waste to solid biofuel through hydrothermal
carbonization. Waste Manage. 47, 114–121.
Basso, D., Weiss-Hortala, E., Patuzzi, F., Castello, D., Baratieri, M., Fiori, L., 2015.
Hydrothermal carbonization of off-specification compost: a byproduct of the
organic municipal solid waste treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 182, 217–224.
Bernstad, S.S.A., Andersson, T., 2015. Food waste minimization from a life-cycle
perspective. J. Environ. Manage. 147, 219–226.
Cao Jin, L.G., 2010. Waste disposal and characteristic analysis in Macao. Environ.
Sanitat. Eng. 18, 23–25.
Chapagain, A., James, K., 2011. The water and carbon footprint of household food
and drink waste in the UK. Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP),
Banbury, Oxon, UK & WWF, Godalming, Surrey, UK.
Chen, H.B., Liu, J.T., Zhong, H., Deng, B., Pei, X.H., 2013. Analysis of potential carbon
reduction for different food waste processing mode. China Environ. Sci. 33,
2102–2106.
Cheng, H., Zhang, Y., Meng, A., Li, Q., 2007. Municipal solid waste fueled power
generation in China: a case study of waste-to-energy in Changchun city.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 7509–7515.
Cheng, R., 2017. The ‘‘mianzi” of over packaging food is not appropriate., Xinhua
News.
Clercq, D.D., Wen, Z., Fan, F., Caicedo, L., 2016. Biomethane production potential
from restaurant food waste in megacities and project level-bottlenecks: a case
study in Beijing. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 59, 1676–1685.
Edjabou, M.E., Petersen, C., Scheutz, C., Astrup, T.F., 2016. Food waste from Danish
households: generation and composition. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 52, 256–268.
Fao, 2013. Food wastage footprint. Summary Report, Impacts on natural resources.
ISBN 978-92-5-107752-8.
Grandhi, B., Appaiah Singh, J., 2016. What a waste! a study of food wastage behavior
in Singapore. J. Food Products Market. 22, 471–485.
Gu, B., Jiang, S., Wang, H., Wang, Z., Jia, R., Yang, J., He, S., Cheng, R., 2017.
Characterization, quantification and management of China’s municipal solid
waste in spatiotemporal distributions: a review. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 61,
67–77.
Gu, B., Wang, H., Chen, Z., Jiang, S., Zhu, W., Liu, M., Chen, Y., Wu, Y., He, S., Cheng, R.,
2015. Characterization, quantification and management of household solid
waste: a case study in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 98, 67–75.
Hallström, E., Börjesson, P., 2013. Meat-consumption statistics: reliability and
discrepancy. Sustain.: Sci., Pract. Policy, 9.
Hanssen, O.J., Syversen, F., Stø, E., 2016. Edible food waste from Norwegian
households—Detailed food waste composition analysis among households in
two different regions in Norway. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 109, 146–154.
Hao, X., Peng, Z., Cao, D., 2017. Analyses of disposal methods and carbon emissions
of food wastes. Chinese J. Environ. Eng. 11, 673–682.
Hebrok, M., Boks, C., 2017. Household food waste: drivers and potential
intervention points for design–An extensive review. J. Cleaner Prod. 151, 380–
392.
Huang, C., 2012. The statistical analysis of characteristics of municipal solid waste
for Shenzhen Huazhong University of Science & Technology.
Jin, Y., Chen, T., Chen, X., Yu, Z., 2015. Life-cycle assessment of energy consumption
and environmental impact of an integrated food waste-based biogas plant.
Appl. Energy 151, 227–236.
Katajajuuri, J.-M., Silvennoinen, K., Hartikainen, H., Heikkilä, L., Reinikainen, A.,
2014. Food waste in the Finnish food chain. J. Cleaner Prod. 73, 322–329.
Kim, M.-H., Kim, Jung-Wk, 2010. Comparison through a LCA evaluation analysis of
food waste disposal options from the perspective of global warming and
resource recovery. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 3998–4006.
Koivupuro, H.K., Hartikainen, H., Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J.M., Heikintalo, N.,
Reinikainen, A., Jalkanen, L., 2012. Influence of socio-demographical,
behavioural and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste
generated in Finnish households. Int. J. Consumer Studies 36, 183–191.
Liu, G., 2014. Food Losses and Food Waste in China: A First Estimate. OECD Food,
Agriculture and Fisheries, Papers, No. 66, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Liu, J., Lundqvist, J., Weinberg, J., Gustafsson, J., 2013. Food losses and waste in China
and their implication for water and land. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 10137–
10144.
Mallinson, L.J., Russell, J.M., Barker, M.E., 2016. Attitudes and behaviour towards
convenience food and food waste in the United Kingdom. Appetite 103, 17–28.
Mao, R., Duan, H., Dong, D., Zuo, J., Song, Q., Liu, G., Hu, M., Zhu, J., Dong, B., 2017.
Quantification of carbon footprint of urban roads via life cycle assessment: Case
study of a megacity- Shenzhen, China. J. Cleaner Product.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S., 2010. Food waste within food supply chains:
quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosoph. Trans. Royal Soc.
London B: Biolo. Sci. 365, 3065–3081.
Parizeau, K., Von, M.M., Martin, R., 2015. Household-level dynamics of food waste
production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph, Ontario.
Waste Manage 35, 207.
Pearson, D., Minehan, M., Wakefield-Rann, R., 2013. Food waste in Australian
households: Why does it occur?
Ponis, S.T., Papanikolaou, P.-A., Katimertzoglou, P., Ntalla, A.C., Xenos, K.I., 2017.
Household food waste in Greece: a questionnaire survey. J. Cleaner Prod. 149,
1268–1277.
Porpino, G., Parente, J., Wansink, B., 2015. Food waste paradox: antecedents of food
disposal in low income households. Int. J. Consumer Stud. 39, 619–629.
Qu, X.Y., Li, Z.S., Xie, X.Y., Sui, Y.M., Yang, L., Chen, Y., 2009. Survey of composition
and generation rate of household wastes in Beijing, China. Waste Manage.
(Oxford) 29, 2618–2624.
Quested, T., Johnson, H., 2009. Household food and drink waste in the UK. Wastes &
Resources Action Programme (WRAP).
Quested, T., Parry, A., 2011. New estimates for household food and drink waste in
the UK. Oxon, Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP).
Ren, W., 2015. To say ‘‘no” to over packaging, food waste, and excessive
consumption – focusing on the three counter actions. In: the 13th five-year
plan, Xinhua News.
Secondi, L., Principato, L., Laureti, T., 2015. Household food waste behaviour in EU-
27 countries: a multilevel analysis. Food Policy 56, 25–40.
SEPA, 2013. Food waste volumes in Sweden, Swedish environmental protection
agency (SEPA).
 H. Zhang et al. / Waste Management 78 (2018) 426–433
SMEHA, 2014. The statistical analysis of characteristics of municipal solid waste in
Shenzhen CIty (2010-2014). Shenzhen Municiapal Environmental Health
Administration (SMEHA).
Song, G., Li, M., Semakula, H.M., Zhang, S., 2015. Food consumption and waste and
the embedded carbon, water and ecological footprints of households in China.
Sci. Total Environ. 529, 191–197.
SZSBU, 2016. Shenzhen Statistical Yearbook. China Statsics Press, Beijing, Shenzhen
Statistics Bureau (SZSBU).
Tai, J., Zhang, W., Che, Y., Feng, D., 2011. Municipal solid waste source-separated
collection in China: a comparative analysis. Waste Manage. 31, 1673–1682.
Thyberg, K.L., Tonjes, D.J., 2016. Drivers of food waste and their implications for
sustainable policy development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 106, 110–123.
Trang, P.T.T., Dong, H.Q., Toan, D.Q., Hanh, N.T.X., Thu, N.T., 2017. The effects of
socio-economic factors on household solid waste generation and composition:
a case study in Thu Dau Mot, Vietnam q. Energy Procedia 107, 253–258.
Wang Kelin, X.W., 2012. Prediction of Food waste production and management
system research in Chengdu. Shchuan Environ. 31, 91–96.
Wang, L.E., Liu, G., Liu, X., Liu, Y., Gao, J., Zhou, B., Gao, S., Cheng, S., 2017. The weight
of unfinished plate: a survey based characterization of restaurant food waste in
Chinese cities. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 66, 3–12.
Wang, Z., Geng, L., 2015. Carbon emissions calculation from municipal solid waste
and the influencing factors analysis in China. J. Cleaner Prod. 104, 177–184.
433
Wen, Z., Wang, Y., Clercq, D.D., 2016. What is the true value of food waste? A case
study of technology integration in urban food waste treatment in Suzhou City,
China. J. Cleaner Product.
WRAP, 2008. The food we waste, Material change for a better environment (WRAP),
pp. 1–237.
WRAP, 2010. Waste arisings in the supply of food and drink to households in the
UK, Material change for a better environmental, pp. 1–86.
Xiong, Z., 2014. The percentage of household food waste in total MSW was 46.4% in
Shenzhen City, while only 6% of waste was disposed properly, People’s News,
Beijing City.
Xue, L., Liu, G., Parfitt, J., Liu, X., Van, H.E., Stenmarck, A., O’Connor, C., Östergren, K.,
Cheng, S., 2017. Missing food, missing data? A critical review of global food
losses and food waste data. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 6618.
Yang, J., Zhang, H., 2016. Shenzhen goverment is going to set up a regious check
system aimed at radom food samples, which was transportated to Shenzhen
from other areas in China, People News.
Zhang, B., Fu, W., 2010. The investigation and analysis on per capita output of food
waste in Beijing. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33, 65.
Zhang, C., Su, H., Baeyens, J., Tan, T., 2014. Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food
waste for biogas production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 38, 383–392.