2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.11.030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The tree structure — A general framework for food waste quantification in food services

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
39
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
39
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Quantitative data collection methods used in the case studies aimed to identify processes and activities within the HaFS operations that give rise to food waste [82]. They were used to measure the amount of food waste generated from these processes in order to prioritise the most promising measures for waste prevention.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Quantitative data collection methods used in the case studies aimed to identify processes and activities within the HaFS operations that give rise to food waste [82]. They were used to measure the amount of food waste generated from these processes in order to prioritise the most promising measures for waste prevention.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To achieve transparent food-waste quantification, it is necessary to define clearly the waste arising from each kitchen process. In this study, definitions for the different waste processes (Table 2) used by the Swedish National Food Agency [37], together with the process definitions identified by Eriksson [38] are used. However, waste processes alone are not sufficient indicators, and other indicators, such as amount of food served, need to be identified and defined.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To achieve consistency and transparency, the transformation step included rearranging the quantification data daily per meal and mapping the different waste processes used by the individual kitchens relative to those defined in this study. For instance, when what was defined as "Serving waste" in this study was called something different by a kitchen according to a local standard, the data were transformed and included in the serving waste process [38]. The number of portions recorded for each meal and the amount of food served were compiled and summarized as key performance indicators (KPIs).…”
Section: General Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, food waste quantification routines in hospitals are not performed regularly, and therefore, the dataset contained data gaps in time, but also regarding the kinds of waste quantified since this usually changes over time depending on the local context and local standard. In order to bridge these data gaps and make data comparable, the various criteria for analyzing food waste data established by Malefors et al [17] were used, together with the methodology devised by Eriksson et al [22]. The strictest criterion (Level 1, regarded as the most accurate) selects data from kitchens that quantify the number of guests per meal and the waste processes 'Plate waste' and 'Serving waste'.…”
Section: Analysis Of Datamentioning
confidence: 99%