Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This article investigates potentials and environmental impacts related to household food waste mini-
Received 21 February 2013 mization, based on a case study in Southern Sweden. In the study, the amount of avoidable and un-
Received in revised form avoidable food waste currently being disposed of by households was assessed through waste
18 July 2014
composition analyses and the different types of avoidable food waste were classied. Currently, both
Accepted 22 July 2014
avoidable and unavoidable food waste is either incinerated or treated through anaerobic digestion. A
Available online 26 September 2014
hypothetical scenario with no generation of avoidable food waste and either anaerobic digestion or
incineration of unavoidable food waste was compared to the current situation using the life-cycle
Keywords:
Waste minimization
assessment method, limited to analysis of global warming potential (GWP). The results from the waste
Waste reduction composition analyses indicate that an average of 35% of household food waste is avoidable. Minimization
Household waste of this waste could result in reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 800e1400 kg/tonne of avoidable
Food waste food waste. Thus, a minimization strategy would result in increased avoidance of GWP compared to the
Life-cycle assessment current situation. The study clearly shows that although modern alternatives for food waste treatment
Carbon footprint can result in avoidance of GWP through nutrient and energy recovery, food waste prevention yields far
greater benets for GWP compared to both incineration and anaerobic digestion.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.048
0301-4797/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
220 A. Bernstad Saraiva Schott, T. Andersson / Journal of Environmental Management 147 (2015) 219e226
The present paper reports the potentials for household food LCA methodology, as described by Finnveden et al. (2009), was
waste prevention based on a case study in southern Sweden. An used, using system expansion and based on a consequential
assessment was also made of environmental impacts related to two approach. The avoidable food waste fraction was classied as 100%
different treatment alternatives for food waste, both unavoidable preventable while the unavoidable food waste fraction was seen as
and avoidable, by modeling of direct and upstream and down- unpreventable. Waste prevention was evaluated through modeling
stream impacts related to treatment of the functional unit through upstream and direct emissions associated with production of
anaerobic digestion on the one hand and incineration on the other. avoided food and packaging material. Alternative treatment of this
waste was modeled as direct as well as upstream and downstream
2. Methodology impacts related to treatment of the functional unit through
anaerobic digestion, composting and incineration. The assessment
2.1. Waste composition analysis method was limited to emissions of greenhouse gases.
Three waste composition analyses were performed in a multi- 2.3. Function unit and system boundaries
family residential area in Malmo , southern Sweden. In this area,
household food waste has been collected separately in paper bags The functional unit was dened as the service of managing one
since 2008. All separately collected food waste and 50% of the bins tonne (metric ton) of food waste from Swedish households. How-
for disposal of residual waste (randomly selected) were analyzed. ever, waste prevention inherently changes the functional unit
This approach is described in detail by Dahle n and Lagerkvist (Ekvall et al., 2007). Cleary (2010) uses the terms primary and
(2008). Waste from a total of 486 households was investigated. secondary functional units to ensure both a xed amount of MSW
The main categories used in the analyses were avoidable and managed in scenario comparisons including waste prevention, as
unavoidable food waste. These fractions were divided into a total of well as identical reference ows of functionally equivalent product
eleven sub-fractions, which in some cases were divided even services. However, the same author also states that a secondary
further. Thus a total of 19 fractions were used in the analyses functional unit is not required to ensure the functional equivalence
(Table 1). The weight of packaging was included in the categories of product services if addressing services that are deemed
A. Bernstad Saraiva Schott, T. Andersson / Journal of Environmental Management 147 (2015) 219e226 221
unwanted by certain segments of the population, such as unsolic- retail), nal transport (from retail to household) and food prepa-
ited advertising material. Analogously to this, avoidable food waste ration, through a production life cycle inventory (LCI). Also, the
is in the present study regarded as an unwanted product and sec- production of packaging found together with avoidable food waste
ondary functional units were not dened. Similarly to Gentil et al. was included. Emissions related to storage (i.e. refrigeration or
(2011) it was considered that the quantity of prevented waste is a freezing of food) was not included in the study, as results from
virtual waste ow. Thus, the consequences of reducing a waste waste composition analyses give very little information relation to
fraction in different waste management systems can be assessed such services.
simultaneously as the avoided production impacts from the quan-
tity of prevented food waste measured, without affecting the 3. Life cycle inventory
functional unit (Fig. 1).
The composition of household food waste was based on a sub-
2.3.1. System boundaries in waste management systems division of avoidable food waste into six categories: Meat, Bread,
Direct emissions from transport, pretreatment, treatment and Prepared food, Dairy products, Fruits and vegetables and Other. Thus,
nal disposal of secondary waste or use of produced bio-fertilizers assumptions were made regarding further distribution of these
were included in the study. Also, the impacts related to production categories in order to collect needed input data in the LCA
of collection material were addressed. In all cases it was assumed (Table 2).
that bio-fertilizers could be used to replace chemical fertilizers. The evaluation of the avoided production impacts was based on
System expansion was used to address energy and nutrient re- previously performed life cycle assessment of food production
covery. Marginal data was used for use and substitution of power (Table 1, SI). Environmental impacts related to food production can
(0.887 kg CO2-eq/kWh based on Fruergaard et al., 2009) and heat vary greatly depending on how (i.e., organic/conventional pro-
(0.11 kg CO2-eq/MJ based on Gode et al., 2011). Emissions from use duction) and where the production occurred. Such information
of bio-fertilizers on farmland were addressed, while ash treatment commonly cannot be gained through waste composition analyses
not was considered. The collection of input data was restricted to so assumptions had to be made regarding the origin of the food
the information that could affect the GWP from compared waste assessed in the study. In order to address these uncertainties
scenarios. throughout the study, two datasets were created: a high-impact
(HI) and a low-impact (LI) scenario. The same was done for the
2.3.2. System boundaries in avoided production systems consumer transport and preparation processes (Table 2, SI). The
GWP from prevention of avoidable food waste was assessed prepared food fraction consisted mainly of cooked pasta, potatoes
through modeling of production, transport (from producer to and rice, according to observations during the waste composition
Non-production of Substitution of
0.35 ton avoidable electricity and
food waste heat
Table 2 12%
Composition of food waste (unavoidable and avoidable) (%) as average based on 8%
three waste composition analyses.
analyses. An equal division between these food types was assumed. The GWP from the two alternative treatments for generated
Packaging was included only when food waste was found in its food waste (anaerobic digestion and incineration) is presented in
original packaging in the waste composition analysis. According to Table 3 divided into different processes in the treatment chain.
the analyses, 35% of the avoidable food waste was found in original
packaging. However, the analytical method did not take the type of 4.3. GWP from production, transport and preparation of avoidable
packaging into consideration. Instead, assumptions were made on food waste
the fraction of plastic, paper, metal and glass packaging disposed
together with avoidable food waste, based on the average division The GWP from production, transport and preparation of avoid-
of these materials in household waste from the same area, as pre- able food waste is presented in Fig. 4 (high and low assumptions).
viously reported by Bernstad et al. (2012a). The assumptions made The results are based on the composition of avoidable food waste
in relation to the ratio of packaging in relation to the total amount and GWP from the production/consumption chain presented
of packed food disposed of were based on averages from Wallman above.
and Nilsson (2011). It was assumed that packaging would have The results from the combination of prevention of avoidable
been incinerated with energy recovery under the same conditions food waste and management of unavoidable food waste as well as
as the food waste incineration process. Data on lower heating value those for treatment of both avoidable and unavoidable food waste
(LHV) and dry matter were obtained from Riber and Christensen are presented in Fig. 5.
(2006) (Table 3, SI).
Evaluation of the environmental impacts related to treatment
food waste was based on literature data and previously performed
life-cycle assessments of food waste management (Table 4, SI). The 6%
energy content (as lower heating value, LHV) in food waste has in
14% Unopened packaging
previous LCA studies has been assumed to range from 1748 to 32%
6300 MJ/tonne wet waste (Lee et al., 2007; Bo rjesson and Berglund, Whole food
2007). 4820 MJ/tonne wet waste was assumed in the present study. Opened packaing
Potentials for nutrient recovery, biogas production and energy re-
covery from total food waste were based on literature values, while
Halfeaten food
the gures for unavoidable food waste were based on primary data Prepared food
12%
(Table 5, SI). GWP impacts related to an avoided production and use
of energy and mineral fertilizers recovered through food waste 36%
treatment processes were estimated using literature values
(Table 6, SI). Fig. 3. Avoidable food waste divided on ve different life-stages.
A. Bernstad Saraiva Schott, T. Andersson / Journal of Environmental Management 147 (2015) 219e226 223
Meat
Bread
Low
Dairy
Vegetables and fruit
Pasta/rice/potatoes
Preparing of food
High Other
Packaging
Consumer transports
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
kg CO2/ton generated food waste
Fig. 4. GWP from production, transports and preparation of avoidable food waste (kg CO2-eq/ton avoidable food waste) as high and low assumptions.
Incineration
Avoided production
Waste management AD
Low avoided + AD
High avoided + AD
Fig. 5. GWP from non-production of avoidable food waste (high and low assumptions) combined with either anaerobic digestion (AD) or incineration of unavoidable food waste, as
well as either anaerobic digestion or incineration of total food waste (avoidable unavoidable) as kg CO2-eq/ton currently generated food waste.
224 A. Bernstad Saraiva Schott, T. Andersson / Journal of Environmental Management 147 (2015) 219e226
smaller in relation to incineration alternatives. Also, changes in 5.2. LCA hot spot identication
input data used in assessment of GWP from the waste management
system can change the hierarchy between the two compared Identication of hot spots, i.e., factors responsible for a large
treatment alternatives. In the case of anaerobic digestion of un- contribution to the overall GWP from compared scenarios, was
avoidable food waste, the results change from net avoidance to net done both in relation to the generated avoidable food waste and the
contribution to GWP (Fig. 6). The most inuential processes were compared waste management alternatives.
related to energy input in pretreatment, substitution of fuel, The most critical factors related to the anaerobic digestion waste
emissions from farmland and fugitive emissions from anaerobic management alternative are; amount and environmental impacts
digestion in relation to the biological treatment alternative, as well related to fuels avoided by produced biogas, amount and environ-
as assumptions regarding energy recovery and emissions of N2O mental impacts related to chemical fertilizers avoided by recovered
from incineration. nutrients and emissions from farmland during spreading of diges-
tate. The most critical factors related to the incineration waste
5. Discussion management alternative are; amount and environmental impacts
related to energy use avoided by incineration, amount and envi-
5.1. Uncertainties related to LCI data and waste composition ronmental impacts related to energy use in the incineration process
analyses and treatment emissions, specically N2O.
Food preparation in the individual household can have a high
As seen in Fig. 5, the net-benets from food waste minimization impact on GWP related to generation of avoidable food waste. In this
vary greatly depending on assumptions related to the GWP from example, where the fraction of prepared and wasted food repre-
the production of avoidable food waste. In previous studies, Gentil sents 27% of the total amount of avoidable food waste, food prep-
et al. (2011) assumed a GWP of 5.3 kg CO2-eq/kg of meat waste and aration contributes to almost 20% of the total GWP from the
1.0 kg CO2-eq/kg of vegetable waste, while Mogensen et al. (2011) generated avoidable food waste. However, this result is strongly
used values for avoidable meat production ranging from 5.6 and connected to the environmental prole of energy used in the
5.7 kg CO2-eq/kg of pork and chicken to 32.7 kg CO2-eq/kg of beef, preparation. Thus, assuming a more fossil lean electricity mix
with an average (assuming equal parts of these types of meat) of (Swedish average, Uppenberg et al., 2001), food preparation would
14.7 kg CO2-eq/kg. The same author assumes emissions equal to 1.0 represent around 1% of the total GWP. At the same time, the waste
CO2-eq/kg for avoidable vegetable waste and 12.2 kg CO2-eq/kg composition analyses on which the data used in the present study
avoidable cheeses. This can be compared to the results from the were based did not take into consideration that parts of the avoid-
present study: 8.3e11.8.3 kg CO2-eq/kg of avoidable meat waste, able food waste in some cases had been prepared industrially before
0.7e1.0 kg CO2-eq/kg of avoidable vegetable waste and discard. A previous comparison of GHG-emissions from home-
Base case
0
High
CO2-eq/ton food waste
-100
-200
-300
-400
Fig. 6. Results from sensitivity analyses in relation to the waste management alternatives anaerobic digestion and incineration, presented as base case (with the assumptions
presented in Table 3) as well as high and low scenarios, according to changes presented in Fig. 4.
A. Bernstad Saraiva Schott, T. Andersson / Journal of Environmental Management 147 (2015) 219e226 225
cooked, semi-prepared and ready-to-eat food, concluding that nitrogen in digestate can also reduce risks of emissions of nitrous
semi-produced and ready-to-eat food commonly generate higher oxides (N2O) from digestate during storage and spreading on
emissions compared to home cooking, mainly due to increased need farmland (Lantz et al., 2009) as well as formation of NOx and N2O in
for packaging, storage and inefcient transports (Sonesson, 2005). incineration of food waste (Smith et al., 2001).
Thus, it is likely that the GWP related to preparing food that goes to The present study was performed in a Swedish context. Thus,
waste is underestimated in the present study. alternatives for treatment of generated food waste only include
Consumer transports contribute to 2.5% of total GWP from technologies where efcient recovery of energy and nutrients are
avoidable food waste if assuming that transportations are made in viable and food waste management can thus be connected to
private cars, using diesel. Thus, consumer transport was not of key environmental benets. However, in many countries, management
importance to overall GWP. of food waste is related to several negative impacts on the envi-
The results from the study are strongly associated with the type ronment, such as fugitive methane emissions from landlls. Thus,
of food wasted by households, as GWP from production of different the net benets from food waste minimization are likely to be even
types of food can vary by several orders of magnitude. Beef, cheese larger in cases where the general disposal route is restricted to
and rice result in especially high emissions of CO2-equivalents due landlls.
to large emissions of methane in the production chain. Production
of 1 kg of beef results in emissions 120 times larger than production 5.5. Effects on other environmental impact categories
of 1 kg of carrots (SIK, 2009a,b). In fact, the results of this study
suggest that as much as 22e24% and 7e9% of the GHG-emissions The present study was limited to assessment of GWP and energy
from wasted food are related to the meat and dairy products frac- consumption related to food waste minimization. Thus, relevant
tions, while vegetables and fruits correspond to 6e10%. According environmental impacts such as eutrophication, acidication and
to Kramer et al. (1999), 28% of Dutch household food consumption toxicity were not included. According to the Swedish Environ-
is related to meat and 23% to dairy products, while vegetables, fruits mental Protection Agency, the agricultural sector is responsible for
and potatoes correspond to 15%. In a similar study of UK house- around 40% of the human induced emissions of both nitrogen and
holds, 30% of total GHG emissions from food consumption were phosphorus in Sweden (SEPA, 2008). This shows that food pro-
related to meat, 20% to dairy products and 11% to fruits and vege- duction contributes to many other types of negative environmental
tables (including exotic fruits) (Audsley et al., 2009). Thus, there impacts than GWP and energy use, again indicating the environ-
seems to be similarities in the patterns seen in the GHG emissions mental benets from prevention of avoidable food waste.
from wasted food, where vegetables and fruits correspond to a
relatively small part of the total GWP, although the fraction makes 6. Conclusions
up almost 40% of the total mass of generated food waste.
Decreasing the amount of specic categories of avoidable waste A case study based on three waste composition analyses among
could therefore have a large impact on the overall savings from multi-family dwellings in southern Sweden shows that on average
reduction of food waste generation. 35% of the generated household food waste can be classed as
avoidable. Through the use of the life-cycle assessment method, the
5.3. Rebound effects related to waste minimization greenhouse gas emissions from an assumed non-generation of this
avoidable food waste could be estimated. It was seen that the
According to Gentil et al. (2011), needs satised by products not reduction in greenhouse gas emissions could reach 800e1400 kg
produced e and thus not ending up as waste e will have to be CO2-eq/tonne of avoidable food waste. Currently this avoidable
served by other means. As an example, reduced production of un- waste in Sweden is mostly incinerated or treated through anaerobic
solicited paper advertisements will reduce the production of paper digestion, which also can result in net avoidance of greenhouse gas
waste. However, it could be argued that reduced use of this type of emissions. However, compared to either anaerobic digestion or
advertising will be compensated by increased use of web-based incineration of both avoidable and unavoidable food waste, it was
advertising and one would have to include any environmental estimated that the potential reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
impacts connected to this in order to maintain a just comparison could increase 6 and 19 times, respectively, if the generation of
between the alternatives. However, in the case of food waste, we do avoidable food waste was to be reduced to zero and only un-
not believe such considerations are justied since it cannot be avoidable food waste was to be treated through anaerobic degra-
assumed that a decreased amount of avoidable food waste would dation or incineration. The results are to large extent dependent on
cause any increase in environmental burdens in other parts of the the composition of what can be seen as avoidable food waste and
system. The only potential rebound effect that is relevant in relation the date chosen to model the production of this waste. However, as
to food waste minimization is related to a general rebound effect a general indication, a large part of the greenhouse gas emissions
when consumers change their behavior, resulting in both envi- related to the production of avoidable food waste comes from an-
ronmental and monetary savings. If monetary savings are used to imal products such as meat and dairy products. Thus, decreasing
consume more in other areas, environmental savings gained in one the amount of specic categories of avoidable waste could have a
area could be offset by increased impacts in others (Fo lster, 2008). large impact on the overall greenhouse gas savings related to food
waste minimization. The results also suggest that increased focus
5.4. Impacts on the waste management chain should be given to food waste minimization rather than just
collection and treatment of waste that already has been generated,
Waste prevention measures have potential not only to reduce and provide quantitative estimates of the climate related benets
the total amount of food waste, but also can inuence the charac- from such strategies.
teristics of remaining food waste. This can have both negative and
positive impacts on GWP. A lower content of nutrients in food Appendix A. Supplementary data
waste means less potential for substitution of chemical fertilizers in
a waste management scenario where nutrients are recovered Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in
through anaerobic digestion and use of digestate on farmland. This the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.
reduces potential GWP avoidance. However, a lower content of 048.
226 A. Bernstad Saraiva Schott, T. Andersson / Journal of Environmental Management 147 (2015) 219e226
References Lantz, M., Ekman, A., Bo rjesson, P., 2009. Systemoptimerad produktion av for-
donsgas e En miljo - och energioptimerad studie av So dersens bio-
gasanla ggnin (Systems Optimized Production of Vehicle Gas e an
Audsley, E., Brander, M., Chatterton, J., Murphy-Bukern, D., Webster, C., Williams, A.,
Environmental and Energy Assessment of the So dersen Biogas Production
2009. How low can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from
Plant). Report 69. Environmental and Energy Systems Studies, Lund University,
the UK food system end and the scope to reduce them by 2050. http://assets.
Lund Sweden (in Swedish).
wwf.org.uk/downloads/how_low_report_1.pdf.
Lebersorger, S., Schneider, F., 2011. Discussion on the methodology for determining
Banar, M., Ozkan, A., 2008. Characterization of the municipal solid waste in Eski-
food waste in household waste composition studies. Waste Manage. 31 (9e10),
sehir City, Turkey. Environ. Eng. Sci. 25 (8), 1213e1220.
924e1933.
Bernstad, A., la Cour Jansen, J., Aspegren, H., 2012a. Local strategies for efcient
Lee, S.-H., Choi, K.-I., Osako, M., Dong, J.-I., 2007. Evaluation of environmental
management of solid household waste e the full-scale Augustenborg experi-
burdens caused by changes of food waste management systems in Seoul, Korea.
ment. Waste Manage. Res. 30 (2), 200e212.
Sci. Total Environ. 387 (1e3), 42e53.
Bernstad, A., Malmqvist, L., Truedsson, C., la Cour Jansen, J., 2012b. Need for im-
Mahler, C.F., Araujo, F., Paranhos, R., 2002. Solid Waste Management and Com-
provements in physical pretreatment of source-separated household food
posting. Pollution Aquatic Pollution and Solid Waste Acuarius Publication,
waste. Waste Manage. 33 (3), 746e764 (accepted for publication).
rklund, A., 2002. Survey of approaches to improve reliability in LCA. Int. J. LCA 7 Editorial Group/Bio-Rio Foundation (in Portuguese).
Bjo
Mogensen, L., Hermansen, J., Knudsen, M.T., 2011. Madspild i fdevareproduktionen
(2), 64e72.
e fra primrproduktion til detailled (Food Waste in the Food Production Chain
Boldrin, A., Andersen, J.K., Mller, J., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Composting and
e from Primary Production to Households) (in Danish). Det Jord-
compost utilization: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming
brugsvidenskabeligt Fakultet (DJF), Aarhus University.
contributions. Waste Manage. Res. 27, 800e812.
rjesson, P., Berglund, M., 2007. Environmental systems analysis of biogas systems Mller, J., Boldrin, A., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Anaerobic digestion and digestate use:
Bo
accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contribution. Waste
e Part II: the environmental impact of replacing various reference systems.
Manage. Res. 27 (8), 813e824.
Biomass Bioenergy 31 (5), 326e344.
Morris, J., 2011. Review of LCAs on Organics Management Methods and Develop-
Cleary, J., 2010. The incorporation of waste prevention activities into life cycle as-
ment of an Environmental Hierarchy. Alberta Environment, Edmonton AB, US.
sessments of municipal solid waste management systems: methodological is-
Partt, J., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S., 2010. Food waste within food supply chains:
sues. Int. J. LCA 15 (6), 579e589.
n, L., Lagerkvist, A., 2008. Methods for household waste composition studies. quantication and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365,
Dahle
3065e3081.
Waste Manage. 28 (7), 1100e1112.
rklund, A., Eriksson, O., Finnveden, G., 2007. What life-cycle Riber, C., Christensen, T.H., 2006. Method for fractional solid waste sampling and
Ekvall, T., Assefa, G., Bjo
chemical analysis. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 87 (5), 321e336.
assessment does and does not do in assessments of waste management. Waste
Salhofer, S., Obersteiner, G., Schneider, F., Lebersorger, S., 2008. Potentials for the
Manage. 27 (8), 989e996.
prevention of municipal solid waste. Waste Manage. 28 (2), 245e259.
European Parliament, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and
SEPA, 2008. Konsumtionens klimatpverkan (The Climate Effects from Consump-
the council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives.
tion). Report No 5903. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm,
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uriCELEX:32008L0098:
Sweden (in Swedish).
EN:NOT.
SIK, 2009a. Cederberg, C., Flysjo , A., Sonesson, U., Sund, V., Davis, J. Greenhouse Gas
FAO, 2011. Global food losses and food waste. Extent Causes Prev. http://www.fao.
Emissions from Swedish Consumption of Meat, Milk and Eggs 1990 and 2005.
org/leadmin/user_upload/ags/publications/GFL_web.pdf.
e, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., SIK Report No 794, Stockholm, Sweden.
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guine
SIK, 2009b. Klimatpverkan frn bro d- kommunikationsunderlag (Climate Impacts
Koehler, A., Pennington, D., Suh, S., 2009. Recent developments in Life Cycle
from Bread). SIK Report No P80427, Stockholm, Sweden (in Swedish).
Assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 91 (1), 1e21.
lster, S., 2008. Fo rva l till va
rldsundergngen (Goodbye Armageddon). Albert Smith, A., Brown, K., Ogilvie, S., Rushton, K., Bates, J., 2001. Waste Management
Fo
rlag, Stockholm, Sweden (in Swedish). Options and Climate Change. Final report to the European Commission, DG
Bonniers Fo
Environment. Ofce for Ofcial Publications of the European Communities,
Fruergaard, T., Astrup, T., Mller, J., Ekvall, T., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Energy use and
Luxembourg.
recovery in waste management and implications for accounting of greenhouse
Sonesson, U., 2005. Miljo massig jamfo relse av olika s
att att framstalla en mltid
gases and global warming contributions. Waste Manage. Res. 27 (8), 724e739.
med ko ttbullar respektive kyckling (hemlagat, halvfabrikat och helfabrikat)
Gentil, E.C., Damgaard, A., Hauschild, M., Finnveden, G., 2010. Models for waste life
(Environmental Comparison of Different Ways of Food Preparation). SIK,
cycle assessment: review of technical assumptions. Waste Manage. 30 (12),
Stockholm, Sweden (in Swedish).
2636e2648.
Sonesson, U., Bjo rklund, A., Carlsson, M., Dalemo, M., 2000. Environmental and
Gentil, E.C., Gallo, D., Christensen, T.H., 2011. Environmental evaluation of municipal
economic analysis of management systems for biodegradable waste. Resour.
waste prevention. Waste Manage. 31, 2371e2379.
glund, J., Palm, D., 2011. Conserv. Recyc. 28 (1e2), 29e53.
Gode, J., Martinsson, F., Hagberg, L., Oman, A., Ho
faktaboken 2011 e Uppskattade emissionsfaktorer fo r bra
nslen, el, va
rme Uppenberg, S., Brandel, M., Lindfors, L.G., Marcus, H.O., Wachtmeister, A.,
Miljo
Zetterberg, L., 2001. Environmental Facts for Fuels Part 1. Resources Con-
och transporter. Varmeforsk. Report No 1183.
sumption and Emissions throughout the Lifecycle (in Swedish). Swedish Envi-
Hirai, Y., Murata, M., Sakai, S., Takatsuki, H., 2000. Life cycle assessment for food
ronmental Institute (IVL), Stockholm, Sweden.
waste recycling and management. In: Proceedings from the 4th International
Wallman, M., Nilsson, K., 2011. Klimatpverkan och energianva ndning frn livs-
Conference on EcoBalance Methodologies for Decision Making in a Sustainable
medelsfo rpackningar (Climate Impacts and Energy Use from Food Packaging).
21st Century. October 31steNov 2nd, 2000, Tsukuba, Japan.
Report No 18-2011. SIK, Stockholm, Sweden (in Swedish).
Kirkeby, J.T., Birgisdottir, H., Lund Hansen, T., Christensen, T.H., Bhander, G.S.,
WRAP, 2008. The Food We Waste, ISBN 1-84405-383-0. Banbury, UK.
Hauschild, M., 2006. Evaluation of environmental impacts from municipal solid
WRAP, 2009. In: Quested, T., Johnson, H. (Eds.), Household Food and Drink Waste in
waste management in the municipality of Aarhus, Denmark (EASEWASTE).
the UK, ISBN 1-84405-430-6. Banbury, UK.
Waste Manage. Res. 24, 16e26.
Kramer, K.J., Moll, H.C., Nonhebel, S., Wilting, H.C., 1999. Greenhouse gas emissions
related to Dutch food consumption. Elsevier Energy Policy 27, 203e216.