Waste Management 102 (2020) 231–240

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Quantification and determination of household food waste and its

relation to sociodemographic characteristics in Croatia
Branka Ilakovac a, Neven Voca b,⇑, Lato Pezo c, Marija Cerjak b
a
Food Waste Prevention Centre – FWAPC, Kornatska 1 C, Zagreb, Croatia
b
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Agriculture, Svetosimunska 25, Zagreb, Croatia
c
University of Belgrade, Institute of General and Physical Chemistry, Studentski trg 12/V, Belgrade, Serbia

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

Article history: Every year in the EU alone, almost 90 million tonnes of food is lost. The sectors contributing the most to
Received 13 May 2019 this amount are households, accounting for 53% of total food waste. Bearing in mind the fact those two-
Revised 24 September 2019 thirds of this amount refers to the occurrence of waste which is theoretically avoidable, the greatest
Accepted 22 October 2019
attention should be paid to the generation of food waste in households. In Croatia, there is no data on
the quantities of food waste produced, but only estimates on the amount of such waste. The aim of this
research paper was to determine the type and amount of household food waste and the differences in
Keywords:
production of waste relative to the socio-demographic characteristics of household members. The
Prevention
Food waste
research was carried out by 115 Croatian households, who self-reported the amount of food waste during
Household seven days. According to the results, on average, 2.57 portions of food waste were reported as the amount
Socio-demographic characteristics of discarded food per household member per day, equivalent to 0.21 kg of food waste mass. In general,
the typical Croatian household generates 75 kg of food waste per person on average. The age of respon-
dents positively affected the prevention of waste, while the income level and the number of children
under the age of 18 in the household had an adverse impact.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Although food production is the main driver of global environ-
mental change, additionally one-third of the global food supply
gets lost or discarded every year (FAO, 2013). In the European
Union (EU) alone, almost 90 million tonnes of food are lost each
year, or 173 kg per person (FUSIONS, 2016). Despite the high level
of attention paid to this issue, there is still no reliable or compara-
ble data at the EU level on how much food gets discarded at differ-
ent stages of production, distribution and consumption, partly due
to mismatches in the defining of food waste, and partly because of
the different methodologies of monitoring and reporting of quanti-
ties (Vittuari et al., 2015). Moreover, the available literature neither
provides a uniform definition of food waste, nor is it in compliance
with the data on the amounts of waste generated at individual
stages of the food chain (Garrone et al., 2014; Møller et al. 2014,
Falasconi et al., 2015). One of the suggested definitions of food
waste was proposed by FUSIONS (2014) – an EU project with the
aim to establish the monitoring, tracking and reporting on food
waste for EU Member States according to this unique methodology.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nvoca@agr.hr (N. Voca).
‘‘Food waste is any food, and inedible parts of food, removed from
the food supply chain to be recovered or disposed of (including
composted, crops ploughed in/not harvested, anaerobic digestion,
bio-energy production, co-generation, incineration, disposal to
sewer, landfill or discarded at sea)”. When quantifying food waste,
it is important to understand that it cannot be avoided completely
because some parts are inedible. According to Quested and Johnson
(2009), food waste can be classified into three categories: avoid-
able, potentially avoidable and unavoidable food waste. The emer-
gence of unavoidable food waste cannot be affected, but the
quantities of the other two categories in total food waste can be
significantly reduced (Salhofer et al., 2008; Bernstad Saraiva
Schott and Cánovas, 2015). Food, aside from ending up in the gar-
bage or in drainage, can be served to pets and domestic animals, or
composted. Therefore, the total amount of waste generated in
households is almost immense (Ilakovac et al., 2018). In order to
provide an integrated approach to the food waste problem, it is
necessary to quantified food waste with reliable methods and
not to underestimate the actual quantities (Foresight, 2011). The
previous studies were focused on standardisation and improving
quantification methods (Thyberg et al., 2015; WRI, 2015;
Thyberg and Tonjes, 2016), although estimates are still variable
and differ in their definitions and methodologies (WRI, 2015).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.10.042
0956-053X/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
232 B. Ilakovac et al. / Waste Management 102 (2020) 231–240

There are several ways to quantify food waste, such as measure-
ment of composition, the use of questionnaires or diaries etc.,
which express the quantity of food waste in terms of mass. The
cost of food waste, the lost calories and the carbon footprint pro-
vide estimations on the economic, nutritional (mainly, social)
and environmental impact of food waste.
In developed countries, the household sector contributes the
most to total food waste (Godfray et al., 2010; FAO, 2011; Foley
et al., 2011; Monier et al., 2011; Grethe et al., 2011; FAOSTAT,
2013; Bräutigam et al., 2014; Garrone et al., 2014; Östergren
et al., 2014; Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; WRAP, 2015; WRI,
2015; Katsarova, 2016; Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2017). According
to the FAOSTAT estimation (FUSIONS, 2016), households in the EU
represent the largest sector of food waste production, accounting
for 53%, which is more than the manufacturing, processing, sales
and service sectors put together. The BCFN study (BCFN, 2012)
indicates the amount of household food waste per capita and year
for some European countries: 110 kg in Great Britain, 108 kg in
Italy, 99 kg in France, 82 kg in Germany, and 72 kg in Sweden. In
Croatia there is no exact data on the food wastage quantities in
individual sectors or in total, but only estimates on the amount
of this type of waste disposed in landfills as part of residual munic-
ipal waste, which amounts to 380,000 tonnes per year (CAEN,
2017).
According to report within the project ‘‘Improving a system for
data collection on Bio-waste and Food Waste” conducted by Croa-
tian Agency for the Environment and Nature it is estimated that
Croatian households generate around 75 kg per capita per year.
The report made by the private independent contractor presents
statistics on bio-waste and food waste generation based on data
from Environmental information systems (EIS) and utility
companies.
Bearing in mind the fact that two-thirds of this amount refers to
the occurrence of waste which is theoretically avoidable, the great-
est attention should be paid to the consumers. As Richards and
Hamilton (2018) point out, the discarding of food is a problem that
can be largely solved by educating consumers and changing their
drive when it comes to the generation of waste, while establishing
a disposal system for this type of waste. The establishment of an
efficient bio-waste management system, which includes food
waste, is a necessity for environmental protection, for the more
efficient use of resources, as well as for economic and social bene-
fits (Ribic et al, 2017).
In order to identify the factors related to the generation of food
waste at the consumer level, researchers tried to determine the
main drivers, motives and reasons behind wasting food in house-
holds. For example, previous research showed that the faction of
households with underage children generated the highest amount
of food waste (van Garde and Woodburn, 1987; Evans, 2011;
Parizeau et al., 2015).
To measure the amount of food waste, a number of different
methodologies were used in the published research, all of which
have some shortcomings – as Thyberg and Tonjes (2016) pointed
out. The authors explain that some approaches try to quantify
the amount of food waste disposed in residual municipal waste,
and other methods such as food waste diaries, photographs, qual-
itative research or interviews focus on the total amount of food
waste from certain sectors (e.g. households). Grainger et al.
(2018) state that due to the high costs of measuring household
food waste, most studies base their conclusions on self-
assessment of the quantities that are revealed through question-
naires. Photographs and in-home observations used in a few stud-
ies, can lead to the high costs of data handling because the coding
of these photographs is time-consuming (van Herpen et al., 2019).
Food waste can be measured by collection, sorting and measur-
ing by a third party, or sorting and measuring by the consumer
(Langley et al., 2010). Previous studies have evaluated household
food waste by the use of different methods such as keeping a food
waste diary, self-reporting through tables, self-collection, waste
composition analysis or in-home observation with photographs.
Each method for measuring food wastage has advantages and dis-
advantages and all of it may be subject to biases (van Herpen et al.,
2019). However, the most widely used methods in recent studies
are keeping a kitchen diary and self-reporting the amount of food
waste, as shown in Table 1.
The aim of this research paper was to determine the average
amount and type of waste from food produced in Croatian
households.

Table 1
Measurement methods used in previous pieces of research on household food waste.

Reference Country Sample Measurement

Methodology: Food waste diary
Ventour (2008) UK 1346 respondents Diary for 7 days
WRAP (2009a,b) UK 319 respondents Diary for 7 days
Langley et al. (2010) UK 33 respondents Diary for 7 days
Williams et al. (2012) Sweden 61 households Diary for 7 days
Koivupuro et al. (2012) Finland 380 respondents Diary for two weeks
Katajajuuri et al. (2014) Finland 1054 respondents Diary for two weeks
Silvennoinen et al. (2014) Finland 380 respondents Diary for two weeks
Richter and Bokelmann (2017) Germany 25 households Diary for 7 days
Methodology: Self-report; absolute/frequency
WRAP (2011) UK 492 respondents Self-reported bread waste
Setti et al. (2016) Italy 1403 respondents Frequency of food waste, monthly (5 product categories)
Visschers et al. (2016) Switzerland 796 respondents Frequency of disposal and the amount disposed (11 food groups)
Janssen et al. (2017) Netherlands 1167 respondents Frequency of waste, (combined with a proportional measure)
Ponis et al. (2017) Greece 500 households Volume of food waste, in total and for 6 types of food
Russell et al. (2017) UK 172 respondents Frequency of food waste (quantity food waste thrown out in a week)
Young et al. (2017) UK 2018 respondents Frequency of waste (9 product categories)
Diaz-Ruiz et al. (2018) Spain 418 respondents Amount of food thrown away in a week
Ghinea and Ghiuta (2018) Romania 100 respondents Estimated amount of weekly food waste, in grams
Schmidt and Matthies (2018) Germany 402 respondents Frequency of discarding in the past two weeks
Young et al. (2018) UK 61 respondents Nine product categories for which waste occurred in the past week
Falasconi et al. (2019) Italy 1201 respondents Estimation of the quantity of household food waste
 B. Ilakovac et al. / Waste Management 102 (2020) 231–240
2. Methodology
2.1. Preliminary research for the method selection
The three most relevant methods for the self-reported amount
of household food wastage commonly used in the available litera-
ture are weighing the quantity, quantity estimation, and self-
assessment of the quantities. All three methods were tested in
order to select the most convenient method for the respondents.
The preliminary research was carried out in the period from Jan-
uary to April 2017 on 15 families (five for each method) for 7 days
according to the choice of household. The respondents had to be
adult representatives of the households responsible for purchasing
and preparing food, and they received instructions on a detailed
list of types of food and food categories, as well as the definition
of food waste (FUSIONS, 2016), which is ‘‘all food fit for human
consumption not eaten by humans but discarded or composted;
in any case, food not used for human consumption”.
In Method 1, data on the amount of waste was obtained by the
weighing of discarded food and recording it in a diary. In Method 2,
the amount of waste was estimated by conclusion, whereby the
total amount of purchased and home-grown food was compared
with the amount of food actually consumed, and the difference
represented the food waste (Gallo, 1980). The alternative to mea-
suring and estimating was the method of self-assessment of the
amounts of discarded food (Abeliotis et al., 2014; Stefan et al.,
2013; WRAP, 2007). The household representative reported the
weekly amounts of discarded food per category, the unit of waste
amount being the size of the fist of an adult, as used in an earlier
piece of research (Visschers et al., 2016). The self-reported
amounts of food waste in this research included all three cate-
gories of food waste: avoidable food waste, potentially avoidable
food waste, and unavoidable food waste (Quested and Johnson,
2009). To make the process easier for the respondents, instructions
directed consumers to record the inedible part of the food in the
group from which the food originates. For example, banana peel
was included in the fruit fraction and the inedible part of the group
was mostly consisted of coffee and tea grounds, as well as egg
shells.
In the method of self-assessment of the amount of food waste,
the frequency of food waste was monitored for 12 different groups
Table 2
Food categories monitored in the preliminary research using the method of self-
assessment of the amount of food waste.
Food category Description
1. Fruit Fruit leftovers, unusable fruit due to spoilage
2. Vegetables Vegetables leftovers, unusable vegetables due to
spoilage
3. Processed fruit and Jam, compote, juices, conserved products
vegetables (including sweetcorn)
4. Potatoes and potato- Sprouted potato, potato peel, gnocchi
based products
5. Pasta and rice Including tortillas and various pasta types of
special kinds of cereals such as buckwheat
6. Meat and meat products Removed bad parts of the purchased meat,
including bone, skin, tainted meat products
(salami, pâté, cold meats, etc.)
7. Fish and fish products Bones, skin, rotten fresh fish and fish products
8. Milk and dairy products Including all processed products in which milk
is the main ingredient (plant or animal)
9. Bread and baked goods All kinds of bread and baked goods regardless of
(sweet and salty) the preparation method
10. Cakes and cookies Cakes, all sorts of pastries and biscuits,
regardless of the preparation method, sweets
11. Prepared and semi- Bagged salad, cut packaged fruit, all other
prepared meals prepared and semi-prepared meals
12. Other foods All that is not covered by the above categories
233
of food, and the food waste amount was reported every time food
was wasted (Table 2). The self-reported amount of food waste was
recorded in portions, and one portion was defined as one fist of an
average adult person.
This method has proven itself to be the most convenient for the
members of the household, given the fact that all five households
successfully carried out food waste-monitoring, which was not
the case with Methods 1 and 2, because some households aban-
doned the research due to the complexity of the methodology.
Therefore, Method 3 was selected for the main research as the
most user-friendly. The results of the preliminary research were
not included in the sample of the main research.
2.2. The main research
Data on the amounts of discarded food was collected in the per-
iod from May 2 to September 2, 2017 on a sample of 118 house-
holds in Croatia, which is 0.01% of the population. Potential
respondents were recruited using a business directory of research
companies, via the online social network platforms of environmen-
tal and nature protection associations, as well as consumer protec-
tion associations and Internet news portals. In the call for the
research, the research objective and the 7-day follow-up period
were listed in order to motivate potential participants to make
an application. If the participants were interested in participating,
they were to personally log in via an e-mail address that was
opened for research purposes. In the next step, potential respon-
dents were sent materials containing a self-assessment table of
food waste quantities generated in the household and detailed
written instructions. For any potential questions there was a help-
desk e-mail available to all respondents. Self-reported food waste
in this research included all three categories of food waste: avoid-
able, potentially avoidable and unavoidable food waste (Quested
and Johnson, 2009). The participation requirements that were
pointed out to the potential respondents were the following:
1. The participant of the research should be only one respondent
from each household that meets the following criteria: it is a
person over the age of 18 who is fully or considerably responsi-
ble for the purchase and preparation of food in the household.
2. For reliable estimates of the actual amounts of discarded food in
a household, the monitoring time must be an average week
(7 days); a special occasion within this period, such as a birth-
day or a similar celebration, may botch the research results.
3. The respondents select a 7-day research period on their own,
whereby it is not important that the monitoring begins on Mon-
day and ends on Sunday.
4. All respondents must accept the same food waste definition
previously defined for the preliminary research.
Possible reasons for discarding food were as follows: the food
product was spoiled, burnt, dropped on the floor, or discarded for
some other reason (e.g. it was past its expiration date and the con-
sumer no longer wanted to consume it), but this research has not
explored the reasons for wasting food. The respondents monitored
the flow of food waste in their households and recorded the quan-
tities and the frequency of discarding food for the 12 different food
groups described in Table 1. No drinks other than milk and yogurt
were included.
Apart from the self-reported amount of food waste, the house-
hold representative also filled in the questionnaire, by which the
following sociodemographic data was collected: the number and
gender of household members (number of adults, number of chil-
dren under the age of 18 in households), household incomes, per-
manent residence, the level of education of the respondents, and
whether consumers compost their food waste and use a bio-
234 B. Ilakovac et al. / Waste Management 102 (2020) 231–240

waste container, which indicates their pro-environmental habits,
as was stated in an earlier piece of research (Visschers et al.,
2016). Data on whether the respondents had an organised collec-
tion of bio-waste by a utility company was also collected.
An intentional sampling was chosen for the research with the
criteria for selecting the respondents being the following: family
type, number of children under the age of 18 in the household,
and education level. These are the parameters by which an earlier
piece of research (Hamilton et al., 2005; Brook Lyndhurst, 2007;
Parfitt et al., 2010; Silvennoinen et al., 2014, WasteMinz, 2015;
Parizeau et al., 2015) found to affect the amount of food waste.
In order to avoid the homogeneity of the sample, it was considered
that the respondents of different household structures and differ-
ent degrees of education, as well as the level of income, should
be represented in the research sample, and a non-proportional
quota sampling was used.
2.3. Data processing
Out of 118 respondents who participated in the research as
household representatives, three cases were rejected because the
respondents (in all cases single male households) reported that
they had not discarded anything for 7 days or did not enter a single
value in the offered 12 categories of discarded food because they
were identified as outliers. Thus, 115 households were included
in the data processing, with a total of 350 household members.
The first part of the analysis covered the quantitative calculation
of discarded food according to 11 defined categories with the addi-
waste by an authorised utility company (84.4%), and the majority
of respondents said they did not compost food leftovers from their
households (73.9%). The overall results of the research sample on
the discarded amounts are shown in Table 3.
The sample is not representative of all Croatian households. Due
to the method of sampling, the sample did not include enough par-
ticipants from the oldest age group, with only five over 60-year old
respondents in the entire sample, and the majority of the popula-
tion of Croatia belongs to that group (CBS, 2011). Likewise, the
sample is not balanced because of the domination of female
respondents with 74% and the current Croatian population is
48.1% male and 51.9% female (CBS, 2011). The average household
size in the sample reflects the average Croatian household, which
consisted of 2.8 people (CBS, 2011).
The research monitored the total waste flow, which consisted of
avoidable and unavoidable waste. Of the total number of discarded
portions of food during the seven day-period (5246) in all 115
households, the weekly amount of food waste per household in
portions (45.62 ± 31.62 portions) was calculated, as well as the
daily amount of total discarded food in all categories per household
in portions (6.52 ± 4.52 portions). Based on this data, the average
amount of discarded food was calculated per household and per
person. According to the results, on average, 17.98 portions were
reported as the amount of discarded food per household per week,
Table 3
Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample.

tional category ‘‘other foods”. For the amount of discarded food in Characteristics of the respondents N %
portions, the first step was to calculate the volume of each category Gender Male 30 26.0
in g/cm3 using an online application containing nutrient and food Female 85 74.0
density based on the Food Composition Database of the Ministry Age group 18–29 12 10.4
of Agriculture of the United States, and the Food Density Database 30–45 72 62.6
of the FAO (2012). As the weight of an average portion of food 46–60 26 22.6
waste was defined as 250 g, the density factor obtained by conver- 60+ 5 4.4

sion was multiplied by the weight of the portion, and the mass of Education Grade school 5 4.4
the discarded food for each category was calculated. This method High school 34 29.6
College/Bachelor’s 69 60.0
of calculation was used because there is no established and Degree
accepted methodology in the available literature which would con- Master’s degree/ 7 6.0
vert portions into mass in one step. The Spearman’s rank correla- PhD
tion coefficients between sociodemographic characteristics and Number of household members 1 21 18.3
the amount of food waste were calculated in order to test 2 22 19.1
multicollinearity. 3 22 19.1
4 36 31.3
5 11 9.6
3. Results and discussion More than 5 3 2.6
Number of adults in household 1 25 21.7
The majority of 115 respondents participating in the research 2 61 53.0
3 13 11.3
were female (74%) compared to male respondents (26%). The high- 4 11 9.6
est proportion represented respondents aged 30–45 (62.6%), and 5 5 4.4
the smallest proportion were persons over 60 years of age (4.4%). Number of children under 18 years of age 0 57 49.6
The majority of the respondents were those with a college or bach- in household 1 27 23.5
elor’s degree, (60.0%), and the smallest proportion of the respon- 2 25 21.7
dents had completed only grade school (4.4%). Within the 3 6 5.2
sample, the most frequent respondents were those with four Income per Household 6500€ or less 6 5.2
household members (31.3%), as well as those with one, two or 6500–16,000€ 46 40.0
16,000€ or more 63 54.8
three household members (18.3, 19.1 and 19.1%). The most com-
mon household in the research contained two adults (53.0%). The Residential unit Apartment 69 60.0
House 46 40.0
highest number of households were without children (49.6%) and
the same number of households was with one or two children Dwelling* Urban 100 87.0
Rural 15 13.0
(23.5 and 21.7%), while the lowest proportion represented the
households with three children (5.2%). The most common annual Organized collection of bio-waste Yes 18 15.6
No 97 84.4
household income level was 16.000€ or more (54.8%). The prevail-
ing residential unit in the research was an apartment (60.0%) and Composting Yes 30 26.1
No 85 73.9
urban dwelling (87.0%). In the research, most of the respondents
*
had no services for the organised collection and transport of bio- According to the Croatian Bureau of Statistics (CBS), 2011.
 B. Ilakovac et al. / Waste Management 102 (2020) 231–240
equivalent to 2.57 portions per household member per day
(Table 4). By conversion to mass, according to the density factors
for each food product and each meal, the total average daily value
of discarded food per household member was 0.21 kg (Table 4).
The results of very similar research which was carried out on
Swiss households (Visschers et al., 2016) indicated smaller
amounts of food waste, on average, 5.33 portions per household
per week, equivalent to 2.56 portions per household member per
week, or 0.37 portions daily. The difference between the results
of this research paper and the Swiss research paper can partly refer
to the type of food waste that was monitored because the focus of
the Swiss research paper was only the avoidable food waste and
this research paper considers both the avoidable and unavoidable
waste together.
Other research carried out in different countries shows mostly
larger amounts of food waste at the household level, but there
are also several cases in which the situation is the opposite. Thus,
in the research conducted by Conrad et al. (2018), which included a
sample of 35,507 American respondents, from 2007 to 2014, con-
sumers wasted an average of 422 g of food per person per day.
However, in the research conducted by Buzby et al. (2014) the
average American wasted a larger amount of food in 2010,
194.5 kg per year, or 530 g per day.
During a two-week research on 380 Finnish households,
Silvennoinen et al. (2014), it was established that consumers gen-
erated a total of 882 kg of avoidable food waste. The average
household wasted 2.3 kg of food or 837 g per person. The data
extrapolated on an annual basis indicated that the average food
waste that is theoretically avoidable amounts to an average of
23 kg per capita per year. According to estimates in Swedish
households, about 771,000 tons of food waste was generated in
2012, equivalent to just under 81 kg per person (Swedish EPA,
2014).
A piece of online research on avoidable food waste carried out
by two European research centres in Italy and Germany showed
that there are no major differences between Italian and German
consumers (Jörissen et al., 2015). The average value of waste was
140 g per person per week in Germany, and 127 g per person per
week in Italy. As the authors themselves stated (Jörissen et al.,
2015), the amounts of food waste calculated on the basis of their
research are very small compared to the amounts estimated in
the previous BIOIS research (Monier et al., 2011), and the differ-
ences cannot be adequately explained by the fact that the BIOIS fig-
ures also contain inedible parts of food items that were excluded
from the survey carried out by Jörissen and associates. According
to Jörissen et al. (2015), other research based on kitchen diaries
or waste composition analyses also indicates higher waste rates.
However, all of the results mentioned above are difficult to com-
pare, because different methods for measuring the amount of
waste have been used in previous research, and it is also expected
that daily diets and daily food intake vary considerably around the
world.
Table 4
Amount of food waste in portions and mass.
Total food waste Portion Mass (kg)
(number)
Total amount of food waste per week for all 115 5246 419.34
households
Weekly amount of food waste per household 45.62 ± 31.62 3.64 ± 2.52
Daily amount of food waste per household 6.52 ± 4.52 0.52 ± 0.36
Average weekly amount of food waste per 17.98 ± 13.47 1.44 ± 1.08
household member
Average daily amount of food waste per 2.57 ± 1.92 0.21 ± 0.15
household member
235
Available research shows that there are large discrepancies
between the amount of food waste that is calculated on the basis
of statistical data on food supply or municipal solid waste, and
the amount of food waste that is monitored and measured in sur-
veys at household levels. Therefore, for the purpose of the more
accurate determination of quantities, it is necessary to improve
the methods for collecting and processing statistical data, to more
clearly distinguish the types of food waste, but also to harmonise
the definitions of concepts comprised by food waste, which implies
food loss and food waste.
3.1. Composition of food waste
The number of respondents who reported that they did not dis-
card certain categories of food is relatively high, for example, for
cakes, prepared meals, processed fruit and vegetables and fish.
On the other hand, only a few respondents reported that they
did not discard any fruit or vegetables at all. In the absence of addi-
tional information on preferences for certain categories of food,
this finding may be attributed to the dietary habits of the respon-
dents, i.e. it is possible that some respondents do not even con-
sume fruit and vegetables, because otherwise, the table would
contain at least the inedible parts of fruit and vegetables at the
minimum. In addition, the high degree of avoiding the discarding
of cakes, prepared meals, fruit and vegetable products can be partly
explained by the food preferences of the respondents, and partly by
the higher market price of these meals and food items (cakes, pre-
pared meals, fish), meaning that the respondents are reluctant to
discard such food items for financial reasons. In eight categories
(all categories except fruit and vegetables, fish, prepared meals
and inedible parts), between a quarter of a portion and five por-
tions per week are usually discarded, which is under one portion
per day on average.
At the household and household member level, fruit and veg-
etables were often discarded, while cakes and biscuits as well as
processed fruit and vegetables were discarded the least. Almost
half of the total amount of waste consists of fruit and vegetables
(46%), as well as of inedible parts of food such as egg shells, tea
leaves and coffee grounds that belong to the category ‘‘other foods”
(12%), of bread and baked goods (9%), potatoes (8%), meat (7%),
while the smallest proportion consists of pasta and rice, milk and
dairy products (4% each), fish and prepared meals (3% each), cakes
and biscuits and processed fruit and vegetables (2% each). The pro-
portion of individual food categories making up this waste is
graphically shown in Fig. 1.
Similar findings on the composition of food waste generated in
households were also confirmed by previous quantitative research
carried out in various countries (WRAP, 2009a,b, 2013;
Silvennoinen et al., 2014, Buzby et al., 2014, Jörissen et al., 2015,
WasteMINZ, 2015, Setti et al., 2016, Visschers et al., 2016, Conrad
et al., 2018), because the categories of food that make up the lar-
gest share in total waste are vegetables and/or fruit.
Consumer research in the UK, carried out within the project
conducted by WRAP, showed that products that need to be refrig-
erated, including fresh/raw meat and fish, prepared meals, dairy
products, fruit and vegetables, and previously prepared food con-
tributed the most to the generation of food waste. The research
conducted in 2007 (WRAP, 2009a,b) indicated that almost a quar-
ter of total food waste by mass is made up of fresh vegetables,
drinks (16%), fresh fruit (13%) and baked goods (10%). Prepared
and semi-prepared meals (8%), meat and fish, dairy products and
eggs (7% each) represent a lower proportion of waste, while the
category ‘all other foods’ amounts to 16% of the total amount of
waste. In the renewed research that WRAP conducted in 2011, it
turned out that the level of food and drink in avoidable household
food waste has decreased significantly since 2007, by 21%. The big-
236 B. Ilakovac et al. / Waste Management 102 (2020) 231–240

Fruit and vegetable-based products 2%

Cakes and biscuits 2%

Prepared meals 3%

Fish 3%

Pasta and rice 4%

Milk and dairy products 4%

Meat 7%

Potato 8%

Bread and buns 9%

Inedible parts 12%

Vegetables 23%

Fruit 23%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Fig. 1. Proportion of individual categories of food waste in households.

gest contribution to the food waste by mass was fresh vegetables mass was fresh vegetables (28%), out of which 14% was avoidable
and salads (19%), drinks (17%), baked goods (11%), as well as pre- waste, i.e. edible parts. The next most frequent category was fresh
pared meals and dairy products and eggs (10% each) (WRAP, 2013). fruit (24%), with a share of 9% of avoidable waste. Meat and fish
A piece of research conducted on Finnish households, made up 14% of that waste, whereby more than half of this cate-
Silvennoinen et al. (2014), found that various food categories were gory was impossible to avoid (mostly bones and seashells). Baking
discarded: mostly vegetables (19%), cooked meals (18%), dairy products made up 9% of the total waste, and 6% consisted of meal
products (17%), bakery and cereal products (13%), as well as fruit leftovers from households that could have been consumed. The
(13%). Meat, fish and eggs (7%), prepared and semi-prepared meals unavoidable parts of the category drinks were tea bags and coffee
(6%), and canned food (2.5%) were seldom discarded. Comparative grounds (3% of total waste) and egg shells (1.6%). Other categories
research of avoidable food waste generated by Italian and German of household waste that could have been consumed were made up
consumers showed that there was no major difference between of prepared meals (2%), food items for food preparation (2%),
them (Jörissen et al., 2015). In both countries, the highest percent- snacks (1.8%), and desserts (1%).
age (more than 40%) of edible food that was discarded occasionally
or often related to fruit, vegetables, bread and cheese. Relatively
3.2. Influence of sociodemographic characteristics on food waste
higher percentages in Italy compared to Germany were related to
beans/seeds, eggs, milk and vegetables, and relatively lower per-
Regarding the correlation of sociodemographic characteristics
centages were related to bread. The results of a piece of research
and the amounts of food waste shown in Table 5, only the age of
carried out on Italian consumers by Setti et al. (2016) indicated
the respondents is negatively and significantly correlated to food
that half of the households discarded fresh vegetables and fruit
waste (b = 0.37 p < 0.01), while the other variables that are signif-
the most, while they almost never discarded yogurt, cheese and
icantly negative are: household income level (b = 0.28 p < 0.05),
fresh bread. In a piece of research conducted by Visschers et al.
the number of children under the age of 18 in the household
(2016), it was established that Swiss consumers discarded baked
(b = 0.31 p < 0.05), while the variable is the number of household
goods as well as fruit and vegetables the most, while prepared
members (b = 0.33 p < 0.01). According to these findings, the cor-
meals were discarded the least frequently.
relation between age and food waste suggests that older respon-
A piece of US Consumer research (Buzby et al., 2014) found that
dents tend to discard less food, and the possible reasons for such
the most commonly discarded groups of food were vegetables
a practice are numerous. The elderly are not prone to stockpiling
(19%), dairy products (19.1%), fruit (18.4%), cereals (13.9%), sweet-
food or excessive purchases. Having more free time, most of them
eners (12.6%), meat, poultry and fish (11.5%), fats and oils (7.5%),
are able to purchase food every day and always prepare fresh
eggs (2.1%), and nuts (0.4%). A piece of research carried out by
foods. Also, due to their potential wealth of experience, it is possi-
Conrad et al. (2018) found similar results; in this piece of research,
ble that they know how to estimate portion size more precisely.
American consumers mostly discarded fruit and vegetables as well
Furthermore, because of their limited financial resources, it is more
as mixed fruit and vegetable meals (38.9%), then milk (17.1%), meat
likely that they do not eat outside of their home, and that their
(13.5%), and cereals (12.1%). The remaining food categories
meals are prepared in the household and are also well planned.
amounted to<10% of total food waste, and they consisted of candy,
But there is one limitation to this piece of research that should
soft drinks and other beverages (5.8%), salty snacks (3.7%), soup
be mentioned. There were only five respondents above the age of
(2.8%), potatoes and potato-based meals (2%), nuts and seeds
60 in the sample, which was not a statistically significant group
(1.4%), Mexican dishes (1.3%), eggs (0.7%), and cooking oils and
(4.4%). This limitation was encountered also by Koivupuro et al.
salad dressing (0.5%).
(2012), who could not determine the correlation between age
Within a piece of research conducted by WasteMINZ (2015)
and food waste, since elderly people (persons aged 65 and above)
across New Zealand, solid municipal waste from a total of 1402
were barely represented in the sample. However, a piece of
households was collected and weighed. The piece of research
research conducted on much larger and more representative sam-
found that about 229,022 tonnes of food waste were collected
ples reveals that elderly people were the least likely to discard food
per year from household containers. The largest food group by
(Brook Lyndhurst, 2007; Monier et al., 2011; Quested et al., 2013;
 B. Ilakovac et al. / Waste Management 102 (2020) 231–240 237

Table 5
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (N = 115).

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
** ** ** ** **
1. – n/s 0.74 n/s 0.32 0.19* 0.22* 0.45 0.45 n/s 0.36 n/s
2. – 0.69** n/s n/s n/s 0.29** n/s 0.21* n/s n/s 0.31*
3. – n/s n/s n/s n/s 0.35** 0.47** n/s 0.23* 0.33**
4. – n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s n/s
5. – n/s n/s n/s 0.22* 0.19* n/s 0.37**
6. – n/s 0.21* n/s n/s 0.19* n/s
7. – 0.26** n/s n/s 0.23* 0.28*
8. – 0.42** n/s 0.30** n/s
9. – n/s 0.32** n/s
10. – 0.34** n/s
11. n/s

Legend: 1 Number of adults; 2. Number of children; 3. Number of household members; 4. Gender of respondent; 5. Age of respondent; 6. Education of respondent; 7.
Household income level; 8. Dwelling (urban/rural); 9. Residential unit (apartment/house); 10. Separation of bio-waste; 11. Composting; 12. Amount of food waste.
n/s – not statistically significant.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.

Stancu et al., 2016). Respondents in this research who were repre-
sentatives of lower income households discarded, as expected, less
food, because to them buying food represented a significant finan-
cial cost and they could not afford to discard it (b = 0.28 p < 0.05).
Previous research confirms these findings (Baker et al., 2009;
Parizeau et al., 2015; Stancu et al., 2016). In addition, in previously
conducted research, households with children under the age of 18
discarded more food than households without children or with
adult children (Brook Lyndhurst, 2007; Evans, 2011; Jörissen
et al., 2015; Parizeau et al., 2015; Visschers et al., 2016), while in
this piece of research a greater amount of discarded food was con-
firmed in households with multiple members.
Other sociodemographic characteristics in this research, such as
the gender of respondents and their education level, the number of
adults, the dwelling and residential units, were not related to the
avoidance of discarding food; the same goes for ecological habits,
the separation of bio-waste and the composting of food leftovers.
On the other hand, other authors (Koivupuro et al., 2012;
Silvennoinen et al., 2014; Jörissen et al., 2015; Parizeau et al.,
2015; Stancu et al., 2016) identified a clear correlation between
the number of persons in the household and generation of waste,
as in larger households more food was discarded. The results of
the research carried out by Visschers et al. (2016) found that
female respondents discarded more food than male respondents,
and the significant role of gender in the emergence of food waste
was also indicated in the research carried out by Koivupuro et al.
(2012), according to which, the amount of food waste was signifi-
cantly higher in households where women were mostly responsi-
ble for buying food. However, similar to the findings of this
research, in the previous research papers (Koivupuro et al., 2012;
Silvennoinen et al., 2014), neither the level of education, dwelling,
nor classification or the composting of waste (Silvennoinen et al.,
2014) were statistically significant in correlation to food waste.
Regarding the separation of bio-waste, it was established that
there is only a correlation with the age of respondents (b = 0.19
p < 0.05) and households composting at home (b = 0.34 p < 0.01).
However, composting was negatively correlated to the number of
adults in the household (b = 0.36 p < 0.01), the number of house-
hold members (b = 0.23 p < 0.05), the dwelling (b = 0.30
p < 0.01) and the residential unit (b = 0.32 p < 0.01); it was only
positively correlated to the education level of respondents
(b = 0.19 p < 0.05). Other variables are not correlated to the sepa-
rate collection of bio-waste and composting.
Spearman’s rank correlation between sociodemographic char-
acteristics and food waste is shown in Table 6. According to the
categories of discarded food, a higher number of adults in house-
holds is positively correlated to higher amounts of the waste of
potato (b = 0.25 p < 0.01), meat (b = 0.29 p < 0.01) and unavoidable
waste monitored in the category ‘other foods’ (b = 0.25 p < 0.01),
and slightly less, and positively correlated to the waste of bread
(b = 0.21 p < 0.05). This indicates that adults, unlike children, are
likely to discard meat, potatoes, unavoidable food waste and bread.
By increasing the number of adults in the household, the amount of
discarded meat increased the most, which can be explained by the
fact that the diet of adults consists of larger amounts of this food
category, which obviously leads to the wasting of larger quantities
of meat. The next category of food, the discarded amounts of which
significantly increase when the number of adults increases, are
potatoes and potato-based products. Similarly, Visschers et al.
(2016) found that households with more than two adults threw
away more starch-based products. Moreover, the number of adults
in households increases parallel to the amount of waste of food in
the category ‘other foods’. As the respondents themselves stated,
regarding the content of this category, it was found that this was
unavoidable food waste, which consisted of egg shells, coffee
grounds, tea bags and tea leaves, fruit and vegetable peels, meat
skin and bones, and other inedible parts of food items. The number
of adults has a significant impact on the larger amount of waste
from this group, since adults consume coffee or tea regularly and
are obviously more likely to consume animal-based food contain-
ing inedible parts. Bread and baked goods are a category in which
was somewhat less waste, but is still significantly increased along-
side the increase of adults in the households. This can be explained
by the specific trend of households with adults oriented towards
always having a certain amount of fresh bread available. Addition-
ally, according to the research conducted by Visschers et al. (2016),
households containing more than two adults wasted more baked
goods.
The number of children in households is positively and strongly
related to the discarding of pasta and rice (b = 0.40 p < 0.01), as
well as milk and dairy products (b = 0.31 p < 0.01), and less to
the discarding of bread and baked goods (b = 0.24 p < 0.05), pro-
cessed fruit and vegetables (b = 0.22 p < 0.05), potatoes and
potato-based products (b = 0.21 p < 0.05), cakes and biscuits
(b = 0.20 p < 0.05) and meat (b = 0.20 p < 0.05). This result confirms
that the presence of children in households inevitably contributes
to the generation of more waste of different food categories. Fur-
thermore, this finding may be explained by the fact that children
are more likely to eat starch-based food (e.g. bread, grains or cere-
als) and dairy products (e.g. milk, plain or flavoured yoghurt) (Baric
et al., 2001), but as the eating habits of children are difficult to fore-
see, this may result in an increased volume of waste in these food
groups. In addition, it may be that products intended exclusively
for child nutrition are not consumed by adults in the household,
238 B. Ilakovac et al. / Waste Management 102 (2020) 231–240

so they will be discarded if a child rejects them. Other categories of

Inedible parts
foods that were discarded in larger quantities in households with
children, such as bread and baked goods, fruit and vegetable prod-
ucts, potatoes and potato-based products, cakes and biscuits and
0.25**
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
meat may also be a consequence of such a situation where it was
impossible to predict the exact portion size for a child. The results
Prepared meals

show considerable consistency with the results of the research car-

ried out by Visschers et al. (2016), where children in households
were associated with more waste from fruit and vegetables, meat
and fish, as well as potatoes and rice. Additionally, an earlier piece
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
of research showed that children can be picky eaters when it
comes to fruit, vegetables and meat (Dubois et al., 2006).
Cakes and biscuits

The size of the household is significantly related to the discard-

ing of meat (b = 0.34 p < 0.01), potatoes and potato-based products
(b = 0.32 p < 0.01), bread and baked goods (b = 0.31 p < 0.01), pasta
0.32**

and rice (b = 0.29 p < 0.01), and less to the discarding of cakes and
0.21*
0.20*
n/s

n/s
n/s
n/s

n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s

biscuits (b = 0.21 p < 0.05) and fish (b = 0.18 p < 0.05). This finding
confirmed what earlier research had found: larger households pro-
Bread and buns

duced more food waste in various categories (Visschers et al.,

2016). As pasta, rice and potatoes are usually side dishes, it is pos-
sible that too much of this type of food was prepared in larger
0.31**
0.21*
0.24*

0.28*
0.20*

households due to a wrong estimation, which resulted in them

n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s

n/s
n/s

being discarded. In addition, bread is often an integral part of each

meal in households, and many respondents always want to have
dairy products

enough bread available, but also like to have fresh bread each
Milk and

day, which leads to the waste of bread. The weaker correlation

0.31**

0.28**

between the size of the household and the discarded quantity of

0.20*
n/s

n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s

n/s

n/s
n/s

food products in the categories cakes and biscuits and fish can be
explained by the higher market value of these food items on the
0.21**

one hand, but also by the desire to accommodate all members of

0.18*

0.20*
Fish

n/s
n/s

n/s
n/s
n/s

n/s
n/s

n/s

the household with different dietary preferences on the other

hand. In this regard, one can also explain the finding that the level
0.22**
0.22**
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between sociodemographic characteristic and food waste categories (N = 115).

of household income is strongly positively associated with the dis-

0.29**

0.34**

0.22**
0.20*
Meat

n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s

carding of cakes and biscuits (b = 0.32 p < 0.01) and of milk and
dairy products (b = 0.28 p < 0.01), and less positively associated
Pasta and

with the discarding of pasta and rice (b = 0.21 p < 0.05) and fish
0.24**

(b = 0.20 p < 0.05). Respondents who have higher purchasing

0.29**

0.27**
0.40**

0.21*
0.21*
rice

n/s

n/s
n/s

n/s
n/s

power due to higher incomes can afford a greater choice and more
expensive food, but sometimes the desire for abundance results in
Potatoes

discarding uneaten items of food from these categories.

0.32**
0.25**

0.32**

0.25**
0.32**
0.21*

Rural dwelling is significantly correlated with the wasting of

n/s
n/s

n/s

n/s
n/s

potatoes (b = 0.25 p < 0.01), and less positively correlated with

the wasting of bread and baked goods (b = 0.28 p < 0.05) as well
vegetable-based

as pasta and rice (b = 0.21 p < 0.05). This finding can be explained
by the assumption that rural households grow potatoes, and it is
Fruit and

products

possible that potatoes are therefore available to them in larger

0.22*

quantities and are part of most of their meals. It is also possible

n/s

n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s

that food that is home-grown has no market value for the respon-
Vegetables

dents as is the case with purchased food, and its waste is not trea-
ted as a financial loss. In addition, it may be that these households
0.23*

consume more bread and buns as well as pasta and rice, and con-
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s

n/s

sequently they waste more of that food, but such a correlation

could not be established by this research.
Fruit

n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s

Several sociodemographic factors are not related to the wasting

of certain food categories in a clear way. Thus, the higher level of
Residential unit (apartment/house)

education of the respondents significantly correlates with the

Number of children under age 18
Number of household members

waste of potatoes (b = 0.32 p < 0.01) and of pasta and rice

n/s – not statistically significant.

(b = 0.24 p < 0.01). It is possible that more educated respondents

Education of respondent

Separation of bio-waste

consume less starch-based products because of their negative

Dwelling (urban/rural)
Gender of respondent

impact on health or body weight, and they are therefore less likely
Household income
Age of respondent
Number of adults

to be wasted, but evidence for such a presumption was not sought

in this research. In addition, a house as a residential unit is signif-
Composting

icantly correlated with the waste of potatoes (b = 0.32 p < 0.01) and
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.

pasta and rice (b = 0.27 p < 0.01), and is slightly less positive in
Table 6

relation to the discarding of meat (b = 0.22 p < 0.05), bread and

*

**

buns (b = 0.20 p < 0.05) as well as milk and dairy products

 B. Ilakovac et al. / Waste Management 102 (2020) 231–240
(b = 0.20 p < 0.05). Gender, age, separating of bio-waste and the
composting do not appear to have any significant correlation with
any category of food waste.
4. Conclusion
The research found that Croatian households produce 75 kg of
food waste per capita per year on average, which is lower than
the European average, which is 92 kg. Among the sociodemo-
graphic characteristics, only age has a positive impact on the
decrease of food waste in households, while the household income
level and the number of children younger than 18 years of age in
households have a negative impact. Other sociodemographic char-
acteristics were not associated with the avoidance of food wastage
in this piece of research. According to the categories of discarded
food, a greater number of adults in a household is related to a lar-
ger amount of waste from potatoes and meat as well as unavoid-
able waste; this factor is also remotely and more positively
related to the discarding of bread. Households with more children
discarded more pasta and rice as well as milk and dairy products,
while larger households generated more waste from meat, pota-
toes, bread and buns, as well as pasta and rice. The more educated
respondents discarded less potatoes, pasta and rice, while there
was no significant relation when it comes to other food categories.
In households with higher incomes an increased waste of cakes
and biscuits, as well as milk and dairy products was recorded. Gen-
der, age, ecological habits, the separation of bio-waste and com-
posting food leftovers do not show significant relation to any
category of food waste.
Current research show that the self-reported method is suitable
for gathering information about food waste quantities in house-
holds. It is relatively low budget and requires minimal effort ofrom
respondents, especially when frequency measures are applied, in
which respondent indicate how often different food is wasted
and in what amount it is wasted.
A specific limitation in the current research needs to be
addressed. The operationalisation of the used method and the rel-
atively short period of monitoring could disfigure results, regard-
ing the exact amounts of wasted food and taking into account a
seasonal diet (spring and summer). Therefore, for more accurate
findings, the research should be repeated in different season
(summer-winter). The self-reported survey may underestimate
the amount of real food waste amount because respondents tend
to act in a more socially desirable manner. Therefore, future
research should validate or combine the self-report measure with
more objective estimates of food wastage, such as the collection,
sorting and measuring of the household food waste by a third
party, or sorting and measuring by the consumers themselves.
A point of consideration is also the representativeness of the
sample. Average household size in the sample was similar to that
in the population, but women were overrepresented in the sample.
However, this is not relevant for the research because the level of
food waste was measured at the household level. Due to the
method of sampling, the sample did not include enough partici-
pants from the oldest age group, as there were only five respon-
dents who were over the age of 60 in the entire sample. Since
the older people were wasting significantly less than all others
age groups, this should not disrupt the results. In any case there
is a need to identify groups of consumers who tend to waste more
food, and this should be investigated more precisely in future
research.
The results of this research on the quantities of household food
waste, together with findings on the influences of several sociode-
mographic factors on the amount and groups of wasted food, are
useful for understanding consumer behaviour in connection with
239
discarding food and planning national food waste reduction activ-
ities. Although the obtained data provided useful information
about the amount of food waste in Croatian households, this
research should be recognised as a mere study on this matter in
the Republic of Croatia. For conclusive evidence on why some
sociodemographic factors correlate with the amount and groups
of food waste, there is a need for the collection and analysis of
more data on the characteristics and behaviour of households
and this should be considered as an important topic for further
research.
References
Abeliotis, K., Lasaridi, K., Chroni, C., 2014. Attitudes and behaviour of Greek
households regarding food waste prevention. Waste Manage. Res. 32 (3), 237–
240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X14521681.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T., Gustavsson, J., 2015.
Consumers and food waste – a review of research approaches and findings on
point of purchase and in-household consumer behaviour. Paper Prepared for
Presentation at the EAAE-AAEA Joint Seminar ‘‘Consumer Behavior in a
Changing World: Food, Culture, Society”, March 25 to 27, 2015, Naples, Italy.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I., Rohm, H., Normann, A., Bonzanini, Bossle M.,
Grønhøj, A., Oostindjer, M., 2017. Key characteristics and success factors of
supply chain initiatives tackling consumer-related food waste – a multiple case
study. J. Clean. Prod. 155 (2), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.11.173.
Baker, D., Fear, J., Denniss, R., 2009. What a Waste: An Analysis of Household
Expenditure on Food. The Australia Institute, Canberra, Australia.
Baric, I.C., Cvjetic, S., Satalic, Z., 2001. Dietary Intakes among Croatian
Schoolchildren and Adolescents. Nutrit. Health 15 (2), 127–138. https://doi.
org/10.1177/026010600101500206.
BCFN, 2012. Food Waste: Causes, Impacts and Proposals. Barilla Center for Food and
Nutrition, Parma, Italy.
Bernstad Saraiva Schott, A., Cánovas, A., 2015. Current practice, challenges and
potential methodological improvements in environmental evaluations of food
waste prevention – a discussion paper. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 101, 132–142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.004.
Bräutigam, K.-R., Jörissen, J., Priefer, C., 2014. The extent of food waste generation
across EU-27: different calculation methods and the reliability of their results.
Waste Manage. Res. 32 (8), 683–694. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242X14545374.
Brook Lyndhurst, 2007. Food Behaviour Consumer Research – Findings from the
Quantitative Survey Briefing Paper. WRAP, Banbury, UK.
Buzby, J.C., Hodan, F.W., Jeffrey, H., 2014. The Estimated Amount, Value, and
Calories of Postharvest Food Losses at the Retail and Consumer Levels in the
United States. EIB-121. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
Washington D.C., USA.
Conrad, Z., Niles, M.T., Neher, D.A., Roy, E.D., Tichenor, N.E., Jahns, L., 2018.
Relationship between food waste, diet quality, and environmental
sustainability. PLoS ONE 13 (4), e0195405. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0195405.
Croatian Agency for Environmental and Nature, 2017. Report of Municipal Solid
Waste for 2016. Zagreb, Croatia.
Croatian Bureau of Statistics, 2011. The Model for the Differentiation of Urban, Rural
and Semi-Urban Settlements in the Republic of Croatia. Methodological
Guidelines, Zagreb, Croatia.
Diaz-Ruiz, R., Costa-Font, M., Gil, J.M., 2018. Moving ahead from food-related
behaviours: an alternative approach to understand household food waste
generation. J. Cleaner Prod. 172, 1140–1151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.10.148.
Dubois, L., Farmer, A., Girard, M., Porcherie, M., 2006. Family food insufficiency is
related to overweight among pre-schoolers. Soc. Sci. Med. 63 (6), 1503–1516.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.04.002.
Evans, D., 2011. Blaming the consumer—once again: the social and material
contexts of everyday food waste practices in some English households. Crit.
Public Health. 21 (4), 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09581596.2011.608797.
Falasconi, L., Vittuari, M., Politano, A., Segrè, A., 2015. Food waste in school catering:
an Italian case study. Sustainability 7 (11), 14745–14760. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su71114745.
Falasconi, L., Cicatiello, C., Franco, S., Segrè, A., Setti, M., Vittuari, M., 2019. Such a
shame! A study on self-perception of household food waste. Sustainability 11,
270–282. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010270.
Food and Agriculture Organisation – FAO, 2011. Global Food Losses and Food
Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
Food and Agriculture Organisation – FAO, 2012. FAO/INFOODS Density Database
Version 2.0. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),
Rome, Italy.
Food and Agriculture Organisation – FAO, 2013. Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts
on Natural Resources. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO), Rome, Italy.
240 B. Ilakovac et al. / Waste Management 102 (2020) 231–240
FAOSTAT, 2013. Food Balance Sheets for 42 Selected Countries (and Updated
Regional Aggregates). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Statistics Division (FAOSTAT), Rome, Italy http://faostat3.fao.org/download/FB/
FBS/E.
Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M.,
Mueller, N.D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D.K., West, P.C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E.M.,
Stephen, R., Carpenter, S.R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J.,
Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., Tilman, D., Zaks, D.P.M., 2011. Solutions for a cultivated
planet. Nature 478, 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452.
Foresight, 2011. The Future of Food and Farming: challenges and choices for global
sustainability Final Project Report. The Government Office for Science, London,
UK.
FUSIONS, 2014. Fusion Definitional Framework for Food Waste Full Report. SIK –
The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Göteborg, Sweden.
FUSIONS, 2016. Estimates of European Food Waste Levels. Reducing Food Waste
through Social Innovation. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute,
Stockholm, Sweden.
Gallo, A.E., 1980. Consumer Food Waste in the United States. National Food Review.
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.,
pp. 13–16.
Garrone, P., Melacini, M., Perego, A., 2014. Surplus food recovery and donation in
Italy: the upstream process. Br. Food J. 116 (9), 1460–1477. https://doi.org/
10.1108/BFJ-02-2014-0076.
Ghinea, C., Ghiuta, O.A., 2018. Household food waste generation: young consumers
behaviour, habits and attitudes. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech., 1–16 https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13762-018-1853-1.
Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F.,
Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M., Toulmin, C., 2010. Food security: the
challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327 (5967), 812–818. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.1185383.
Grainger, M.J., Aramyan, L., Piras, S., Quested, T.E., Righi, S., Setti, M., Vittuari, M.,
Stewart, G.B., 2018. Model selection and averaging in the assessment of the
drivers of household food waste to reduce the probability of false positives.
PLoS ONE 13 (2), e0192075. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192075.
Grethe, H., Dembélé, A., Duman, N., 2011. How to Feed the World’s Growing Billions.
Understanding FAO World Food Projections and their Implications. Heinrich
Böll Stiftung und WWF Deutschland, Berlin, Germany.
Hamilton, C., Denniss, R., Baker, D., 2005. Wasteful Consumption in Australia. The
Australia Institute, Canberra, Australia.
Ilakovac, B., Ilickovic, M., Voca, N., 2018. Food waste drivers in Croatian households.
J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 19 (3), 678–709. https://doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/19.3.1994.
Janssen, A.M., Nijenhuis-de, Vries M., Boer, E.P.J., Kremer, S., 2017. Fresh, frozen, or
ambient food equivalents and their impact on food waste generation in Dutch
households. Waste Manage. 67, 298–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2017.05.010.
Jörissen, J., Priefer, C., Bräutigam, K.-R., 2015. Food waste generation at household
level: results of a survey among employees of two European research centers in
Italy and Germany. Sustainability 7 (3), 2695–2715. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su7032695.
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. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.057.
Katsarova, I., 2016. Tackling Food Waste: The EU’s Contribution to a Global Issue.
EPRS, European Parliamentary Research Service, Strasbourg, France.
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. Consum. Stud. 36 (2), 183–191. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01080.x.
Langley, J., Yoxall, A., Heppell, G., Rodriguez, E.M., Bradbury, S., Lewis, R., Luxmoore,
J., Hodzic, A., Rowson, J., 2010. Food for thought?—A UK pilot study testing a
methodology for compositional domestic food waste analysis. Waste Manage..
Res. 28, 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X08095348.
Monier, V., Shailendra, M., Escalon, V., O’Connor, C., Gibon, T., Anderson, G.,
Hortense, M., Reisinger, H., 2011. Preparatory Study on Food Waste across EU 27
Final Report. European Commission (DG ENV), Brussels, Belgium.
Møller, H., Hanssen, O.J., Gustavsson, J., Östergren, K., Stenmarck, A., Dekhtyar, P.,
2014. Report on Review of (Food) Waste Reporting Methodology and Practice.
Ostfold Research, Kråkerøy, Norway.
Östergren, K., Gustavsson, J., Bos-Brouwers, H., Timmermans, T., Hansen, O.-J.,
Møller, H., Anderson, G., O’Connor, C., Soethoudt, H., Quested, T., Easteal, S.,
Politano, A., Bellettato, C., Canali, M., Falasconi, L., Gaiani, S., Vittuari, M.,
Schneider, F., Moates, G., Waldron, K., Redlingshöfer, B., 2014. FUSIONS
Definitional Framework for food Waste. Wageningen, Holland.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S., 2010. Food waste within food supply chains:
quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci.
365 (1554), 3065–3081. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0126.
Parizeau, K., von Massow, M., Martin, R., 2015. Household-level dynamics of food
waste production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph.
Ontario. Waste Manage. 35, 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2014.09.019.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.165.
Quested, T., Johnson, H., 2009. Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK. Waste &
Resources Action Programme, Banbury, UK.
Quested, T., Marsh, E., Stunell, D., Parry, A.D., 2013. Spaghetti soup: The complex
world of food waste behaviours. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 79 (1), 43–51. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.04.011.
Ribic, B., Voca, N., Ilakovac, B., 2017. Concept of sustainable waste management in
the City of Zagreb: towards the implementation of circular economy approach.
J. Air Waste Manage Assoc. 67 (2), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10962247.2016.1229700.
Richards, T.J., Hamilton, S.F., 2018. Food waste in the sharing economy. Food Policy
75, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.01.008.
Richter, B., Bokelmann, W., 2017. Explorative study about the analysis of storing,
purchasing and wasting food by using household diaries. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 125, 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.006.
Russell, S., Young, C.W., Hardin, K., Robinson, C., 2017. Bringing habits and emotions
into food waste behaviour. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 125, 107–114. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.007.
Salhofer, S., Obersteiner, G., Schneider, F., Lebersorger, S., 2008. Potentials for the
prevention of municipal solid waste. Waste Manage. 28 (2), 245–259. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.026.
Schmidt, K., Matthies, E., 2018. Where to start fighting the food waste problem?
Identifying most promising entry points for intervention programs to reduce
household food waste and overconsumption of food. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
139, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.023.
Setti, M., Falasconi, L., Vittuari, M., Segrè, A., Cusano, I., 2016. Italian consumers’
income and food waste behavior. Br. Food J. 118 (7), 1731–1746. https://doi.org/
10.1108/BFJ-11-2015-0427.
Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Hartikainen, H., Heikkilä, L., Reinikainen, A.,
2014. Food waste volume and composition in Finnish households. Br. Food J.
116 (6), 1058–1068. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2012-0311.
Stancu, V., Haugaard, P., Lahteenmaki, L., 2016. Determinants of consumer food
waste behaviour: two routes to food waste. Appetite 96, 7–17. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.appet.2015.08.025.
Stefan, V., van Herpen, E., Tudoran, A.A., Lahteenmaki, L., 2013. Avoiding food waste
by Romanian consumers: the importance of planning and shopping routines.
Food Qual.. Prefer. 28 (1), 375–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.foodqual.2012.11.001.
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. Food Waste Quantities in Sweden
2012. Stockholm, Sweden.
Thyberg, K.L., Tonjes, D.J., Gurevitch, J., 2015. Quantification of food waste disposal
in the United States: a meta-analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (24), 13946–
13953. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03880.
Thyberg, K.L., Tonjes, D.J., 2016. Drivers of food waste and their implications for
sustainable policy development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 106, 110–123. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.016.
van Garde, S.J., Woodburn, M.J., 1987. Food discard practices of householders. J.
Acad. Nutr. Diet Ass. 87 (3), 322–329.
van Herpen, E., van der Lans, I.A., Holthuysen, N., Nijenhuis-de, Vries M., Quested, T.
E., 2019. Comparing wasted apples and oranges: an assessment of methods to
measure household food waste. Waste Manage. 88, 71–84. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2019.03.013.
Ventour, L., 2008. Food Waste Report—The Food We Waste. Waste & Resources
Action Programme (WRAP), Banbury, UK.
Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Löfgren, M., Gustafsson, A., 2012. Reasons
for household food waste with special attention to packaging. J. Cleaner Prod.
24, 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.044.
Visschers, V.H.M., Wickli, N., Siegrist, M., 2016. Sorting out food waste behaviour: a
survey on the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in
households. J. Environ. Psychol. 45, 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvp.2015.11.007.
Vittuari, M., Politano, A., Gaiani, S., Canali, M., Azzurro, P., Elander, M., 2015. Review
of EU Legislation and Policies with Implications on Food Waste Final Report.
FUSIONS Project, Bologna, Italy.
WasteMinz, 2015. New Zealand Food Waste Audits. Waste not consulting,
Auckland.
WRAP, 2007. Understanding Food Waste – Key Findings of Our Recent Research on
the Nature, Scale and Causes of Household Food Waste. Waste & Resources
Action Programme, Branbury, UK.
WRAP, 2009a. Down the drain: quantification and exploration of food and drink
waste disposed of the sewer by households in the UK. Available at: http://www.
wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Down%20the%20drain%20-%20report.pdf.
WRAP, 2009b. Helping Consumers Reduce Food Waste – A Retail Survey. Waste &
Resources Action Programme, Banbury, UK.
WRAP, 2011. Reducing household bakery waste. WRAP Report. Available at: http://
www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Research%20Bakery%20Report%20final.pdf.
WRAP, 2013. Household Food and Drink Waste in the United Kingdom 2012 Final
Report. Waste & Resources Action Programme, Banbury, UK.
WRAP, 2015. Strategies to Achieve Economic and Environmental Gains by Reducing
Food Waste. Waste & Resources Action Programme, Banbury, UK.
WRI, 2015. Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard. VERSION 1.0.
The Food Loss & Waste Protocol (FLW Protocol).
Young, W., Russell, S.V., Robinson, C.A., Barkemeyer, R., 2017. Can social media be a
tool for reducing consumers’ food waste? A behaviour change experiment by a
UK retailer. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 117, 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2016.10.016.
Young, C.W., Russell, S.V., Robinson, C.A., Chintakayala, P.K., 2018. Sustainable
retailing–influencing consumer behaviour on food waste. Bus. Strat. Environ. 27
(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1966.