MSc thesis: Can’t we just compost our food waste? Towards a decision-making tool for On-site Food Waste Composting in Dutch Hotels

This blog is formed from my master thesis for an MSc in Environmental Management from the University of Derby from 2016-2019. This website serves as a repository for this work.

The following work was written in 2019

Abstract

The study explores the feasibility of on-site food waste composting options in Dutch hotels.

With the aim of supporting the hospitality industry in the complex task of assessing whether on-site food waste composting may be a feasible option for a particular business, the study sets out by initially addressing the main concepts in a Literature Review.

Having discussed the facets of feasibility, the science of composting, issues of food waste disposal in the hospitality industry and managerial decision-making, the study combines a critical analysis of the Literature Review with results gained from a small-scale case study at a hotel in the northern Netherlands.

The results of the observations of food waste disposal practices, an audit of food waste composition and amounts, as well as semi-structured interviews with key personnel and the critical assessment of the literature, are condensed to form design principles that summarise the requirements that a decision-making tool must meet in order to prove itself a useful instrument for the hospitality industry.

The design principles are further funnelled to form the following overarching design principles of a future tool:

• The tool must be able to render highly complex and interrelated concepts in an accessible way for various disciplines.

• Checkpoints must be employed to confirm if a business is truly ready to embark on exploring the possibilities of on-site composting, having already completed the audits required to determine their waste can be considered unavoidable.

• The tool must facilitate dialogue between a variety of stakeholders to arrive at compromises in line with the principles of sustainability, whilst accepting that a preference for one or two aspects is an unavoidable characteristic of the process itself.
  

Glossary / Symbols

AD: Anaerobic digestion

BC: Bokashi composting

CBA: Cost-Benefit-Analysis

CSH: Case Study Hotel

ECA: European Court of Auditors

EMS: Environmental Management System

EPA: US Environmental Protection Agency

EU: European Union

FW: Food waste

GHG: Greenhouse gases

HACCP: Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points

HR: Human Resources

ILSR: Institute for Local Self-Reliance

MSW: Municipal Solid Waste

ODP: Overarching design principle

OSC: On-Site Composting

OFE: Operational, Financial and Environmental

ROI: Return on Investment

SDG: UN Sustainable Development Goals

TC: Municipal composting

TELOS: Technical, Economic, Legal, Operational and Schedule Framework

TLS: Three Levels of Sustainability

VC: Vermicomposting

WH: Waste Hierarchy

Introduction

Rationale

Since the adoption of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in 2015, sustainability in governance and business has received a new focus (Legrand, et al., 2016). The concept of sustainability however remains somewhat nebulous and is often used interchangeably with ‘green’ or ‘eco’ goals (Melissen & Sauer, 2019). A clearer focus on particular issues within environmental management is required for global action in particular industries (Edgell, 2016; Melissen & Sauer, 2019).

Food Waste (FW) management within the hospitality industry can be linked to a number of SDGs, including 11, 12 and 13 (Melissen & Sauer, 2019). in the Netherlands, the context of this study, the governmental, academic and business alliance responsible for FW management links it to Goal 12, calling for Sustainable Production and Consumption (van Dooren, 2017). The hospitality sector is identified as a key player with regards to responsible consumption and recycling processes (Betz, et al., 2015; Singleton, 2012).

However, while FW reduction is commonly considered an issue for hotel personnel, the disposal of FW is rarely considered from this perspective (Legrand, et al., 2016). Rather than seeing this limited perspective as being caused by unawareness, this study suggests it can be traced back to different problem areas identified in the literature.

For one, waste hierarchies are complex processes, requiring some level of training in order to understand the various layers, the implications for the environment and the need for action within businesses (ECA, 2016; Akkucuk, 2015; Kingston, et al., 2017). Furthermore, FW is an issue that finds itself at the intersection of financial, environmental and operation responsibilities of the company management (Williams, 2013).

The lack of clear responsibility in relation to FW relates also to the personal experience of the researcher, who experienced precisely these problem areas within a 10-year career as General Manager of a hotel.

Whilst acknowledging that efforts to avoid the creation of waste, as well as disposal through municipal waste recycling methods are part of a sustainable hospitality industry (Xu, et al., 2018; Rena, et al., 2018), this study aims to explore a framework to support hotels in deciding whether a more localised approach to composting might be a feasible option.

There may be various situations where On-Site Composting (OSC) may be a feasible waste solution. It may be useful for hotels located in rural areas, where the waste disposal infrastructure might be somewhat less developed. With food waste having a negative financial impact, it is also worth considering whether OSC could provide a more cost-effective solution, potentially by creating a useful resource that may be used by the hotels themselves to maintain surrounding gardens or to fertilise a hotel vegetable garden (Wyngaard & Lange, 2013; Bokashi World, 2015).

With a general acceptance and enthusiasm for the SDGs, the described financial, environmental and operational benefits of sustainability and the identified challenges; this study suggests that in order to best assess the benefits and feasibility of on-site composting, businesses need support to aid the decision-making process and therefore require a tool to provide a framework for this decision-making.

Aim & Objectives

The overarching aim of the study is to develop design principles that may be used in follow-up research of a larger scope to develop a decision-making tool, supporting hotel personnel in the decision-making process as to whether or not OSC may present a viable FW recycling concept for their particular hotel. This aim was partially conceived during the research process itself: during the Case Study based at a medium-sized hotel in the Northern Netherlands, it became evident that management, whilst having been interested in exploring composting options even prior to this study, struggled to gain an understanding of the different facets and implications of the decision. In discussion with the thesis supervisor, it was decided to include the creation of design-principles and to focus on this as a main outcome of the current research.

In order to provide a scientific background for the development of these design principles, both primary and secondary research will be applied, with the following objectives:

• Define the aspects of feasibility and the science of composting through critical discussion as well as through insights gained during the field research in the hotel setting and a Literature Review, condensing these insights into the formulation of design principles.

• Identify the sources, contents and creators of FW in the setting of a Dutch hotel and to collate data for the formulation of the design principles.

• Generalise the conceived design principles into overarching principles that may be a starting point for future research/development.

• Formulate clear recommendations for the localised contexts of the study and identify possible opportunities for a more generalised application of the current study design.

  Literature Review

Fig. 2‑1: Conceptual Framework

Conceptual Framework: The 4 pillars

The pillars shown in Fig. 2-1 help to structure this study and provide a link for the reader between the Literature Review and the later critical discussion, as well as the analysis of the evidence from the case study.

The pillars help to focus information from the Literature Review. The discussion of this information and the insights from the case study affect the requirements of the decision-making tool. By using a discussion framework as visualised, the researcher aims to convey the large body of information produced in a clear and logical way.

Pillar A: Facets of feasibility

Feasibility is a key criterion in making decisions in any managerial context (Slack, et al., 2016; Arvanitis & Estevez, 2018). The concept itself is strongly related to the aim of ensuring the long-term survival and success of any project. Overall feasibility is a leading consideration when thinking about changes to the business’ structure, vision or organisation.

Arvanitis & Estevez (2018) state that:

“[a] feasibility study’s conclusions should outline in depth the various scenarios examined and the implications, strengths and weaknesses of each.”

(Arvanitis & Estevez, 2018)

The scenarios mentioned in the definition demonstrate that when considering overall feasibility, different disciplines within a business are involved, adding their unique viewpoint with regards to the proposed project or change. Arvanitis & Estevez (2018) use the TELOS framework, with the acronym denoting different aspects of the overall feasibility: Technical, Economic, Legal, Operational and Schedule.

Pillar B: Food Waste creation and disposal

In order to better understand the disposal of FW, it is first necessary to establish the sources and the make-up of FW and the relevance of the issue to the hospitality industry.

Food Waste in the hospitality industry

In 2018/851/EU, FW is defined as any product intended for consumption that has been discarded without being eaten (EU, 2018). Gustavsson, et al. (2011) estimate that 1.3 billion tonnes of FW are produced globally each year, equating to 95–115 kg per capita in Europe and North America. In the Netherlands, around 45% of food is wasted while still in the fields (Priefer, et al., 2016).

Of the products in the food stream in the Netherlands, 42% are wasted at a household level, 39% by the producer and 14% in the hospitality industry (Duursma, et al., 2016). It is important to consider the latter as a waste issue, with major ramifications for a business. Filimonau & De Coteau (2019) highlight this issue of waste by comparing FW to energy and water waste. With any waste in business comes a financial impact: In the UK in 2011 FW cost the hospitality industry £2.5 billion, by 2013 this was £3 billion (WRAP, 2013). Similar Fig.s are recorded in the Netherlands (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, 2010; Fusions EU, 2016).

Food Waste prevention

Waste is best tackled by focusing on prevention, rather than dealing with the resultant waste products (Pirani & Arafat, 2016; Legrand, et al., 2016). Waste prevention is a the focus of the EU Waste Framework Directive (EU, 2008). This focus has since been updated in its latest amendment to include clearer advice on FW (Zambrzycki, 2018; EU, 2018). The Waste Framework Directive sets out a waste hierachy to advise on preferred waste disposal methods with prevention of waste being the first step in the process.

This Waste Hierarchy will be discussed and further conceptualised later, but clearly the prevention of FW should be the focus for any hospitality business. Marthinsen, et al. (2012), Pirani & Arafat (2016) & Martin-Rios, et al. (2018) all focus on the management methodologies that can be implemented to reduce FW, but some FW is unavoidable in hospitality. It is for that reason that this study will assume that every effort has been made to prevent excess FW and will focus on the methods for dealing with unavoidable FW at a local level.

Food Waste creation

In order to evaluate local methods, it is essential to first explore where in the hospitality food chain this FW is being created. Papargyropoulou, et al. (2016) list areas in a typical restaurant that create waste, notably in preparation, on the customers’ plates and through uneaten food on a buffet. Of this waste, the majority of the preparation FW was considered unavoidable. FW from the buffet and customers’ plates was considered in the most part to be only 6-8% unavoidable FW. Priefer, et al. (2016) & Waarts, et al. (2011) highlight a broader list of areas where FW is produced in hospitality, as well as perceived obstacles to preventing this waste.

Kitchen staff and preparation processes

In a restaurant kitchen, much is done to reduce the FW produced during cooking (Betz, et al., 2015; Duursma, et al., 2016), however, inedible shells, husks & seeds of vegetables must be discarded, as with the bones and shells of meat and fish products. Priefer, et al. (2016) highlight incorrect forecasting of demand as a key factor, as often too much food is prepared and must be discarded. The same can be said for poor menu design, where unpopular food is produced in too large a quantity. Poor or inadequate storage can lead to breakages or wastage of food. Filimonau & De Coteau (2019) review management techniques for avoiding such situations and explore some of these methods in a coffee shop setting during a further study (Filimonau, et al., 2019).

Uneaten food from customers’ plates and on buffet

Papargyropoulou, et al.’s (2016) study of restaurant FW highlights a large proportion of waste from customers’ plates being preventable. While much of the waste is found to be bones or shells and therefore unpreventable, much is made up of edible food. Betz, et al. (2015) found less avoidable waste in their study, which, as Papargyropoulou noted, highlights that menu design and portion size affect the amount of waste from the plate.

Papargyropoulou, et al. (2016) found that customer expectations led to 30% more food being produced than was required in order to give the impression of abundance to the customer. The management felt that it was better to waste food than to leave the customer dissatisfied.

Food past its best and stored/served too long

One of Waarts, et al.’s (2011) perceived obstacles to preventing FW are the regulatory limitations applied to foods in commercial kitchens. While it is accepted that all food will eventually perish and become inedible, Waarts, et al. (2011) found that restaurateurs felt the HACCP rules set out in regulation 852/2004 (EU, 2004) and transcribed into Dutch law in the Code of Hygiene (Bedrijfschap Horeca en Catering, 2016) led to food being wasted by default, once a certain time period had passed.

An example of this highlighted by both Waarts, et al. (2011) and Papargyropoulou et al. (2016) is the so-called two-hour guarantee on unrefrigerated products. This means food must be disposed of after two hours of being presented at room temperature. This is a rule that features prominently in 852/2004 & the Code of Hygiene and has led to many operators fearing rebuke from the authorities should this rule be broken as well as a risk to the image of the business (see also Marthinsen, et al., 2012).

It is clear then that waste causes financial and operational challenges for the hospitality industry and that the prevention of this waste has priority. It is however also clear that FW is not entirely preventable and how this unpreventable waste is dealt with poses a key challenge.

FW disposal in the Netherlands

Fig. 2.3‑1: FW disposal in the Netherlands

FW in the Netherlands can be treated as a separate waste stream, or can be separated from MSW as part of the treatment process. In the northern Netherlands, a number of large waste disposal firms operate to process organic waste from businesses. Omrin Ltd has been chosen as an example, as its processes are representative of how all of the companies operate (Omrin, 2018).

Omrin operates waste disposal facilities across the province of Friesland. The company collects waste from homes and businesses as well as operating municipal cleaning schemes, such as street cleaning and public bin collections. Omrin does not require customers to separate FW from MSW, as automatic separation and sorting is performed at its waste treatment works (Omrin, 2016).

Organic waste arrives for treatment either as a separate stream, as from the Case Study Hotel, or as a stream automatically sorted from MSW at another area of the processing site. It is mixed with agricultural waste and water treatment residues. Garden waste is also collected municipally and added to the process (Omrin, 2016). Long, et al. (2018) found the addition of these other waste streams has been shown to increase the quality of the resultant digestate, making it a more valuable agricultural product.

This waste is then anaerobically digested (AD) to produce Biogas, a methane-rich gas, captured and used to power many of the Omrin vehicles, amongst other uses (Omrin, 2016; Wellinger, et al., 2013). The Netherlands is developing the addition of Biogas into the natural gas network with the aim of becoming less reliant on fossil-gas (OIES, 2012).

The residue left over from AD is called digestate. This material has a relatively high carbon and nitrogen content and is made available locally as a soil improver for the agriculture industry. The liquid slurry is separated and used as an alternative to hydrocarbon-based fertilizers (Mortier, et al., 2016).

Municipal AD has been used in the northern Netherlands since the mid-1990s. The development of this method is spurred by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs’ (2016) aim to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 16% by 2023 and a 100% circular economy by 2050. In capturing the methane and other greenhouse gases produced in the AD process, this method avoids the high greenhouse gas emissions of landfill, while also reducing the burden on landfill capacity (Xu, et al., 2018; Corsten, et al., 2013).

The reduction of landfill use is another aim of the Dutch government and the EU as a whole (Cocoon, 2018). The introduction of a landfill tax in 1995 under the Besluit stortplaatsen en stortverboden afvalstoffen regulation aims at the eventual ban of non-essential landfill and has led to some of the most expensive rates for landfill in Europe. It is therefore more economically viable for businesses to turn their waste into a resource. Despite the landfill tax being abolished for two years from 2012-2014, no increase in landfill activity was measured (Cocoon, 2018). This could show that the tax was ineffective, or, more likely, that the industry had already made the changes necessary to avoid waste being sent to landfill by 2012.

The move away from landfill helps the Netherlands to transition the waste management system more to the model of the EU Waste Hierarchy (see Fig. 5.3.1-1). By turning the waste into a resource, a more favourable method than landfill is being used. However, when compared to the hierarchy scale developed by ILSR (2017) (see Fig. 5.3.1-1), AD is ranked below local composting processes. It is also ranked below using the waste as animal feed.

In the past, FW was indeed collected from restaurants to be used as animal feed for pigs, cows etc.. Since 2003 however this has been outlawed by regulation 2003/328/EC. The basis of this law was evidence that this practice leads to increased risk of animal diseases such as foot and mouth. It was an outbreak of this disease in the UK in 2001 that saw the Europe-wide ban two years later (EU, 2003).

Having established the disposal techniques currently in use in the Netherlands, the next step is to understand the composting process and how it can be used to deal with hospitality industry food waste, especially in an on-site context.

Pillar C: Overview of Composting

Fig. 2.4‑1: Composting options

In its simplest form, composting is the process of organic material breaking down through a biochemical process into a stable soil-like substance that can be a growing medium for plants or a soil improver (Epstein, 2017). It is the process observed for example in forests, where the leaves fall to the ground and over time become the soil of the forest floor themselves.

Manual methods

Manual methods are those that require much human input and are not automated.

Traditional Composting

Much is written about this process in (Epstein, 2017; Balz, 2017). Grass clippings, leaves and scraps of fresh kitchen waste are combined in a pile or container and left for a period of time to break down into a nutrient-rich substrate. While this method is tried and tested for garden waste, the addition of FW can add complication to the system.

Traditional composting (TC) can only be applied to unprocessed and uncooked food, as the addition of cooked food tends to attract vermin (Epstein, 2017). The different acids and bacteria present in cooked food can also change the chemistry of the process and lead to an increase in unpleasant smells (Epstein, 2017; Balz, 2017; Guo, et al., 2018). For this reason, cooked food, as well as meat, dairy and bread products are left out of a TC system.

Waste is rotated or mixed during this process in order to both introduce oxygen to the pile and therefore help to stop the process becoming anaerobic. Another benefit of mixing the pile is to allow the bacteria and chemicals involved in the process to be spread throughout the pile and therefore speed up the process (Boldrin, et al., 2009; Groat, 2016).

This mixing can be achieved by moving the waste every few weeks into an empty bin (Balz, 2017). Another method is to rotate the bin itself. The composting process requires between 6 weeks and 6 months to complete (Balz, 2017; Epstein, 2017). During this time, fresh material can be added, though it would need to be filtered when removing the completed compost, e.g. by means of a sieve. The process tends to work more slowly when the pile is cooler, for example in winter, as the lower temperature slows the bacterial activity (Epstein, 2017). The addition of fresh green material should increase the temperature of the pile by increasing the bacterial activity and keep the warmth in the system.

The amount of space required for this method varies, based on the amount of waste entering the system and the speed of the process.

The setup costs of a traditional compost system are relatively low. Under certain circumstances, for example at a hotel with grounds, the compost pile could simply consist of a heap somewhere on the grounds. If there were another organic waste stream, the separated waste could be added to this. An example being at a hotel with horse-riding facilities, the waste could be added to the manure and stable bedding waste stream and be composted together.

If the waste needed to be contained then any larger container would be suitable, so long as it could still be handled by the staff. Purpose built compost bins are available and relatively cheap, but discarded pallets or food delivery containers could be utilised to compost the waste, essentially cost-free.

Fig. 2.4‑2: Manual bins: examples of TC on a restaurant scale (left: Nola, 2011, right: King County, 2018)

Bokashi Composting

Bokashi composting is similar in scale to the traditional composting method, though it has the added advantage of being able to process meat, dairy and bread products (Xu, et al., 2018; EM Natuurlijk Actief, 2017). This is achieved with the addition of a microbial compound that in effect pickles or ferments the waste anaerobically. Once this process has been completed, the Bokashi waste can be buried in the ground directly for use by plants (Vos, 2019). If desired, it can be buried in the middle of a TC pile or added to a vermicomposting bin or windrow for further processing (Powell, 2013; Nola, 2011).

The Bokashi method requires a similar amount of space as the TC method, though a TC pile, vermicomposting bin or windrow will be required in addition if the desired output is compost. Space will also be required for the storage of the microbial mixture. The BC process takes between 1 and 2 weeks and requires little specialist equipment.

Vermicomposting

Vermicomposting (VC) is the system of adding special compost-eating worms to organic matter. This process can be applied to most organic waste, though the worms cannot readily process meat or dairy products (Red Worm Composting, 2008). This situation changes however when the waste has first been through the BC process, as this changes the chemical structure of the products, making it palatable to the worms (Vos, personal communication, 6.1.2019)

VC is a relatively compact process and the resultant compost is considered to be of a higher quality (Arancon, et al., 2004). The setup costs are relatively low, similar to the TC & BC systems, though the living conditions of the worms need to be maintained well, otherwise they may die or leave the system themselves.

Fig. 2.4‑4: Manual bins: example of vermicomposting (Green Tools, no date)

Windrows

Windrows are a traditional system of composting consisting of a large pile of organic material built in a row, that is periodically turned-over to introduce air to the pile (Goldstein, 2014). These days this is most commonly seen in the composting of horse manure, though a mechanised form of the process is employed for municipal composting systems.

Windrows are relatively cheap to build in their simple, traditional form, though as they are open to the air they could be considered unsightly and also contribute a smell nuisance. Larger piles also require a lot of space and can attract vermin (Goldstein, 2014).

Operational costs of manual composting should be factored in to any cost or staffing calculation. Manual composting processes require more staff hours for the movement of materials, turning of compost bins etc. (Boulder County Office of Sustainability, 2014). Time must be assigned for these tasks from the staff rota. Training may also be required and time for this training needs to also be factored in.

Fig. 2.4‑5: Manual bins: example of FW windrow (Goldstein, 2014)

Mechanical methods

Machines exist that process food waste and create compost automatically. These mechanical composters operate in a way that balances temperature, air and moisture to create optimum conditions for the production of compost (FOR Solutions, 2016; Ridan, 2019).

Though the size of the machine will depend on the required capacity, most machines require between 6 and 20m2, including space for ancillary services, such as storage space near the machine (FOR Solutions, 2018). Little space is required for the storage of FW before it enters the system, as the waste bins can be emptied straight into the machine. Whether space is required for finished compost depends on the operational organisation of the restaurant.

Mechanical composters generally require around 24 hours to convert food waste into compost, though this product may require further composting after it has left the system (FOR Solutions, 2018; Ridan, 2019).

The typical cost of a smaller system is around €2500. Larger systems can cost up to €25000 (Ridan, 2019; FOR Solutions, 2018). There is also an ongoing cost of power to operate the machine. Staff operational costs must also be factored in to any calculation, as staff will be required to run the system, albeit not full-time.

Fig. 2.4‑6: Mechanical composting machines (left: Ridan, 2019; right: Inhabitat, 2014)

Pillar D: Managerial decision-making

Management decision-making in the hospitality industry is usually focused on a team approach, while still involving a hierarchical structure. For example, a typical hotel would be structured as such:

Fig. 2.5‑1: Managerial decision-making flow chart; adapted from (Orgcharting, 2016)

In the example visualised in Fig. 2.5-1, Finance, Front Office, F&B & Facility managers are all at the same level, but the General and Assistant managers rank higher. In this case the management team is a heterarchy at department head level, but the General Manager is ultimately responsible for final decision-making. This system allows for department heads to function as experts in their own fields and to contribute to group discussions (Chibili, 2016; Slack, et al., 2016).

In order to best make decisions, tools have been developed to help guide management teams in the process of gathering information:

Table 2.5‑1: Comparison of managerial decision-making tools (Ishizaka & Siraj, 2018; Slack, et al., 2016)

With the myriad of tools available to a hospitality management team, general factors need to be considered when either choosing or designing such a decision-making tool.

Due to the interrelatedness of the issues affecting sustainable decision-making, using a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) tool would be considered best practice, compared to the more traditional methods mentioned above (Ishizaka & Siraj, 2018).

Ishizaka & Siraj (2018) highlight three analytical methods somewhat suitable for complex decision-making processes:

• Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) (Edwards, 1977)

• Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique (MACBETH) (Bana e Costa & Vansnick, 1994)

• Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1977)

Fernandes de Magalhães, et al. (2019) argue that when considering sustainability, further trade-offs are required in the decision-making, and so propose a new model: trade-off decision-making (TODeM) tool for sustainability projects. While this tool is closer to being a suitable tool for OSC, it focuses more heavily on construction projects, rather than organisational ones.

Fig. 2.5‑2 Comparison of managerial decision-making tools plotted on Cavagnaro & Curiel’s (2012) Three Levels of Sustainability Model

Conclusions drawn from Ishizaka & Siraj (2018), Fernandes de Magalhães, et al. (2019) and Slack, et al. (2016) show that any new tool should be visual. It should indicate to the uninitiated where benefits are located and show overall trends. The tool should be accessible, allowing a team with diverse backgrounds to understand the results. It should enable discussion and convey the interrelatedness of positive and negative aspects of a project without oversimplification of the outcomes. Such a tool should also address both the process and outcome and aid compromise and consensus.

Methodology

The proposed study utilises a mixed-methods approach in order to come to a conclusion with regards to the study’s objectives.

Literature Review & Critical Discussion

A critical Literature Review will define and discuss the following key concepts:

• An exploration of feasibility in the hospitality context.

• A description of the literature and current state of research with regards to food waste creation and disposal.

• An overview of the science of composting and various composting methods.

• An introduction of managerial decision-making in the hospitality industry.

During the Results & Discussion section of this thesis, the insights gained from the Literature Review will be enhanced by the results of primary research as visualised in Fig. 2-1.

Observation (case study)

A structured observation of various key points of the food management system was designed to reveal:

• Who handles food waste and what the routines are when staff sort and dispose of it.

• The make-up of the food waste generated and its approximate volume.

A structured observation form was applied to improve note-taking and allow for easy data comparison. The observation was repeated over five days during the week of the 26th – 30th November 2018. The observation sessions usually lasted around 30 minutes and took place at a different time of the day in each instance. This was to allow for changes in the working patterns of the kitchen due to different meal times. Analysis of data will be by description, highlighting similarities and differences, as well as by quantitative analysis of waste volume generated. The waste study loosely follows the guidelines outlined by EPA (2014).

Additionally, the researcher kept notes to record impressions and observations that are not covered by the aspects of the structured observation form, but are still deemed of importance in relation to the key concepts that guide the study.

Introduction to Case Study Hotel:

In order to better understand the waste disposal methods available to restaurants, as well as to define the types and sources of waste, a hotel was observed as a case study. The hotel chosen operates a 4-star Dutch cuisine restaurant with 90 covers. The kitchen also serves a large canteen for a neighbouring applied-science university and in the hotel lobby there is a small café, serving drinks and cakes.

The observation took the form of a qualitative study, assessing the waste management techniques operated in the kitchen. The study loosely followed the waste audit guidelines of the EPA (2014), as well as incorporating methodologies favoured by Smart (2013), Leavy (2017) & Akkucuk (2015).

The observation included short exchanges with staff to ask how they dispose of waste. Staff also volunteered opinions or past experiences of FW in the kitchen. Bins were inspected to visually check the type and percentage quantities of waste were largely consistent with the data provided by the restaurant.

Interviews

A structured interview with members of the managerial staff is designed to reveal key data as to the current food waste management system, e.g. which companies are currently contracted and what issues around the management of food waste have arisen in the past. The staff interviewed were:

Table 3‑1: Interview schedule

The form of interview over questionnaire was chosen to establish personal rapport between hotel staff and the researcher and to allow for spontaneous follow-up and clarification questions, should these be necessary. These interviews covered a number of areas, notably how the waste is currently disposed of, what waste reduction methods are currently in place, what cost and time restraints affect how waste is disposed of and how information on waste is currently collected.

The data gathered in the interviews will be summarised and presented according to the main areas of interest identified in the interview guide, categorised by the opinions offered with regards to the different concepts that guide the study (Fig.2-1). Incidental conversations with staff during the observation will also be recorded in abbreviated form, using anecdotal notes.

Development of a decision-making tool

With the main objective having arisen during the study as described above, it was considered whether the development of an actual decision-making tool was within the scope of this study. However, both the Literature Review as well as the results of the primary research clearly point towards the requirement of a much more comprehensive tool, incorporating the various facets of the key concepts and the 3 facets of feasibility (OFE).

In addition, an essential requirement is that the tool must not oversimplify the issues at stake and ideally be relevant to a wide range of hotels of various sizes and locations. It was therefore decided that, rather than presenting a tool that risks being oversimplified, this study should produce the design principles that allow future research to be carried out towards the development of a comprehensive tool, supporting hotel personnel in making an informed decision as to whether or not OSC presents a feasible option for their hotel.

Limitations

Sample size and applicability

As with other research consisting of a case study, the small sample size acts as a limitation to the study. The Case Study Hotel is located in a relatively small town in a rural part of the Netherlands.

Lack of prior research studies on the topic

Research on the specific topic of OSC is limited, though often focused on similar case study examples (Powell, 2013; Wyngaard & Lange, 2013). Due to the broad nature of the topic, these case studies are the better examples of previous work on the topic.

Methodology

The decision to conduct semi-structured interviews achieved the purpose of establishing friendly relations with the study’s participants. However, this limited the opportunity to strictly code responses for each individual question, as individual talks took slightly different forms. However, the researcher believes that these disadvantages were offset by the technique allowing for new and unforeseen insights to be obtained.

Some data referred to in the study was taken from the hotel’s own waste management audit and used to further strengthen the researcher’s raw data. This was verified to the best of the ability of the researcher, however, it cannot be fully ruled out that errors exist in this data.

The hotel team may have been unconsciously attempting to answer in a desirable way. The staff were aware of the purpose of the study and may have attempted to presuppose a correct answer.

Longitudinal effects

The observation’s duration of one week was deemed enough to gauge the overall amount of food waste and its sources, however the accuracy of this may be affected by:

• Season

• Occupancy

• Staffing (absences etc.)

A longer study may have had different outcomes, though the researcher feels that a duration of one week was sufficient.

Cultural and other type of bias

The researcher is enthusiastic about the subject and might therefore interpret statements by the management or by staff to be more positive or that they are more interested than they actually were.

Fluency of language

The researcher is English-speaking and conducting research that also assesses people’s statements and comments within a multi-lingual staff where different language conventions apply, e.g. one party might say something simply to be polite, whereas the other’s language convention interprets it as great enthusiasm.

The inability to speak Dutch might have prevented the researcher from accessing deeper levels of understanding with some of the less fluent members of staff.

Results & Discussion

Pillar A: Feasibility

Feasibility has been introduced in the Literature Review. In this chapter the issue will be critically discussed and the framework with which the study has reviewed the subject of feasibility will be established and expanded upon.

The TELOS method is applicable as a general feasibility tool. In this study however, as the outcome requirements are more focused, it is possible to somewhat simplify and expand the framework as follows:

Table 5.2‑1: Comparison TELOS vs. OFE Simplified Framework

The OFE system encompasses and summarises the aspects of the TELOS system, while also adding the requirement of sustainability. As will be shown, the T, L, O & S aspects of TELOS can all be subsumed into the category of Operational, particularly in the hospitality context of the present study. By Combining the T, L, O & S aspects into Operational the author aims to present and address the interrelatedness of these aspects altogether. The Environmental aspect was considered to be of equal importance to the other aspects, given the theme of composting and FW and so was added at the same level of importance as the rest of the TELOS aspects.

When considering proposed projects or changes, managerial teams will consider feasibility by drawing on the expertise of different team members and combining these viewpoints into an overall assessment of feasibility. Whereas in larger hospitality organisations, these viewpoints might be represented by designated personnel (e.g. the Operations Manager, the Finance Director or the Environmental Manager), in smaller organisations these roles are often spread throughout the management team. The General Manager might need to represent both operational and environmental dimensions of a proposed plan, while collaborating with the Financial Director (Slack, et al., 2016; Ninemeier 2014).

Operational

The core question of the operational dimension is whether the planned project is possible in terms of staffing, equipment and systems (Arvanitis & Estevez, 2018; Slack, et al., 2016; Legrand, et al., 2016). Rather than simply considering the current situation; changes in staffing, equipment, systems etc. that would need to occur should the planned project implemented must also be considered.

In this case, the T, L, O and S aspects can be combined under the Operational umbrella term. The technical aspect concerns the equipment and systems of the organisation; the legal aspect impacts staffing as well as equipment and systems, and the schedule aspect determines whether a project can be implemented in a timely manner whilst considering the staffing situation, as well as the current equipment and systems and the time it might take to implement changes.

A further essential consideration is whether the proposed project is in line with the core business model and thus with the guiding vision of the overall organisation (Legrand, et al., (2016), Epler Wood (2017). This also includes considering how the target market might respond to the proposed project or change (Slack, et al., 2016; Chibili, 2016).

Importantly, the Operations aspect considers these issues purely from an operational point of view, without looking at the financial or environmental implications of the decision.

Financial

The main focus of the Financial dimension of feasibility is whether the project is economically viable. This should be considered in terms of both short-term as well as the long-term survival and financial success of the business (Arvanitis & Estevez, 2018). In a feasibility assessment, a hotel’s financial department aims to anticipate what costs would occur if the project were to take place. This considers staffing/maintenance, procurement and running costs.

In addition to financial viability, consideration of return on investment (ROI) within the framework of a Cost-Benefit-Analysis (CBA) is important (Slack, et al., 2016; Chibili, 2016). Within this analysis, the value-added effects of a planned project are considered, also in terms of anticipated marketing value. As an example, the introduction of a sustainable measure within the hotel may initially be cost-intensive, but could lead to the hotel being able to apply for a green industry award that eventually attracts a higher number of environmentally-minded guests and therefore creates a marketing (and therefore financial) benefit to the business.

Environmental

Within the Environmental aspect of feasibility, the main focus is placed on the projected environmental effects of a considered project. The hotel’s Environmental Management System (EMS) is useful in this regard, as it creates a framework for assessing the environmental impacts of a proposed change (ISO, 2015). An essential element of the decision-making process is the motivation for the project, as it may come about in anticipation of, or in response to changes in environmental regulations, or be motivated solely by the hotel itself (Haverkamp, 2007; Chibili, 2016; Legrand, et al., 2016). For hotels that are part of a chain, changes may also be initiated at a higher level, with individual hotels carrying out a higher directive, but having some flexibility in implementation.

Even when a change is motivated by changing regulations, the extent to which these are met may vary. It is possible that a hotel simply decides to fulfil the minimum requirement, or pro-actively self-imposes a higher level of compliance (Langlet & Mahmoudi, 2016; Martin-Rios, et al., 2018). As has been shown in the section on finance, a higher level of compliance may be indicated in pursuit of green industry awards. Examples of such industry awards are the Green Key award or Tripadvisor’s Green Leader label.

Fig. 5.2‑1: The Three Levels of Sustainability Model; adapted from (Cavagnaro & Curiel, 2012), overlaid with OFE Aspect

With several of the Sustainable Development Goals linking to aspects of the hospitality industry, most notably, Goals 8-12 (UN, 2019) and the industry itself increasingly focusing on sustainability, it is important that this research also links the aspects of feasibility to the concept of sustainability. With 2 of the 3 levels of sustainability put forward by Cavagnaro & Curiel (2012) directly corresponding to the aspects of feasibility, it is suitable to integrate this model into the OFE framework.

As is shown in Fig. 5.3-1, the Operations aspect of feasibility as described above is being related to the Society aspect within the TLS framework. In doing so, the operational aspect is somewhat reduced to the staffing and HR aspect; whereas it also importantly includes non-human systems and operational procedures.

Fig. 5.2‑2: Visualisation of Financial and Environmental Aspects being favoured over the Operational Aspect

The TLS framework visualises the balancing act involved in making a sustainable decision. As is shown in Fig. 5.2-2, rather than being completely equal, one or two of the aspects usually receive higher priority and somewhat ‘tilt’ the framework towards one or two sides. Integrating the OFE framework put forward in this study within the TLS framework allows the researcher to present the balancing act required of a feasibility model while lowering the risk of oversimplification.

Case study element

During the interviews, it was shared with the researcher (Interview 3) that the hotel was at the time performing its own waste audit. It was further disclosed that there was a feeling that the hotel was producing an excess of FW, and that there should be ways of reducing and/or recycling it (Interview 1). An audit was therefore already being performed at the time the research took place.

This audit, however, mainly focused on recording the weight of the FW produced by the kitchen, whilst also evaluating whether the staff were producing excess waste in the production of food (Interview 2). This gave the author access to a good source of data regarding the make-up and quantity of the waste produced, allowing the observation to focus more on the human factors in the waste creation (Leavy, 2017; EPA, 2014).

There also seemed to be little knowledge of the disposal process, with just one of the managerial staff being able to explain what happened to the waste after it left the restaurant (Interview 4). The interviewees (Interviews 2, 3 & 4) mentioned a number of ideas regarding FW, for example a previous attempt to approach local food suppliers as to whether or not they might be interested in using compost produced by the hotel.

From the interviews, the researcher was able to conclude that there was a general awareness of the issue, and a willingness to change procedures. However, these were at present fragmented and failed to consider the overall view and the balancing act of the situation.

Implications of this section for the design of the decision-making tool:

Design principles – A

A1: It needs to visually and clearly summarise the complete interconnected aspects, while still being understandable to team members with different backgrounds and responsibilities.

A2: Needs to enable discussion between different team members/experts in their field.

A3: Has to incorporate all aspects of feasibility/sustainability and accurately show the necessary compromises required of the decision-makers.

A, B, C & D Interlinked e.g., Decision tree needs 3 branches: give examples, critically highlight that you understand that every aspect has ramifications for the other two (e.g. a financial ‘sacrifice’ can be offset by guests being drawn by environmental focus of the hotel).

Pillar B: Food Waste creation and disposal

After introducing FW creation and disposal in the Literature Review, this chapter will critically discuss the elements and introduce findings from the Case Study Hotel, as well as building on the design principles introduced previous chapter.

Critical discussion element

Fig. 5.3.1‑1: EU Waste Hierarchy and ILSR Hierarchy

A key tool in deciding how waste is to be disposed of is the Waste Hierarchy (WH). Fig. 5.3.1-1 shows a comparison of three such hierarchies. Visualised on the left is the scale from 2008/98/EC. This scale can be applied to all forms of waste and is therefore less specific about the disposal options. In the centre is the hierarchy of the European Court of Auditors (ECA). The ECA include in their 2016 report the following note:

“There is currently no EU legislation or specific guidance on how to apply the EU Waste Hierarchy to food. The [ECA Hierarchy] is based on the following existing food waste hierarchies: Wageningen University’s Ladder of Moerman, Food Waste Pyramid for London, OVAM’s (Public Waste Agency of Flanders) food Waste Hierarchy, FEVIA’s (Fédération de l’Industrie Alimentaire/Federatie Voedingsindustrie) food Waste Hierarchy and US Environmental Protection Agency’s food Waste Hierarchy.”

(ECA, 2016)

In directive 2018/851, the EU has added further guidance on FW (Zambrzycki, 2018). The ECA’s hierarchy defines the preference of donating FW to humans over supplying it as animal feed.

More detailed still is the scale on the right, compiled by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR). The ILSR is a recognised non-profit, non-governmental organisation, whose main foci are local community-building, equality and sustainability. Their work on waste has been cited internationally, including by the EU (ECA, 2016). Their hierarchy gives preference to local solutions to FW over municipal ones. Crucially for this study, it rates local composting over municipal anaerobic digestion (ILSR, 2017).

The scales have been compared to each other in this way to highlight a number of issues. Firstly, the general consensus within waste disposal theory. That is to say that waste prevention is the first and most important step in waste disposal. In fact, the product is not classed as waste at all if it is prevented from becoming so.

It is also agreed that landfill and, to an extent, incineration are the least preferred methods of disposal. Food donation/reuse/use of the FW as animal feed is considered the second most preferable option, however, the focus of this study starts beyond this stage. As stated earlier, this study assumes that the waste that must be dealt with is considered unavoidable and as such, the disposal options available to the business must be defined and the feasibility of the options assessed.

The researcher’s preference for the most localised model over the other Waste Hierarchy approaches is supported by the proximity principle (PP): According to Faure (2016), this principle requires that waste should ideally be processed as close to the source of its production as possible (see also Langlet & Mahmoudi, 2016). In applying the PP to this study, the researcher is aware of extending its definition further than it is usually understood in EU legislation, which most commonly aims to prevent the transregional/transnational disposal of waste (EU, 2008). However, the researcher draws on the essence of PP as it is defined by Faure (2016).

Applying the PP to the hospitality context allows the researcher to conclude that OSC may constitute a preferable option to other waste disposal options. However, as this study aims to clarify, the feasibility and sustainability of such a solution must be carefully determined.

Case study element

The current disposal system at the restaurant consists of four waste streams:

Green Waste

All organic waste from the kitchen, both cooked and uncooked

Grey Waste

All packaging, soiled paper products and other waste

Paper Waste

Mostly consisting of cardboard boxes and paper pulp egg trays. No soiled paper waste should be in this stream

Waste cooking oil

All used oils and fats are collected and taken for processing

The Green and Grey Waste streams are collected in small bins located at various locations around the kitchen and in the cafe. Once these are full they are taken to a large central bin where they are emptied. The Green bins were the focus of the observation.

The contents of the Green bins were observed to mostly consist of cooked or processed FW, mixed with a much smaller percentage of uncooked waste such as vegetable peelings or shells. In some bins there were larger concentrations of certain materials, such as discarded sandwiches or orange peels. It was clear that the Green bins contained various amounts of meat, dairy and bread products, as well as vegetable scraps, bone, egg shells and seafood shells. This is consistent with the findings of Betz, et al. (2015), Papargyropoulou, et al., (2016) & Singleton (2012) in their similar observations.

The observation highlighted that in this hotel, the Green bins had very little contamination from other waste streams, with only one instance of a Green bin being discovered to contain paper waste.

The restaurant had created a ‘waste form’ on which an employee would record how much of a product had been disposed of each day and given a reason for the disposal. These waste forms are analysed by both the purchasing and quality departments, who are the main contact for the waste disposal contracts, including the choice of methods and bin specifications. The current central Green waste bin is made up of two 660L containers which are emptied three times per week. Inspection of the records of the restaurant showed that an average of 367kg of Green Waste was produced each week in 2017, at a cost of €1240 per year for collection and disposal.

There were two main sources of food waste observed in the restaurant:

Waste produced in cooking

This was primarily vegetable peelings and shells of eggs & seafood. On discussion with the employees it was noted that the restaurant’s policy was to use as much of a product as possible, resulting in this source of waste being relatively minor. This source is considered unavoidable.

Food no longer fit for consumption

This was the main source of food waste in the kitchen. This was made up of food that due to hygiene regulations had to be disposed of after a certain time period, or food that had been incorrectly prepared.

Fig. 5.3.2‑1: Hotel kitchen bins & discarded food waste

It was noted that very little ‘plate scrapings’ were observed in the Green bins. It was noted in discussion with the staff that plate scrapings made up only a small part of the Green waste stream due to the menu design being such that little food is left by the restaurant guests and mostly consists of inedible items such as bones. This is largely in line with the assumptions of Papargyropoulou, et al. (2016), as well as the findings of Betz, et al. (2015) & Priefer, et al. (2016) in similar studies. Examples of the contents of the bins are shown in Fig. 5.3.2-1.

When interviewing management staff, a number of issues were repeatedly raised. Firstly, in Interview 2, it was felt that the amount of waste produced by the restaurant was too high, particularly the amount of Green waste. This was the initiator of the audit that was already being conducted. At this stage of the restaurant’s research, the focus had been one of mainly focusing on reducing the amount of waste created in the production stage.

The hotel had in the past used other methods of waste disposal, more favourable in the Waste Hierarchy. In Interview 4 it was discovered that food was formerly donated to a food bank scheme in the city, however it was found to cause difficulties for the operation of the kitchen due to the way the food was collected and eventually the food bank scheme was ended. Similarly, in Interview 2 it was revealed that waste from the Green bins had been given to local pig farmers as swill, however due to the changes in regulations mentioned earlier in this paper, this practice was outlawed.

It has been established in the Literature Review that the Case Study Hotel’s current method of waste disposal is via municipal Anaerobic Digestion. In order to better understand how this method fits into the Waste Hierarchy and the reasons that it is considered less preferable to composting, we must first understand the process and its limitations.

Anaerobic digestion (AD)

AD is a widely utilised method for the transformation of organic waste into usable resources (NFU, 2013). The main impetus behind the use of this method is to divert waste from landfill where it produces greenhouse gases such as methane (OIES, 2012). Through AD this methane-rich biogas can be captured and used for electricity production, district heating systems, or upgraded through purification to produce Biomethane, which can be used to power vehicles (NFU, 2013; Omrin, 2016-2).

The solid and liquid waste products from this process can be used directly as soil improvers in agriculture or as liquid fertilisers, in replacement of hydrocarbon-based fertilisers (NFU, 2013).

From an operational point of view, the current system of bin collections is simple. The restaurant is only expected to collect and store the waste and has no responsibility for the disposal, only the correct separation of organic waste and MSW. The researcher observed that staff in the Case Study Hotel found it simple to separate waste.

With regards to cost to the restaurant, disposal of a separate FW stream is relatively cheap when compared to the standard MSW stream. The Case Study Hotel pays €65 per tonne for the separate green waste stream to be disposed of. The MSW stream costs the hotel €112 per tonne. The extra processing involved in separating the waste into different material streams increases the costs for the hotel.

From the observation, the following findings could be established:

• Green waste was being separated from MSW in the kitchen. Plate scrapings from the restaurant were being added to this stream, though not from the canteen side of the operation.

• The vast majority of the green waste was made up of cooked/processed food.

• The kitchen staff were competent at separating waste correctly.

• There was a culture of willingness to reduce food waste at the restaurant.

Design principles – B

B1: Needs to have a a checkpoint to see if they have looked into reduction etc. before even this starting this stage.

B2: Needs to have checkpoint to determine the feasibility of food donation

B3: Entry-point that only unavoidable waste remains and that the make-up and quantity of this waste is known.

Pillar C: Composting

Building on what has been established about AD, it is important to refer back to the Literature Review and to critically evaluate composting in all its different methods to establish how beneficial this method is in a hospitality context.

Critical discussion element

Operational

The operational considerations are one of the main factors to consider when determining the feasibility of OSC (HCPC, 2011; New York Times, 2013). The current waste disposal method requires simply the collection of waste. Once the waste is removed by the waste disposal company it no longer requires consideration by the organisation. Composting in contrast requires much input by the organisation. Once collected and using any of the methods stated, it must then be tended to and eventually re-collected and removed or used.

Vos (personal communication, 6.1.2019) states that experimental research in organisations has shown that an expert needs to be designated within the staff to act as a ‘Compost Chef’. That is to say, somebody with the knowledge of the ‘recipe’ and procedural knowledge that can train other staff in the methods, the importance of correct procedure and to build a culture of composting within the kitchen. This staff member would also liaise on the specific challenges of the business that arise through the new method.

Capacity, space & time

Capacity is one of the main considerations of feasibility (Boulder County Office of Sustainability, 2014; HCPC, 2011; Powell, 2013). A restaurant’s capacity to store the waste, as well as how much waste can be processed at one time and how much of the finished compost can be stored prior to collection or use is the largest physical factor affecting the decision. Capacity is also one area that mostly cannot be changed, as it is largely constrained by the premises the restaurant occupies.

The most potentially compact option for OSC would be the Mechanical method. In a relatively small space it is possible to process a great deal of waste in a relatively short time. This makes it ideal for restaurants producing larger quantities of waste, without the space required for other methods. In contrast, TC & BC require much more space to produce compost, usually in an outdoor context.

As previously discussed, TC is unable to deal with processed foods, meaning that its scope and indeed capacity are somewhat limited. However, if this method were used on a smaller selection of products then it may be a feasible option. In the example of tea and coffee served at breakfast, the waste from this operation is able to be separate from the rest of the food waste as it is physically separate. The same situation would be encountered in a hotel café bar.

In this instance, a much smaller proportion of waste is produced. The waste is relatively uniform, consisting of mostly coffee grounds and tea leaves. This waste stream is a good candidate for TC. If this stream were separated from the general waste stream it would produce a large yield of compost in a relatively small space, drastically reducing the capacity required for composting.

The time required to process the compost is a large factor in deciding if OSC is feasible for a business. This is largely affected by the amount of FW entering the system, but also depends on the method used. As discussed, Mechanical Composting is the fastest method, though if the business has the space and a smaller amount of FW to process, this may not be the best method for the business. If storage of the waste and space for the composting process are abundant then time becomes a lesser factor.

There are however methods to increase the speed of the manual composting processes. In the case of TC and Windrows, the addition of heat will increase the bacterial activity leading to faster decomposition. With this can come an increase in smells and a reduction in microbial and microorganism activity.

This contrasts with the BC method, which rather than seeking to destroy the microbial activity though heat, is a cold process, relying on microbial competition to increase the number of preservative microbes and to reduce the populations of organisms that will remove the elements such as carbon.

A third method to speed up the process is by making the food waste smaller, usually by shredding. This can be done by hand in small quantities, or it can be processed through a kitchen waste disposal unit for example. When the waste is smaller and with the protective outer layers and cell walls broken up, the bacteria and microorganisms are able to penetrate the materials and make the nutrients available to the composting process (Epstein, 2017; Wyngaard & Lange, 2013; Vos, personal communication, 6.1.2019).. The Green Machine provides hotels in the Netherlands with shredders to process their food waste before it is disposed of. Agriton is experimenting with applying the BC process to this shredded waste to measure the effect of smaller waste material on BC (Vos, personal communication, 6.1.2019).

Currently there are no fully automatic Bokashi systems, making it a requirement that the procedures must be monitored by the Bokashi chef, as it can have the potential to go wrong if not correctly implemented. Terug naar de Basis in Enschede are experimenting with FW BC and have found that the monitoring of the process became a procedure in itself (Vos, personal communication, 6.1.2019). A solution was found by modifying the First In, First Out (FIFO) process used in stock control within the kitchen. The staff applied the same labelling system to the Bokashi bins with great success. Technological solutions are being developed, such as in the experiments by FrIanxKathRa (2016), but at present, the monitoring of the Bokashi process must be done manually.

Vermin and smells

Composting can attract vermin (Epstein, 2017; Balz, 2017). This is especially the case in TC, BC, VC & Windrow operations (Balz, 2017). In the Dutch Code of Hygiene, it is stated that vermin, including flies are to be deterred, making the placement of a facility on-site that may attract vermin disadvantageous. Ideally a composting site would be located a distance from the kitchens or hotel site. Vos (personal communication, 6.1.2019) states that a major problem affecting BC experiments has been invasions of flies and the subsequent larvae, though it was unclear if these infestations occurred during the process or through incorrect handling of the waste prior to the BC process.

Locations with free land within their grounds would be able to set up a space away from the hotel building in order to reduce the impact of the inevitable vermin. As discussed previously, locations with pre-existing organic waste streams such has horse manure will already possess such land. This could be a good place to locate a manual compost system.

Mechanical composting does not attract vermin in the same way, though if waste is stored prior to processing, or composted material is stored near the machine prior to use or removal, vermin, especially flies would soon be present (FOR Solutions, 2018; Ridan, 2019; Epstein, 2017).

Smells too are an unavoidable side effect of composting (Balz, 2017). Methane, sulphur and other gases and VOCs produced in the process have an unpleasant smell and guests would likely complain if they came in contact with them (Epstein, 2017).

High concentration materials

Composting of any kind requires a reasonable mix of the ‘green’ and ‘brown’ materials. When the balance of these materials becomes unequal the efficiency of the composting process suffers and the quality of the finished product is lowered (Balz, 2017). Usually in food waste composting there is an overabundance of green materials and so brown materials including paper and card are added to rebalance the mixture. In some restaurants however, there may be a very strong imbalance. To use the example of a fish restaurant, most of the food waste consists of shells and fish meat, as well as oils and greases. The plant content of the waste is low, but there is still a very high ‘green’ element to the mix, due to the high nitrogen content of the fish meat (Boldrin, et al., 2009; Bortolotti, et al., 2018; Epstein, 2017).

Financial

Procurement

The setup costs of the various methods are largely dependent on the scale of the operation. With manual methods, it may be possible to have a relatively small outlay for just a collection area and some containers. These could be increased as the scheme develops and so the costs would be spread. Mechanical Composting on the contrary is an expensive endeavour, with even a small machine costing around €2500. A machine of this size would be required for a restaurant as in the case study, with a relatively large output of waste. Even in this example, a small machine would cost the equivalent of two years’ worth of green waste disposal. This highlights how the Mechanical Composting method is a long-term solution and requires investment (Slack, et al., 2016).

There may also be some landscaping or architectural costs involved in implementing a system. A Mechanical Composting system may require modifications to the building including the re-routing of water and electricity systems (FOR Solutions, 2018). TC and BC methods may require hardstanding to be created in outdoor areas, or the erection of screening to shield the new waste area from the view of guests.

On top of the initial procurement costs, the costs involved in operating the system need to be considered. As discussed earlier, composting, instead of, or in addition to, a normal waste disposal system will add to the workload of the organisation. With increased workload of extra staff hours to cover the extra work, or staff training to operate the system efficiently add cost. This extra workload may cause a strain on the kitchen staff until the new system has become established.

In addition, extra costs may arise from the chosen method. Mechanical Composting for example requires electrical power to function, though the amount of which will vary between machines and hours of use (FOR Solutions, 2018). TC and BC may require the input of further ‘brown’ material. If there is another source freely available such as shredded cardboard or dead leaves then this should not add cost, other than the operational cost of a staff member collecting leaves or shredding cardboard.

In comparison to the standard disposal method there seems to be the indication that there will not be a quick return on investment from adding a composting system to a company’s operations. The cost savings would largely come from a much more integrated approach to waste and would depend greatly on the starting point of the company.

There are however some financial benefits to composting that could prove profitable enough to counteract the operational costs discussed above.

Saving disposal cost

An immediate cost saving would be made by reducing the amount of waste being disposed of via the MSW or the Green bin waste streams. This could be implemented by reduction or donation, as per the Waste Hierarchy, though local composting could also eliminate the removal and disposal costs of a municipal scheme. This must obviously be offset against any increased operational costs.

Marketing

One less tangible way that composting could be of benefit to the hotel is that of the positive marketing impact of green initiatives. Wyngaard & Lange (2013) state that hotel consumers are attracted by green features such as energy saving methods, renewable energy and sensitive waste management (Epler Wood, 2017). According to Global Data (2016), 35% of tourists are likely to book eco-holidays. Industry awards and certifications such as Green Key and Green Leader help to promote the sustainability efforts of hotels and increase this market. Clearly there is a benefit for a hotel that can make changes to win these customers (Epler Wood, 2017; Haverkamp, 2007), though more research would be required to fully understand the financial benefits of environmental initiatives in Dutch hotels.

Environmental

Conclusively establishing the potential financial and operational merits of composting proves somewhat difficult. The environmental benefits should be more clear-cut, though as with the other aspects, the issues require a broad focus, due to the interrelated nature of the challenges.

BC is found to very effectively capture the carbon in the FW and, when buried directly in the ground, allows this carbon to become available to the biome around it (Bosch, et al., 2016), (Vos, 2019). This benefit is however lost if the Bokashi is then further composted via TC, VC or windrows. In this instance, the carbon is then once again partly converted into CH4 and CO2 gas (Vos, personal communication, 6.1.2019; Bosch, et al., 2016).

When observing the waste hierarchies described in Fig. 5.3.1-1, all of these models rank recycling as a more preferable method than recovery. AD is a form of recovery, as it converts the chemical energy into another form of matter, with the priority being gas. It can be argued that composting is a form of recycling, as while the matter is transformed, it is not converted. It is therefore preferable to compost food waste than to anaerobically digest it (ILSR, 2017; Long, et al., 2018). Furthermore, the ILSR model ranks small-scale and local composting over municipal methods.

AD is particularly well suited to the processing of food waste as the methane which is readily produced by the waste is captured during the process. Were this waste sent to landfill this capture would be almost impossible, certainly not at efficient levels (Boulder County Office of Sustainability, 2014); Corsten, et al., 2013). Gases produced by composting can also be captured. Composting is seen as the better method for smaller-scale applications and therefore for on-site restaurant situations (Pace, et al., 2018; Long, et al., 2018; Mortier, et al., 2016).

When referring to the Waste Hierarchy (Fig. 5.3.1-1), AD ranks lower than municipal composting and lower still than small scale onsite composting. This is because of the large energy requirements of a centralised system, including the haulage of the waste. This haulage and energy hungry process has been improved upon by the introduction of vehicles that run on the Biomethane produced, as in the Omrin case study (Boldrin, et al., 2009; Bosch, et al., 2016; Omrin, 2016-2).

Benefits

In the case of a hotel located ‘off grid’, or at least far from a suitable municipal FW disposal method, OSC could be an effective method. In the case of the Mudbrick vineyard and restaurant in New Zealand, access to both a good fertiliser source and cost-effective, environmentally-conscious FW disposal method is due to their location on a small island. The business has turned to BC as a solution to both of these problems (Bokashi World, 2015). Businesses located on the islands in the northern Netherlands may benefit similarly from applying on-site FW disposal techniques.

Produce resource

One way that a hotel could see a return on investment would be as a saving on the amount of soil improver that it needed to buy in order to maintain the grounds. Mudbrick Hotel and Vineyard currently buys soil conditioners or fertilisers for its grounds in order to keep the land productive. This cost would be saved by producing the resource on-site from waste.

If a hotel does not need all of compost it produces, it may be possible to sell the excess locally to gardeners or farmers. The Case Study Hotel works closely with many small local fruit and vegetable producers, many of whom have indicated an interest in purchasing potential future compost from the hotel to be used in their production process. However, this has not yet been stringently explored nor financially assessed.

Case study element

The management staff felt that they had very few options available to them, other than that of municipal waste collections. They had made inquiries into composting options and other disposal methods, but these methods had not been explored in any detail.

There was a feeling in management that the waste could be used as a resource, especially as an agricultural product, perhaps as animal feed or fertilizer. Inquiries had been made with local food suppliers as to whether there was an interest for such a product, but the response had been limited and mixed.

These inquiries were instigated by the perceived large quantities of waste being produced. When asked if there were profit considerations, the management staff indicated that this was secondary, when compared to the more environmentally beneficial use of the waste.

While composting had been considered, the practicalities had not been considered in depth. From the interviews, it was clear that none of the management team had an impression of what a composting system may look like, especially not the scale and had not considered the negative effects such as vermin. The understanding of the processes involved in composting seemed vague. This is backed up in discussion with Vos (personal communication, 19.1.2019) whose own experiences had shown the value of the ‘bokashi chef.

Design principles – C

C1: Needs to allow overview and evaluation (including cost) of the available options

C2: Checkpoint evaluate the economic and non-economic value of the Compost to the business

C3: Need to capture the inherent pros and cons of the different composting methods and their implications for each feasibility pillar.

C4: Needs to enable a process to evaluate the staff’s competence and willingness to comply with the composting process; also, to evaluate any resultant costs.

Conclusion

Fig. 6‑1: Generation of overarching design principles

In conclusion, it is important to review the research by considering the design principles the study has been able to identify. Additionally, it will be discussed how these principles can be related to the Case Study Hotel and therefore, a real-life example.

As is shown in Fig. 6-1, the 10 design principles that were generated through the Results & Discussion section can be further summarised into 3 overarching design principles.

Overarching design principle 1 (ODP 1) addresses the nature of the tool itself. The findings suggest that it should be a visually accessible tool with the ability to accurately convey the complex interrelatedness of the different aspects of feasibility. Additionally, the tool needs to enable its users to change one variable (e.g. the speed required of the process) and to simultaneously impact other variables, therefore making it a tool that allows for forecasting different scenarios without requiring multiple complicated processes.

In summary, ODP 1 suggests a digital tool, though an analogue version, e.g. in the form of a manual, is also imaginable, but far less preferable. In its final form, the tool needs to present itself as a user-friendly platform to a wide audience, while still being able to accurately visualise a complex network of mutually dependent variables.

With 5 of the 10 design principles pointing towards the importance of Checkpoints, ODP 2 addresses this by incorporating Checkpoint moments and entry points. As the Waste Hierarchy discussion shows, it is fundamental to focus the discussion whether or not composting is a viable option strictly on the unavoidable FW generated by the hotel. This presupposes that management are sure that the waste is in fact unavoidable, and that more sustainable options have been considered and eliminated as not feasible or even possible. Some of these processes, e.g. an inquiry into the value of the compost (both economic and non-economic), require time and resources – for example, allocating staff to exploring all options for compost use. With many stakeholders coming together to reach a decision by using the tool, it is in everybody’s interest that all information has been collected prior to the decision-making process.

ODP 3 relates to the process itself. Having shown the complexity of any feasibility/sustainability consideration and having discussed the varying methods of composting, the tool needs to incorporate the views of all stakeholders in the process. In doing so, the tool addresses the ‘people’ aspect of sustainability.

The above discussion clearly shows that the development of such a tool as part of this study would far surpass the scope of the project. However, the researcher hopes to have established the design principles required to develop such a tool in a future project.

The need for such a tool has been highlighted by the case study research: the Case Study Hotel, while being motivated to consider OSC, found it to be too large and complex an issue to fully realise. Despite being well-intentioned, the steps undertaken by the hotel management so far, such as making incidental inquiries about interest in compost produced by the hotel, and initiating a FW audit, do not address the issue in the complexity required as outlined in this study.

Ultimately, the case study research is summed up by two main points, both of which support the conclusion that the Case Study Hotel is not yet ready to embark on a decision-making process.

Firstly, both observations and interviews highlighted that staff believed that they had exhausted all possibilities for reduction of waste. According to the Waste Hierarchy, this would be an entry point into the decision-making process. The researcher was able to conclude from both interviews and observations that this was only true for FW generated in the kitchen.

A major issue that had so far been overlooked, however, was the possibility to avoid waste by reducing the amount of food that was cooked/prepared in advance and discarded before it had even reached the customers. In not having considered this aspect, the hotel proves to not yet be ready to consider FW composting, as it would first need to reduce the overall amount of FW by carefully auditing and ultimately preventing over-preparation. The researcher has communicated this to the Case Study Hotel in the form of a recommendation, and has offered to advise the management on various possibilities of carrying out such an audit.

Secondly, the actual value of the compost generated by the hotel is unknown, as the inquiries about possible customers/users of the compost as such do not cover all possible uses. A recommendation to the Case Study Hotel has been to carry out such an evaluation and to focus on both economic as well as non-economic value, e.g. in the form of social partnerships that may profit the hotel in a myriad of ways. Whilst not directly impacting financially, such social partnerships may well have a spin-off effect that can be financially quantified (Clarke, 2014).

With fundamental environmental principles, such as the PP and the food Waste Hierarchy, suggesting that the feasibility of OSC should at least be considered for any hospitality operation, the present research argues that the hospitality industry is in need of assistance in assessing whether OSC is a feasible alternative for any given hotel. As the example of the Case Study Hotel shows, leaving the issue to be decided upon by the individual hotels, even if staffed by well-intentioned managerial decision-takers, can be expected to lead to viable options being left unexplored or the issue simply being abandoned due to the complexities of the decision-making process becoming unmanageable.

Examples like the Mudbrick vineyard and Hotel, amongst others, show hospitality businesses successfully using OSC techniques. This study will hopefully be able to make a small contribution towards a more thoughtful approach to alternative FW recycling methods. It is further hoped that the ODPs put forward in the conclusion of this paper may inform future research in this area and be helpful for other researchers in the field.

Recommendations for further studies

The main recommendation would be the production of a tool to help the hospitality industry with the decision of whether or not OSC was feasible for a particular business. This study should act as part of the research element for such a tool. The researcher envisions that such a tool could take the form of an App for a website to help hospitality professionals with the OSC decision.

In the interviews and discussions with industry professionals, a sociological question was repeatedly discussed. That was the question of whether a person is likely to waste more, if that waste were to be turned into a useful resource. This question seems to have not yet been fully explored in the hospitality context, and could be the basis of a very interesting study in itself and provide further insight into hospitality waste.

A socio-economic question that could be further explored would be the link between so-called green marketing and the financial ROI for a hospitality business. This factor impacts heavily on the decision-making process.

References

Akkucuk, U., 2015. Handbook of Research on Waste Management Techniques for Sustainability. Hershey: IGI Global.

Arancon, N. Q., Edwards, C. A., Atiyeh, R. & Metzger, J. D., 2004. Effects of vermicomposts produced from food waste on the growth and yields of greenhouse peppers. Bioresource Technology, June, 93(2), pp. 139-144.

Arvanitis, S. & Estevez, L., 2018. Feasibility Analysis and Study. In: M. Sotiriadis, ed. The Emerald Handbook of Entrepreneurship in Tourism, Travel and Hospitality. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 109-131.

Balz, M., 2017. Composting for a New Generation: Latest Techniques for the Bin and Beyond. Minneapolis: Cool Springs Press.

Bana e Costa, C. & Vansnick, J. C., 1994. MACBETH – An interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions. International Transactions in Operational Research, Volume 1, pp. 489-500.

Bedrijfschap Horeca en Catering, 2016. The Hygiene code For the Hotel & Catering Industry. 2 ed. Zoetermeer: Bedrijfschap Horeca en Catering.

Betz, A., Buchli, J., Göbel, C. & Müller, C., 2015. Food waste in the Swiss food service industry – magnitude and potential for reduction. Waste Management, Volume 35, pp. 218-226.

Bokashi World, 2015. Bokashi a hit in restaurants and offices in New Zealand. [Online]
Available at: https://bokashiworld.blog/2015/08/27/bokashi-a-hit-in-restaurants-and-offices-in-new-zealand/
[Accessed 12 October 2018].

Boldrin, A. et al., 2009. Composting and compostutilization: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Management and Research, 27(8), pp. 800-812.

Bortolotti, A., Kampelmann, S. & De Muynck, S., 2018. Decentralised Organic Resource Treatments – Classification and comparison through Extended Material Flow Analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10 May, Volume 183, pp. 515-526.

Bosch, M., Hitman, A. & Feersma Hoekstra, J., 2016. Fermentation (Bokashi) versus Composting of Organic Waste Materials: Consequences for Nutrient Losses and CO2-footprint, Noordwolde: Agriton.

Boulder County Office of Sustainability, 2014. Boulder County Composting Capacity Analysis: FINAL REPORT, Boulder, Colorado: Boulder County Office of Sustainability.

Cavagnaro, E. & Curiel, G. H., 2012. The Three Levels of Sustainability. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

Chibili, M. N., 2016. Modern Hotel Operations Management. 1st ed. Groningen: Noordhoff Uitgevers.

Cocoon, 2018. Landfill Management in the Netherlands, Deventer: Witteveen+Bos.

Corsten, M., Worrell, E., Rouw, M. & Duin, A., 2013. The potential contribution of sustainable waste management to energy use and greenhouse gas emission reduction in the Netherlands. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 77, pp. 13-21.

Duursma, G., Vrenegoor, F. & Kobus, S., 2016. Food waste reduction at Restaurant De Pleats: Small steps for mankind. Research in Hospitality Management , 6(1), p. 95–100.

ECA, 2016. Combating Food Waste: an opportunity for the EU to improve the resource-efficiency of the food supply chain, Luxembourg: European Union.

Edgell, D., 2016. Managing Sustainable Tourism: A legacy for the future. Second ed. Abingdon: Routledge.

Edwards, W., 1977. How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decisionmaking. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Volume 7, pp. 326-340.

EM Natuurlijk Actief, 2017. Etensresten restaurant Mediamatic verwerkt tot bokashi. [Online]
Available at: https://www.emnatuurlijkactief.nl/etensresten-restaurant-mediamatic-verwerkt-tot-bokashi/
[Accessed 13 October 2018].

EPA, 2014. A Guide to Conducting and Analysing a Food Waste Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.

Epler Wood, M., 2017. Sustainable Tourism on a Finite Planet: Environmental, Business and Policy Solutions. Abingdon: Routledge.

Epstein, E., 2017. The Science of Composting. Abingdon: Routledge.

EU, 2003. 2003/328/EC Commision Decision on transitional measures under Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the use of category 3 catering waste in feed for pigs and the intra-species recycling ban on the feeding of swill to pigs (notified under document number C(2003) 1502), Brussels: European Commision.

EU, 2004. Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs. Strasbourg: s.n.

EU, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the council on waste and repealing certain Directives. Strasbourg: European Parliament.

EU, 2018. DIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/851 of the European Union and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste. Strasbourg: European Union.

Faure, M., 2016. Economic Approaches to Environmental Governance: A principled Analysis. In: D. Fisher, ed. Research Handbook on Fundamental Concepts of Environmental Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, p. 119.

Fernandes de Magalhães, R., de Moura Ferreira Danilevicz, Â. & Palazzo, J., 2019. Managing trade-offs in complex scenarios: A decision-making tool for sustainability projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1 March, Volume 212, pp. 447-460.

Filimonau, V. & De Coteau, D. A., 2019. Food waste management in hospitality operations: A critical review. Tourism Management, April, Volume 71, pp. 234-245.

Filimonau, V., Krivcova, M. & Pettit, F., 2019. An exploratory study of managerial approaches to food waste mitigation in coffee shops. International Journal of Hospitality Management, January, 76(A), pp. 48-57.

FOR Solutions, 2016. Union County Vocational Technical Schools Home to a FOR Solutions Composting System: IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING SYSTEM TO CONVERT UNEATEN FOOD INTO NUTRIENT-DENSE, HIGH-QUALITY COMPOST.. [Online]
Available at: https://www.forsolutionsllc.com/082216
[Accessed 12 November 2018].

FOR Solutions, 2018. Info Sheet: FOR Solutions Patented Aerobic In-Vessel Rotary Drum Composting Process. [Online]
Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b719a03da02bcff5ba9e793/t/5b7200b7cd83666472d38a48/1534197945353/2018+-+Info+Sheet.pdf
[Accessed 12 November 2018].

FrIanxKathRa, 2016. Automated Bokashi Composting Monitoring System. [Online]
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpZlrSnRq1E
[Accessed 13 October 2018].

Fusions EU, 2016. The Netherlands–Country Report on national food waste policy Status: Second draft. [Online]
Available at: https://www.eu-fusions.org/phocadownload/country-report/NETHERLANDS%2023.02.16.pdf
[Accessed 15 November 2018].

Global Data, 2016. Top Trends in Sustainable Tourism: An analysis of the key trends in sustainable tourism and the business opportunities they create for the travel and tourism industry, s.l.: Global Data.

Goldstein, N., 2014. Greenmarkets Facilitate Food Scraps Diversion In NYC. Biocycle, 55(2), p. 20.

Green Tools, n.d. CAFÉ / RESTAURANT COMPOSTING. [Online]
Available at: https://greentools.ca/restaurant-composting
[Accessed 2 January 2019].

Groat, P., 2016. In-House Composting Systems for Commercial and Institutional Use. Saskatoon: School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan.

Guardian, 2015. Produced but never eaten: a visual guide to food waste. [Online]
Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2015/aug/12/produced-but-never-eaten-a-visual-guide-to-food-waste
[Accessed 11 November 2018].

Guo, W. et al., 2018. On site composting of food waste: A pilot scale case study in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, May, Volume 132, pp. 130-138.

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C. & Sonesson, U., 2011. Global Food Losses and Food Waste. Extent, Causes and Prevention, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Haverkamp, D., 2007. Environmental Management in the Dutch Food and Beverage Industry: A Longitudinal Study into the Joint Impact of Business Network and Firm Characteristics on the Adoption of Environmental Management Capabilities. Wageningen Academic Publications. Wageningen: Wageningen University.

HCPC, 2011. Restaurant Composting: An Overview. [Online]
Available at: https://www.hcpcme.org/environment/compost/restaurantcomposting.pdf
[Accessed 12 October 2018].

ILSR, 2017. Hierarchy to Reduce Food Waste & Grow Community. [Online]
Available at: https://ilsr.org/food-waste-hierarchy/
[Accessed 14 November 2018].

Inhabitat, 2014. The First CityPod Composter Has Been Installed in a Canadian University. [Online]
Available at: https://inhabitat.com/the-first-citypod-composter-has-been-installed-in-a-canadian-university/citypod-composter
[Accessed 2 January 2019].

Ishizaka, A. & Siraj, S., 2018. Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 16 January, 264(2), pp. 462-471.

ISO, 2015. ISO 14001:2015 Environmental management systems — Requirements with guidance for use, Geneva: ISO.

Jouhara, H. et al., 2017. Municipal waste management systems for domestic use. Energy, 15 November, Volume 139, pp. 485-506.

King County, 2018. Commercial on-site food composting. [Online]
Available at: https://kingcounty.gov/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/garbage-recycling/compost-more/on-site.aspx
[Accessed 2 January 2019].

Kingston, S., Heyvaert, V. & Cavoski, A., 2017. European Environmental Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Langlet, D. & Mahmoudi, S., 2016. EU Environmental Law and Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leavy, P., 2017. Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, Mixed Methods, Arts-Based, and Community-Based Participatory Research Approaches. New York City: The Guilford Press.

Legrand, W., Sloan, P. & Chen, J. S., 2016. Sustainability in the Hospitality Industry Principles of sustainable operations. Abingdon: Routledge.

Long, L., Xu, F., Ge, X. & Li, Y., 2018. Improving the sustainability of organic waste management practices in the food-energy-water nexus: A comparative review of anaerobic digestion and composting. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, June, Volume 89, pp. 151-167.

Marthinsen, J., Sundt, P., Kaysen, O. & Kirkevaag, K., 2012. Prevention Of Food Waste In Restaurants, Hotels, Canteens And Catering. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

Martin-Rios, C., Demen-Meier, C., Gössling, S. & Cornuz, C., 2018. Food waste management innovations in the foodservice industry. Waste Management, September, Volume 79, pp. 196-206.

Melissen, F. & Sauer, L., 2019. Improving Sustainability in the Hospitality Industry. Abingdon: Routledge.

Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, 2010. Fact Sheet: Food Waste in the Netherlands, Amsterdam: Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality.

Ministry of Economic Affairs of the Netherlands, 2016. Energy Report: Transition to sustainable energy, The Hague: Ministry of Economic Affairs of the Netherlands.

Mitchell, M., 2001. On-site Composting of Restaurant Organic Waste: Economic, Ecological, and Social Costs and Benefits. Berkeley: University of California: Berkeley.

Mortier, N., Velghe, F., Verstichel, S. E. P. P. & D'Urso, O., 2016. Biotransformation of Agricultural Waste and By-Products: The Food, Feed, Fibre, Fuel (4F) Economy: Chapter 4 - Organic Recycling of Agricultural Waste Today: Composting and Anaerobic Digestion. 1st ed. s.l.:Elsevier.

New York Times, 2013 . For Restaurants, Composting Is a Welcome but Complex Task. [Online]
Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/dining/for-restaurants-composting-is-a-welcome-but-complex-task.html
[Accessed 12 October 2018].

NFU, 2013. Anaerobic Digestion: can we attain NFU’s aspiration for 1000 on-farm plants?. [Online]
Available at: https://www.nfuonline.com/assets/22388
[Accessed 14 Nov 2018].

Ninemeier, J. D., 2014. Management of Food and Beverage Operations. London: Pearson Education.

Nola, 2011. Restaurant kitchen scraps fuel composting projects. [Online]
Available at: https://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2011/10/scraps_from_local_eateries_fue.html
[Accessed 2 January 2019].

OIES, 2012. Perspectives for Biogas in Europe - Floris van Foreest, Oxford: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

Omrin, 2016. Bedrijfsfilm Omrin English version. [Online]
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WN_-uaEkKA
[Accessed 17 October 2018].

Omrin, 2018. Diensten en Producten. [Online]
Available at: https://www.omrin.nl/bij-mijn-bedrijf/diensten-en-producten/gft
[Accessed 14 November 2018].

Orgcharting, 2016. HOTEL ORGANIZATIONAL CHART – INTRODUCTION AND SAMPLE. [Online]
Available at: http://www.orgcharting.com/hotel-organizational-chart/
[Accessed 20 December 2018].

Papargyropoulou, E. et al., 2016. Conceptual framework for the study of food waste generation and prevention in the hospitality sector. Waste Management, March, Volume 49, pp. 326-336.

Parfitt, J., Barthel, M. & Macnaughton, S., 2010. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, Volume 365,1554, pp. 3065-81.

Pirani, S. I. & Arafat, H. A., 2014. Solid waste management in the hospitality industry: A review. Journal of Environmental Management, 15 December, Volume 146, pp. 320-336.

Pirani, S. I. & Arafat, H. A., 2016. Reduction of food waste generation in the hospitality industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20 September, Volume 132, pp. 129-145.

Powell, T., 2013. On-site Composting at the University of Canterbury, Canterbury: University of Canterbury.

Priefer, C., Jörissen, J. & Bräutigam, K.-R., 2016. Food waste prevention in Europe – A cause-driven approach to identify the most relevant leverage points for action. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, May–June, Volume 109, pp. 155-165.

Red Worm Composting, 2008. Restaurant Food Waste Vermicomposting. [Online]
Available at: https://www.redwormcomposting.com/worm-farming/restaurant-food-waste-vermicomposting/
[Accessed 2 January 2019].

Rena, Y. et al., 2018. A comprehensive review on food waste anaerobic digestion: Research updates and tendencies. Bioresource Technology, January, Volume 247, pp. 1069-1076.

Ridan, 2019. Home. [Online]
Available at: https://www.ridan.co.uk/
[Accessed 2 January 2019].

Saaty, T., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Volume 15, pp. 234-281.

Singleton, R. L., 2012. SORTING IT OUT: Food waste separation in large New Zealand hotels: Barriers and Incentives. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington.

Slack, N., Brandon-Jones, A. & Johnston, R., 2016. Operations Management. Eighth ed. London: Pearson Education.

Smart, B. P. K. B. J., 2013. Observation Methods. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage.

UN, 2019. About the Sustainable Development Goals. [Online]
Available at: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
[Accessed 6 December 2018].

van Dooren, C., 2017. Oplegnotitie Voedselverspilling bij huishoudens in Nederland in 2016, the Hague: Voedingscentrum.

Waarts, Y. et al., 2011. Reducing food waste, Obstacles experienced in legislation and regulations - LEI report, Wageningen: Wageningen UR.

Wellinger, A., Murphy, J. D., Baxter, D. & (Eds), 2013. The Biogas Handbook: Science, Production and Applications, Oxford: Woodhead.

Williams, P., 2013. Waste Treatment and Disposal. Second ed. Hoboken: Wiley.

WRAP, 2013. Overview of waste in the UK hospitality and food service sector, Oxon: WRAP.

Wyngaard, A. T. & Lange, R., 2013. The effectiveness of implementing eco initiatives to recycle water and food waste in selected Cape Town hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, September, Volume 34, pp. 309-316.

Xu, F. et al., 2018. Anaerobic digestion of food waste – Challenges and opportunities. Bioresource Technology, January, Volume 247, pp. 1047-1058.

Zambrzycki, B., 2018. Food Waste related provisions in the amended Waste Framework Directive European Commission, DG Health and Food Safety Unit E1, Food information and composition, food waste 1EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste Subgroup Action and Implementation. [Online]
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/fw_eu-platform_20180319_sub-ai_pres-06.pdf
[Accessed 24 November 2018].