Applied Science, Faculty of
Mining Engineering, Keevil Institute of
DSpace
UBCV
Sayannyambuu, Mandakh-Erdene
Master of Applied Science - MASc
University of British Columbia
The mining industry is facing increasing scrutiny to demonstrate that sustainability considerations are taken into account in their operations. This research approaches food waste as an overlooked, yet important issue that can advance not only environmental responsibility but also social and economic concerns within the mining industry. The implications of food waste generation on greenhouse gases, use of energy, groundwater contamination, and landfill space required are also critical concerns for the mining industry in the context of sustainability. This study evaluates the efforts that food service supply companies in mining camps are implementing to limit their food waste and assesses whether the prevention of food waste is a priority for these companies. This study used an online survey as the primary methodology for data collection. The survey resulted in a sample of eight respondents. Survey responses were structured based on the type of food waste, quantity, and causes of the waste. These were then mapped into pre- and post-consumer phases of the food services. Results indicated that proactive action to prevent food waste was not a priority for the respondents. The findings showed that the "vegetable" category had the highest amount of food waste throughout the different phases. Six out of eight companies did not measure the quantity of wasted food. During pre-consumer phase, difficulty in assessing demand, and confusion over dates were the most frequently cited causes for wastage. At the same time, overproduction was the leading cause of wastage in the post-consumer phase. Further complimenting the survey findings, the potential for the re-utilization of food waste through the creation of compost and alternative energy sources, was evaluated. The improvements identified with regard to food handling practices and potential re-utilization, are significant. Suggestions regarding the prevention of food waste highlighted many ways in which foodservice supply companies, as well as the mining industry, could benefit. Within these benefits, there exist great opportunities to contribute to Sustainable Development Goals, especially SDG12.3. Increased efficiencies with respect to food waste would reduce the environmental footprint, lead to potential re-utilization of food waste for electricity and gas generation, and increase profitability.
AN EVALUATION OF MINING CAMP FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN CANADA: AN OVERVIEW by Mandakh-Erdene Sayannyambuu B.A.Sc., Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, 2011 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Mining Engineering) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) May 2020 © Mandakh-Erdene Sayannyambuu, 2020 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, a thesis entitled: An evaluation of mining camp food waste management practices in Canada: An Overview submitted by Mandakh-Erdene Sayannyambuu in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Applied Science in Mining Engineering Examining Committee: Dirk van Zyl, Mining Engineering Supervisor Andre Xavier, Mining Engineering Supervisory Committee Member Bruce Marshall, Mining Engineering Supervisory Committee Member iii Abstract The mining industry is facing increasing scrutiny to demonstrate that sustainability considerations are taken into account in their operations. This research approaches food waste as an overlooked, yet important issue that can advance not only environmental responsibility but also social and economic concerns within the mining industry. The implications of food waste generation on greenhouse gases, use of energy, groundwater contamination, and landfill space required are also critical concerns for the mining industry in the context of sustainability. This study evaluates the efforts that food service supply companies in mining camps are implementing to limit their food waste and assesses whether the prevention of food waste is a priority for these companies. This study used an online survey as the primary methodology for data collection. The survey resulted in a sample of eight respondents. Survey responses were structured based on the type of food waste, quantity, and causes of the waste. These were then mapped into pre- and post-consumer phases of the food services. Results indicated that proactive action to prevent food waste was not a priority for the respondents. The findings showed that the "vegetable" category had the highest amount of food waste throughout the different phases. Six out of eight companies did not measure the quantity of wasted food. During pre-consumer phase, difficulty in assessing demand, and confusion over dates were the most frequently cited causes for wastage. At the same time, overproduction was the leading cause of wastage in the post-consumer phase. Further complimenting the survey findings, the potential for the re-utilization of food waste through the creation of compost and alternative energy sources, was evaluated. The improvements identified with regard to food handling practices and potential re-utilization, are significant. Suggestions regarding the prevention of food waste highlighted many ways in which foodservice supply companies, as well as the mining industry, could benefit. Within these benefits, there exist great iv opportunities to contribute to Sustainable Development Goals, especially SDG12.3. Increased efficiencies with respect to food waste would reduce the environmental footprint, lead to potential re-utilization of food waste for electricity and gas generation, and increase profitability. v Lay Summary As society has developed a deeper level of environmental awareness, the issue of food waste has been getting much more attention from academics, the media and governmental policy. As a result, the prevention of food waste is becoming an urgent priority for many governments around the world. Although the issue of food waste and how to resolve the issue has been well examined within the literature, with respect to mining camps this issue has not been addressed. This research evaluates the food handling practices among mining foodservice suppliers in an effort to understand the steps there are currently being taken towards food waste prevention. This study provides insight into the issue of the levels of food wastage in mining camps in Canada. In support of quantitative findings on food waste, further calculations were made to demonstrate the potential for the re-utilization of wasted food in mining camps. vi Preface I am responsible for the design, data collection, and writing process of this research. The questionnaire design, analysis, and interpretation of the collected data were also completed by myself. The data collection and analysis were completed using the Qualtrics Survey (Qualtrics.com). Since the survey was conducted as the primary data collection method, this study complies with the requirements of the University of British Columbia Behavioral Research Ethics Board under Certificate number H17-00914. vii Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ...........................................................................................................................v Preface ..................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. vii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................x List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... xi List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................... xii Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................ xiii Dedication ...............................................................................................................................xv Chapter 1: Introduction ..........................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Questions and Objectives ............................................................................ 4 1.3 Thesis Outline ............................................................................................................. 5 Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................................................6 2.1 Definitions: Food Waste vs Food Loss ...................................................................... 6 2.2 Food Waste as a Global Concern ................................................................................ 8 2.3 Food waste in the food service sector ....................................................................... 10 2.3.1 Definition: Food service suppliers and contract catering industry ................... 12 2.3.2 “If you can not measure it, you can not improve it”- Lord Kelvin (“Lord Kelvin and the Importance of Measurement,” n.d.) ......................................................................... 12 2.3.3 Food Waste “hotspot” ....................................................................................... 14 2.3.4 Primary causes of food waste ........................................................................... 15 viii 2.4 Food waste prevention as a priority .......................................................................... 17 2.4.1 Food waste recycle and recovery ...................................................................... 19 2.5 Summary of literature review - Conceptual framework development...................... 21 Chapter 3: Research Design ..................................................................................................24 3.1 Research Scope ......................................................................................................... 24 3.2 Research Method ...................................................................................................... 25 3.3 Research tools ........................................................................................................... 26 3.3.1 Survey questionnaire design ............................................................................. 26 3.3.2 Food waste handling framework: food waste prevention measures ................. 28 3.3.3 Survey questions ............................................................................................... 29 3.4 Survey distribution .................................................................................................... 33 3.5 Data analysis ............................................................................................................. 34 3.6 Assumptions made in calculating potential reutilization of food waste ................... 34 Chapter 4: Survey Results .....................................................................................................38 4.1 Demographics of respondents ................................................................................... 38 4.2 Detailed results on food waste at the mining camps ................................................. 39 4.2.1 The type of food waste (by food category) ....................................................... 40 4.2.2 Quantity of food waste ...................................................................................... 42 4.2.3 Primary causes of food waste ........................................................................... 43 4.3 Food waste handling practices .................................................................................. 45 4.3.1 Food handling practices: pre-consumer phase .................................................. 47 4.3.2 Food handling practices: post-consumer phase ................................................ 50 4.3.3 Final management ............................................................................................. 51 ix 4.4 Summary of key findings .......................................................................................... 55 Chapter 5: Discussion ............................................................................................................56 5.1 Food waste in mining camps in Canada ................................................................... 56 5.1.1 Estimated quantity of food waste ...................................................................... 56 5.1.2 Highest wasted food categories ........................................................................ 57 5.1.3 Primary causes of food waste ........................................................................... 58 5.2 Opportunity for improvement: Food handling practices .......................................... 60 5.2.1 Increased collaboration and multi-stakeholder engagement ............................. 63 5.3 Potential re-utilization of food waste in mining camps ............................................ 64 5.4 Making shifts towards a sustainable culture ............................................................. 69 Chapter 6: Conclusions .........................................................................................................71 Chapter 7: Research Limitations and Recommendations for Future Work ....................74 7.1 Research limitations .................................................................................................. 74 7.2 Recommendations for Future Work.......................................................................... 75 Bibliography ...........................................................................................................................76 Appendices ..............................................................................................................................91 Appendix A Survey communication ................................................................................... 91 Appendix B Behavioural Research Ethics Certificate ........................................................ 94 Appendix C Complete Survey ............................................................................................ 95 Appendix D Visual Map of the Survey Questions ............................................................ 108 Appendix E Detailed information on food waste asked in the survey .............................. 109 x List of Tables Table 1. Basis of the assumption of calculations .......................................................................... 35 Table 2. Company size and average meals served per day/site .................................................... 39 Table 3. Company's size of the service and operations (per site) ................................................. 39 Table 4. Wasted food categoried by range (in relative %) at each stage of the operation ............ 42 Table 5. Comparison between the research findings and literature analysis: Primary causes of food waste ..................................................................................................................................... 60 Table 6. Existing practices among mining food service supplier companies: .............................. 61 Table 7. Calculations made to demontrate the potential for the re-utilization of wasted food in mining camps ................................................................................................................................ 67 Table 8 Key issues in research design and analysis ...................................................................... 74 xi List of Figures Figure 1. Measurement Practices vs FLW Trends (Gooch et al., 2019) ....................................... 13 Figure 2. The life cycle of food service operations (Baldwin & Shakman, 2012, 57). ................ 15 Figure 3. The food waste hierarchy (Effie Papargyropoulou et al., 2014) ................................... 19 Figure 4. The framework development of the survey questionnaire ............................................ 27 Figure 5. The type of food waste at each stage of the operation (by category) ............................ 41 Figure 6. Primary causes of the highest wasted food categories at each stage ............................. 44 Figure 7. Food handling practices during food service operation ................................................ 45 Figure 8. The importance of variables (to the mining companies) in contracting for food services....................................................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 9. Food handling practices during inventory control and storage management ................ 48 Figure 10. Food handling practices during material ordering and menu planning ....................... 49 Figure 11. Food handling practices in the kitchen ........................................................................ 49 Figure 12. Food handling practices during serving and consumption .......................................... 50 Figure 13. Food handling practices: Fixed target, multi-stakeholder engagement ....................... 52 Figure 14. Customer engagement in terms of reducing food waste ............................................. 53 Figure 15 Summary of existing practices among the food service supply companies of mining industry ......................................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 16 Demonstration for the re-utilization of wasted food in mining camps ......................... 68 xii List of Acronyms CEC Commission for Environmental Cooperation CO2 Carbon dioxide EPA Environmental Protection Agency (United States) EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FLW Food loss and waste FSC Food supply chain HRI Hotels, restaurants and institutions ICI Industrial, commercial and institutional sector IPCC Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change GHG Greenhouse gas kWh Kilowatt-hour LPG Liquefied petroleum gas NAICS North American Industry Classification System NZWC National Zero Waste Council SDG Sustainable Development Goals UK United Kingdom UN United Nation USA United States of America USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency WRAP The Waste and Resources Action Programme xiii Acknowledgement This thesis would not have been possible without the help and support of many people to whom I am sincerely grateful. I start by thanking my entire supervisory committee for their guidance and support as I worked to finish this master’s thesis. I would sincerely like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Dirk van Zyl for providing me with this tremendous opportunity to learn from him. I am grateful for your kindness and assistance in this study and in my journey as a graduate student. Secondly, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my committee members; special thanks to Dr. Bruce Marshall for his thoughtful insight, enthusiasm, and generous offers of his time. To Dr. Andre Xavier, thank you very much for your invaluable advice, support and your friendship. Your words of encouragement gave me the confidence to remain committed to my goals during even the most challenging moments. I consider myself incredibly fortunate to have met such role models and have nothing but respect and admiration for all of you. My friends have been an incredible source of support for me throughout my master’s program, and I could not have done it without their help, especially from: Bulgan Batdorj, Zorigtkhuu Bat-erdene, Solongo Bumtseren, Tserendolgor Sanduijav, Bilguun Nandinbilig, Adriana Goncalves, and Mario David Ramirez, who have helped keeping me motivated both academically and encouraged me to maintain a balanced life. I warmly appreciate the generosity and understanding of my friends. Special thanks to my dear friend Bulgan for always listening and helping me survive all the stress during this time. It was all the therapy that I needed. I am grateful for your friendship. I would also like to acknowledge the Oyu Tolgoi for providing me with an opportunity to pursue higher education in Canada. My graduate journey would not have been possible without the generous financial assistance of Oyu Tolgoi through its international scholarship. xiv Family comes first, but in this occasion I left them last because they deserve the most praise. Thanks to my dearest parents, Sayannyambuu and Ankhtuya; you taught me to value knowledge, work hard and believe in myself, all three necessary in doing a graduate school. I am eternally grateful to have such a loving, caring and supporting parents and siblings. Thank you Sandui and Nomin-Erdene for always believing in me and looking up to me. Most of all, I would like to thank my partner in crime Uuganbadrakh and our children Badral and Buren-Erdem. To our children: thank you for giving mommy the strength and joy to finish this journey; you teach me the importance of family, patience and love every day. To my husband: you are my rock; thank you for your unconditional love, I could not have done it without you. Your companionship, presense and unwavering support made this challenging process possible. xv Dedication To Uuganbadrakh Oyunkhishig For your unconditional love and compassion Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Overview Food waste and loss has become a global concern and is widely identified as a key barrier to global sustainability due to its adverse impacts on food security, natural resources (e.g., land, water, and energy), environment (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions), and human health (e.g., toxic emissions from incineration) (FAO, 2014a, 2014b; Pham, Kaushik, Parshetti, Mahmood, & Balasubramanian, 2015). Global food production uses 25% of inhabitable land, spends 70% of the potable water supply, causes 30% of global GHG emissions and 80% of the world’s deforestation (FAO, 2013; Vermeulen, Campbell, & Ingram, 2012). As such tackling food loss and waste becomes an urgent priority for many national and international governments. There are several targets established to address issue of food waste including Sustainable Development Goal 12.3 which is commitment to reduce the global per capita food waste at the retail and consumer levels by 50%, by 2030. In recent years, increasing numbers of industries, including the mining industry, have been concerned with issues related to sustainability. Sustainable Development has been described as a process that incorporates ecological, social, cultural, and economic dimensions ( Berkes , 2005; Hawkes, 2001; World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987), and within the mining industry, it is generally understood within the context of the thoughtful and effective management of social, economic, and environmental impacts (Jarvie-Eggart, 2015). Recently, the mining industry has faced increasing global pressure to demonstrate that considerations regarding sustainability are taken into account in their operations and across complete value chains (“Global Mining Sustainability - Collaboration,” n.d.). As such, to promote the objectives of sustainability in mining, many organizations and programs have been dedicated 2 to the reporting and management of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the mining industry. For example, The International Council on Mining and Metals established the Sustainable Development Framework to provide guidelines on topics such as climate change, partnership for development, transparency in minerals reporting, mercury risk management, Indigenous peoples, and protected areas. Another example is The Mining Association of Canada (MAC)’s Toward Sustainable Mining program, which includes protocols on biodiversity and conservation management, tailings management, crisis management, safety and health, energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) management, Aboriginal and community engagement, as well as a framework on mine closure. Progress along these indicators shows how well the industry is doing at addressing sustainability in each area, and where further progress is still needed. Therefore, good practices need to be incorporated at all levels from the board room to the mining campsite. The mining industry plays an important role in the Canadian economy. It has contributed $97 billion (5% of GDP), directly employs 426,000 people and indirectly employs an additional 208,000 people annually (The Mining Association of Canada, 2018). Typically, mining companies use contractors (i.e., food service suppliers) for their peripheral activities such as hostel maintenance and catering (Kenny & Bezuidenhout, 1999). These food service supply companies serve the mining camps under contract for a specific period, typically providing buffet-style food service. The central, full-service cafeterias at these camps produce a significant quantity of food waste, which is likely higher than the average food waste produced per person/day in Canada of 0.75 kg (or 22.54 kg/month) (Abdulla, Martin, Gooch, & Jovel, 2013). This thesis approaches food waste as an overlooked, yet important sustainability issue, the better management of which could contribute to the development of a higher level of environmental responsibility, social and economic concerns within the mining industry. Wasted 3 food has adverse environmental implications including greenhouse gas emissions, the unnecessary use of energy, ground water contamination, and landfill space, all of which are also critical concerns for the mining industry in terms of sustainability (Effie Papargyropoulou, Lozano, Steinberger, Wright, & Ujang, 2014; Raak, Symmank, Zahn, Aschemann-Witzel, & Rohm, 2017). Although the issue of food waste has been getting much more attention from research, the media, and governments (Griffin, Sobal, & Lyson, 2009) as a result of its environmental, economic, and social impacts (Effie Papargyropoulou et al., 2014), no previous research has been conducted on the issue of food waste in mining camps. The contribution of this research is to contribute to filling that gap and expand on the current knowledge regarding food handling practices in mining camps, as well as to examine the efforts that have been made towards food waste prevention among the companies that supply food services to mining camps in Canada. By extrapolating on the currently available data, calculations were made regarding the monetary value and practical applications of composting, soil amendment, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and methane gas that are produced from wasted food at mining campsites, as well as embedded carbon dioxide (CO2) and water consumption that are wasted along with food waste. The result of this analysis translates into potential business opportunities (see Discussion Chapter and the Potential Utilization section). The results and conclusions of this research can enable food service supply companies to improve upon their current practices and help them make better decisions with respect to managing food waste. Consequently, recommendations, as well as potential business opportunities, could lead to improvements, better economic efficiency and reduced environmental impact. It is expected that this may shed light on how awareness of this issue and the efficient use of food waste can help companies further promote sustainability. 4 1.2 Research Questions and Objectives The overarching question in this research study is: Is preventing food waste a priority for mining food service supply companies? If so, how are they trying to limit their food waste during services? Based on this overarching question the following objectives were formulated: • Objective 1 - To identify the quantity, category (type of material), source and the primary causes of food waste in mining camps in Canada. • Objective 2 - To identify common food handling practices used by food service supply companies of mining camps in Canada, and to investigate food waste prevention measures used for the sector. • Objective 3 - To provide recommendations on the areas in which food handling practices could be improved during food service to better limit food waste in mining camps in Canada. In summary, this research evaluates the efforts that food service supply companies of mining camps are taking to prevent food waste throughout the life cycle of their services and give recommendations for future strategies to limit their food waste. 5 1.3 Thesis Outline Chapter Two provides a literature review that includes a review of food waste and related concepts (definition, causes, food waste “hotspots”, food waste hierarchy) and discusses practices that can significantly help prevent food waste in the food service industry. Chapter Three describes the methods used in this research and provides a detailed discussion concerning the methodological approach. Chapter Four presents the results from a survey questionnaire and analyzes themes that emerged from the survey questionnaire. Chapter Five discusses the significance of the findings of the study and the general applicability of findings. In addition, this chapter includes a discussion of the opportunities for intervention identified in this research, and provides some suggestions for the food service suppliers as well as for the mining companies as a result of the findings of the research. Chapter Six concludes the research by presenting a conclusion, stating study limitations and making recommendations for future work. Finally, references cited in this work are listed and appendices are provided containing details regarding data and analysis in this study. 6 Chapter 2: Literature Review A great deal of research and literature has been compiled on the topic of food waste, including case studies, national reports, guidelines on quantity, source, causes, as well as social and economic impacts on the international and local levels (BIO Intelligence Service, 2010; Nikkel et al., 2019b; United Nations, 2016; World Resources Institute, 2016). The literature on the food waste management hierarchy was carefully examined with the objective to demonstrate the efficient use of resources in terms of economic value and environmental footprint of wasted food at mining campsites. This chapter discusses the terminologies, composition and origins of food waste found in the food service industry. It also discusses the primary causes of food waste, and at which points in the process food waste is produced, as well as current practices that pertain to this issue. It is important to note that the researcher could not obtain any information regarding food waste in the mining context. Therefore, to develop the conceptual framework of this study, the researcher relied on existing studies. 2.1 Definitions: Food Waste vs Food Loss The definition of food waste differs from food loss and is based on what materials are included and excluded, how it is produced, and how it is managed at the endpoint (Gjerris & Gaiani, 2013). Within the general concept of food waste, distinctions are often made between food loss and food waste, depending on the country and the research angle (Gustavsson, Cederberg, Sonesson, van Otterdijk, & Meybeck, 2011). For example, Uzea et al. (2013) and Parfitt et al. (2010) have defined food waste based on where it occurs along the food supply chain. Accordingly, food loss take place in the earlier stages of the food supply chain (such as during the production and processing stages), and occur due to processing-based factors. Food loss that occurs at the end of the food value chain (such as in retail, wholesale distribution, food services, and home) is, according to these 7 researchers, called food waste, which is often caused by decision-based factors, such as production and ordering policies, as well as consumer behaviour (WRAP, 2013). As such, food waste is usually more connected to conscious action than food loss, which is often unavoidable (Xue et al., 2017). When considering the possibility of its mitigation, food waste can be divided into two categories: a part that could be targeted through prevention measures, i.e., avoidable/edible waste, like food that was edible before being thrown away (such as bread, apples, meat). The other part can not be targeted by those measures, i.e., unavoidable/inedible waste, such as the waste produced during food preparation that is not, and never has been, edible (e.g., bones, eggshells, tea bags) (Schneider, 2013). This study did not explicitly define these two types, avoidable/edible waste and unavoidable/inedible waste, because there is subjectivity involved; some people may consider certain foods edible, while others do not (WRAP, 2013). However, the distinction between them is considered in this study, to the extent to which food waste prevention is possible (Effie Papargyropoulou et al., 2016). Following this approach for this study, food waste is defined as wholesome edible material, intended for human consumption, that is lost, discarded (regardless of expiry date), or degraded (during its distribution to consumers through food services) at any point of operations by the food service supply companies at the mining camps. Therefore, such waste refers only to the range of wasted food that is contracted with food service supply companies and excludes food loss in the earlier stages of the food value chain (i.e. food production, harvesting, and transportation) (Gustavsson, Cederberg, Sonesson, van Otterdijk, & Meybeck, 2011). 8 2.2 Food Waste as a Global Concern The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that about one-third of all food produced globally for human consumption is lost or wasted each year throughout the food supply chain. This is equal to approximately 1.4 billion tons of food waste that reaches an estimated costs of US$940 billion annually worldwide (FAO, 2013). In developing countries, food is often lost due to financial, managerial and technical limitations such as harvesting techniques, storage facilities and transport infrastructure (Parfitt et al., 2010). In contrast, in developed countries, the causes of food waste relate primarily to consumer behaviour and lack of coordination between different actors in the supply chain (Effrosyni Papargyropoulou, 2016; Parfitt et al., 2010). The results of many other studies have shown similar levels of food waste (Beretta, Stoessel, Baier, & Hellweg, 2013; BIO Intelligence Service, 2010; Gustavsson, Cederberg, Sonesson, van Otterdijk, & Meybeck, 2011). For example, food in the UK that ends up being discarded by households is approximately 22-25 percent of the total purchased (by weight) annually, which, in turn, represents approximately 8.3 million tons with a retail value of £12.2 billion in 2008 prices (Quested, Parry, Easteal, & Swannell, 2011). Similarly, in the USA, about 25-31 percent of the overall food supply, equaling 48-66.5 million tons of food, is lost or wasted each year (Gunders, 2012). In the European Union (EU), the amount of food wasted is estimated at approximately 89 million tons yearly (FUSIONS, 2016), which is projected to increase to 120 million tons by 2020 (BIO Intelligence Service, 2010). In Canada, more than one-third of the total food produced and distributed never gets consumed and costs the Canadian economy up to $100 billion annually (Gooch & Felfel, 2014). 9 It is important to point out that these numbers do not include the cost of energy, water, land, labour, capital investment and other resources used for making and distributing food. As such, these figures only reveal the quantifiable value of food waste that goes to landfills, composting, bio-digestion, or animal feed (FAO, 2013; Gooch & Felfel, 2014). The true cost of food waste is approximately two and a half times greater than the “face value” of the wasted food (FAO, 2014b). Wasted food not only represents a financial loss to businesses and society, but there are also substantial environmental and social impacts (FAO, 2014c). In terms of the environmental impacts of food waste, it has consequences related to the use of upstream resource inputs, such as water (A. K. Chapagain & James, 2013; Langley et al., 2010; Lundqvist, Fraiture, & Molden, 2008), land (Kummu et al., 2012), energy, and GHG emissions (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2019). At a global level, food production uses 25% of inhabitable land, spends 70% of the potable water supply, causes 30% of global GHG emissions and 80% of the world’s deforestation (FAO, 2013; Vermeulen et al., 2012). In the United States (U.S.), the production of wasted food requires the use of over 25 percent of the total freshwater in the U.S., about 300 million barrels of oil, and represents two percent of annual energy consumption (Thyberg, 2015). There are also potential downstream consequences, including waste disposal and its associated environmental impacts (Dorward, 2012; Garnett, 2008, 2011). When food ends up in landfills, it creates methane gas, a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential 25 times greater than carbon dioxide (CO2) on a 100 year time scale (IPCC, 2007; Nikkel et al., 2019b). Not only the process of decay contributes to GHG emissions, but also it is a source of stink, vermin growth, pollution of soil and groundwater, thus a concern for both environment and public health (Ma, Cai, & Liu, 2017). 10 According to FAO (2013), global food waste is responsible for adding 3.3 billion tons of greenhouse gases to the planet’s atmosphere each year. If food waste were a country, it would be the third-largest greenhouse gas emitter after China and the USA (FAO, 2015). In Canada, almost 200,000 tonnes of food ends up in landfills each year, which accounts for at least $31 billion in lost revenue (Gooch & Felfel, 2014) and approximately 4 % of the country’s greenhouse gas inventory when it decomposes. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report states that significant action needs to be taken to avoid global warming above 1.5˚C by 2030 - as such, addressing food waste is a critically important area of study. It must be considered an urgent priority by all levels of government and industry, and by individuals (Nikkel et al., 2019b). 2.3 Food waste in the food service sector Food waste occurs at all stages of the food supply chain (FSC), from primary production to the final stage of consumption (Lipinski et al., 2013; Effie Papargyropoulou et al., 2014; Parfitt et al., 2010). However, many of the existing studies reveal that the highest amount of food is wasted at the end of the supply chain in the consumer phase, such as within the hospitality industry and households, especially in developed countries (Kantor & Lipton, 1997; Parfitt et al., 2010). Food waste in industrialized countries is as high as in developing countries, but the latter produces more than 40% of food waste after the harvest and during the production processes, while industrialized countries create more food waste at the end of the supply chain, i.e. in retail and during the consumer phase (Gruber, Brandstetter, Bos, Lindner, & Albrecht, 2016). Some of the research reveals that slightly over 50% of total food waste occurs at the distribution and consumption stages (Abdulla et al., 2013; Lipinski et al., 2013). Therefore, the greatest potential for reducing and preventing food waste is at the end of the food supply chain (i.e., during the retail and consumption stages, including the food service sector) rather than during initial 11 stages (i.e., production and processing sectors) (Gunders, 2012; Effie Papargyropoulou et al., 2014; Parfitt et al., 2010). For example, Canali et al. (2017) estimate that 100 million tons of food is wasted annually in EU countries, with the food service industry being responsible for 10% - 20% of the total food waste, of which over two-thirds of this amount is avoidable (Beretta et al., 2013; Engström & Carlsson-Kanyama, 2004). Similarly, in Germany, according to one study, approximately one-third of all meals were found to end up as food waste, with the food service industry being the second-highest generator of total food waste after households (Kranert et al., 2012). In Canada, very few studies have addressed the issue of food waste at the national or provincial level, and little quantitative research has been conducted on the actual economic and environmental impacts of food waste (Abdulla et al., 2013; National Zero Waste Council, 2017). In 2019, Value Chain Management International, in partnership with Second Harvest, published the first comprehensive Canadian study, entitled Avoidable Crisis of Food Waste Report analyzing the whole supply chain (Gooch et al., 2019). Prior to that research, food waste quantification within any particular industry had not been studied on a broad scale. It was the first comprehensive study that measured and monitored food waste along the various segments of the value chain, including the food service sector. Gooch et al. (2019) attribute the Hotels, restaurants and institutions sector (HRI) as the second-highest source of food waste from the consumer level with approximately 9% which equates to 3.11 million metric tonnes from which 1.44 tonnes of avoidable food loss and waste totalling to $7.14 billion. In this research, HRI’s food wastage information is considered because contract food service suppliers are included in this sector (Gooch et al., 2019). 12 2.3.1 Definition: Food service suppliers and contract catering industry Waste in the food service industry occurs in various types of establishments such as HRI (i.e., schools, hospitals), as well as through contract catering service providers. The contract catering industry is comprised of establishments that are primarily engaged in supplying food service under contract for a specific period of time. This includes establishments that provide food services to airline companies, railway companies and institutions, as well as establishments that operate food concessions at sports and other similar types of facilities (Statistics Canada, 2018). The European Commission describes the food service sector as involving the “preparation of ready-to-eat food for sale to individuals and communities, including catering and restoration activities in the hospitality industry, schools, hospitals and businesses” (BIO Intelligence Service, 2010). According to Statistics Canada’s NAICS (North American Industry Classification System), food service contractors comprise establishments that are primarily engaged in supplying food service under contract for a specific period of time. These are examples of food service contractors: catering food service cafeterias, industrial and commissary restaurants, company cafeterias, food service under contract for airlines, railways, as well as establishments that operate food concessions at sports and similar facilities, restaurants and industrial school cafeteria services. 2.3.2 “If you can not measure it, you can not improve it”- Lord Kelvin (“Lord Kelvin and the Importance of Measurement,” n.d.) There is a growing body of literature on the topic of food waste and its impacts on our society. However, there is no consensus among scholars, in Canada or the rest of the world, on a definition of the problem and its measurements (Lebersorger & Schneider, 2011), which makes studying and quantifying food waste difficult (Buzby & Hyman, 2012; Parfitt et al., 2010). There are many challenges in adequately quantifying food waste due to different categorizations, choice of 13 measurement, as well as its visible amount (Buzby & Hyman, 2012; Derqui, Fayos, & Fernandez, 2016). According to the World Resources Institute (2016), the completeness of the quantification may come at the cost of the accuracy of the data, in other words in order to achieve the most accurate inventory of food waste mean to exclude less accurate data, and this could mean less complete inventory (World Resources Institute, 2016). However, scholars agree on the necessity to perform more studies on solid quantification along different parts of the value chain (Betz, Buchli, Göbel, & Müller, 2015; Engström & Carlsson-Kanyama, 2004). A recent study done by Gooch et al. (2019) identified that the highest percentage of food loss and waste (FLW) occurs at the same points along the value chain where FLW is least likely to be measured, as seen in the Figure 1. Figure 1. Measurement Practices vs FLW Trends (Gooch et al., 2019) However, the measurement and monitoring of food waste and specifically food waste in the food service sector should be consistent, which would then enable businesses to track progress and establish standards to lower costs. Accurately measuring food waste also allows stakeholders to 14 adapt their strategies when measures already in place are not demonstrating expected results (European Commission, 2011). 2.3.3 Food Waste “hotspot” As mentioned earlier, food waste is believed to occur at any point in the food chain and can be generated by a variety of causes (Parfitt et al., 2010). Within the food service industry, a food item becomes waste when it fails to be used by a customer (in the case of this study, the mining companies’ employees) or an employee of a food service operation. Food waste can occur at various stages throughout the operation, and it is almost impossible that food service supply companies (i.e., contract catering companies) do not produce any waste at all. During the life cycle of a food service operation, food goes through a number of steps that can be separated into two main phases: the pre-consumer and post-consumer phases. Pre-consumer food waste includes logistics waste (i.e., waste from storage, material ordering and menu planning, due to spoilage and/or expiration in storage); and kitchen waste (i.e., waste that results from preparation, processing, trimming and overcooking) (Shakman Andrew, 2013). This essentially involves all of the stages that prepared food passes before it reaches the consumer. Post-consumer food waste, on the other hand, is any uneaten food that is left or returned from the service and customers’ plates; it is essentially any food wasted from activities and operations at the point at which food is consumed (Parfitt et al., 2010). This includes service waste (i.e., food prepared but not consumed); and plate waste (i.e., food served but left or discarded by customers), for example, overproduction from buffets, and food left on the plates, unused seasonal food or leftover beverages (Baldwin & Shakman, 2012, 57). 15 Figure 2. The life cycle of food service operations (Baldwin & Shakman, 2012, 57). Similarly, a study done by Costello et al. (2016) divides food waste into two types based on where it occurs at a particular point of operation. This refers to the food waste before its consumption (i.e., pre-consumer waste) and food waste after consumption (i.e., post-consumer waste): • Pre-consumer food waste – refers to kitchen waste (i.e., any organic material that is disposed of during food preparation such as peels, carcasses, grease, some parts of fruit or vegetables), and spoiled food waste (i.e., food items with expired shelf-life or that had decomposed). Waste due to overpreparation was included in this type, despite it not being consumed. • Post-consumer food waste – refers to the food served to the customers that is not eaten. 2.3.4 Primary causes of food waste The causes of food loss in the supply chain are numerous (Parfitt et al., 2010). Examples are: losses due to the improper storage of raw materials or products; waste of food during handling or transportation; and waste production in the distribution phase due to expired shelf-life. Understanding the drivers of food waste from an integrated perspective is essential to finding solutions and subsequently prioritizing initiatives for action. Many researchers agree that food waste is generated by a variety of causes, and will vary depending upon the stage at which it occurs Menu PlanningStoring Preparing Serving ConsumingPre-consumer Post-consumer 16 within the overall process, solutions to reduce it must be developed accordingly (Derqui et al., 2016; Gunders, 2012). According to a study by Baldwin et al. (2012), the main causes of food waste in the food service industry can be categorized into the pre- and post-consumer phases. The Baldwin et al. (2012) study suggests that pre-consumer food waste is commonly caused by unidentified demand, overstocking, inefficient production, poor communication, staff behaviour, unskilled trimming, over-merchandising, and food safety concerns. The main causes of food waste during the post-consumer phase are large-sized portions, inefficient service models, and customers’ menu preferences (Baldwin et al., 2012). In the pre-consumer phase, a considerable amount of food waste comes from avoidable waste, such as loss due to poor storage management and/or lack of consumer awareness or action (Al-Domi et al., 2011; Ventour, 2008). Engström and Carlsson-Kanyama (2004) found that 4% to 10% of the total amount of food delivered was wasted during handling, food storage, preparation and serving. An earlier study by Kantor & Lipton (1997) estimated that 25% of edible food in the U.S (1995) was lost due to overpreparation, leftovers and too many menu choices (i.e., having too many options available). Kitchen waste is due to part of the food preparation process, such as trimming, as well as overproduction of food prepared but not served (Otten, Diedrich, Getts, & Benson, 2016). The current literature on the post-consumer phase has mostly focused on post-consumer plate waste (Al-Domi et al., 2011; Buzby & Hyman, 2012; Whitehair, Shanklin, & Brannon, 2013). The term plate waste is used to describe edible food discarded after having been served to customers (food served but not eaten), and it is a significant portion of food waste in the food service sector (Buzby & Hyman, 2012; Gooch et al., 2019; Gunders, 2012). A study done by Engström & 17 Carlsson-Kanyama (2004) found that plate waste accounted for 11% to 13% of the total food amount that is delivered to a restaurant. Wansink & van Ittersum (2013)’s study on the influence of plate size on self-serving food concluded that diners with large plates wasted much more food than those with smaller plates. They found that Chinese buffet diners with large plates served 52% more, ate 45% more, and wasted 135% more food than those with smaller plates (Wansink & van Ittersum, 2013). Other studies related to the influence of dinnerware on food waste suggested that the removal of trays in universities resulted in reduced amount of food waste (Kim & Morawski, 2013; Thiagarajah & Getty, 2013), and in some case removal of trays has been found to reduce plate waste by up to 25% to 30% (Costello et al., 2016). The literature also cites the purposes of meals (Wang et al., 2017), diet diversification (i.e.menu choices), and personal preferences have a significant impact on the amount of food waste from plate (Mirosa, Munro, Mangan-Walker, & Pearson, 2016). Göbel et al. (2015) showed diverse reasons for waste within each different food category, including quality standards for vegetables, freshness for bread and bakery, production processes for milk and dairy, and health and cost pressure for meat products. 2.4 Food waste prevention as a priority As tackling food loss and waste becomes an urgent priority for global concern, there are several well-known, established targets that relate to the issue of food waste. In 2015, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. These are global goals to end poverty and hunger, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all populations and generations. Each goal has a set of targets to be achieved by 2030. 18 One of the sustainable development goals is SDG 12 - Responsible Consumption and Production, which includes Target 12.3 that encompasses a commitment to reducing the global per capita food waste at the retail and consumer levels by 50% by 2030 (United Nations, 2016). Shortly after its adoption, food waste prevention became the priority of many nations worldwide, especially in the European Union (EU). Its member states, in particular, began to establish a variety of policies and fiscal incentives to drive down food waste, mainly emphasizing waste management policies that are focusing on waste prevention as an important objective (European Parliament and Council, 2008). For these goals and targets to be achieved, everyone, including governments, civil society, and private sectors started to take actions. For example, in December 2015, the European Union issued a proposal for a directive according to which all member states would have to take measures for food waste mitigation in accordance with the goals of the 2030 Agenda for SDGs. Therefore, many countries throughout Europe, including Italy, Spain, Denmark, and the Netherlands, to name a few, have put in place programs and initiatives on food waste prevention and recovery (Halloran, Clement, Kornum, Bucatariu, & Magid, 2014). In 2016, The National Zero Waste Council (NZWC) announced that it devised a National Food Waste Reduction Strategy to deal with food waste. According to the council, Canada is lagging behind the US and Europe, in terms of reducing food waste, and lacks a coordinated, collaborative approach to the issue. In fact, there has never been a national plan in Canada to address this issue (Saltman, 2016). The research in this study reflects the Food Recovery Hierarchy produced by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2017). According to the USEPA, the most preferred approach is to reduce waste at the source, followed by reusing (e.g. redistribution for human consumption to address hunger through foodbanks), recycling (e.g. animal feed and composting), and recovering (e.g. recover energy via anaerobic digestion). The least preferred option is 19 discarding food into a landfill. The USEPA food recovery hierarchy also aligns with the EU Waste Framework Directive, which advises prevention as being the top priority for waste management. Prevention is considered a “non-waste” approach, in the sense that it avoids waste being produced in the first place. Building on USEPA’s Food Recovery Hierarchy the study by Papargyropoulou et al. (2014) proposed that a more sustainable way to address food waste issue is to incorporate a sustainable production and consumption approach throughout the global food supply chain, as seen in Figure 3. Figure 3. The food waste hierarchy (Effie Papargyropoulou et al., 2014) 2.4.1 Food waste recycle and recovery Food waste is a resource, and effective waste management is a key component of sustainable development. As seen in the Food Waste Hierarchy (Figure 3), after the prevention measures of reducing the consumption of new materials, it is important to recycle and recover to maximize the value from food waste. Improvements in technology have made it more efficient to utilize food waste. Recycling and recovering of food waste comes in forms of animal feed, energy & resource 20 recovery through biological process such as anaerobic digestion, aerobic composting, bioethanol fermentation, feed fermentation(Ma & Liu, 2019), and in landfills with efficient gas collection systems (Effie Papargyropoulou et al., 2014; USEPA, 2016). Moreover, food waste is also increasingly being targeted for prevention and recovery as a soil amendment (Platt, McSweeney, & Davis, 2014). A study done by Ma et al. (2017) suggested that using in-situ produced solid biofertilizers (or soil supplement), and liquid biofertilizers can be directly applied for horticulture and urban farming, which then leads to saving costs of waste collection and transportation. The technological advancement is making it possible to have efficient use of food waste for biogas, biofuels, biofertilizers and other value-added chemicals (Lin et al., 2013). According to Ralph C. Martin (2012), on average, the households in Canada waste $28 worth of food each week, equalling $1456 annually. Not only is the food waste costly to the economy, but it also is taxing on the carbon footprint. The potential CO2 emissions produced from 1 kg of food waste is estimated to be 1.90 kg equivalent of CO2 emission, as stated in the Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors (Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, 2017). Another significant negative ripple effect of food waste is virtual water loss, embodied water that is used to produce that food. The literature cited that food waste has a virtual water footprint of 217 to 284 litres/day per person (A. Chapagain & James, 2011; Griffiths-sattenspiel & Wilson, 2009). Plausible benefits that can be reaped from sustainability centred management of the “food waste” disposal are the utilization of food waste for methane, LPG, and compost (Kamboj, Maharshi, Kachari, & Saeed, 2018; Kuo & Dow, 2017; Platt et al., 2014). 21 2.5 Summary of literature review - Conceptual framework development The literature analysis suggests that there are a few main focus points when it comes to examining food waste prevention in the food service sector. This section is based primarily on the work of Gustavsson et al. (2011), with respect to the primary causes of food waste in relation to the classification of food categories and the work of (Parfitt et al., 2010) who focused on food waste quantification, composition, and causes. In addition, Costello et al. (2016) and Baldwin & Shakman (2012, 57-59) looked at the different phases that food waste amounts occur in the service process (pre and post-consumer). The work of CEC (2017a) dealt with primary causes of food waste in the food service sector, and source reduction approaches; Thyberg & Tonjes (2016) investigated the patterns and drivers of food waste and its prevention measures, and work of Strotmann et al. (2017) focused on collaborated efforts to limit food waste. These literature analysis emphasizes the importance of: • Defining food waste – Definition should align with companies’ approaches toward food waste (i.e., what food waste means to them) and definitions of avoidable and unavoidable food waste. Making a distinction between these two is important because making the distinction shows how much food waste could realistically be prevented. • Measuring and monitoring – Quantifying food waste in a way that is comparable, both within the mining industry and with comparable sectors (forestry, military, etc.) is important, as it enables companies to set a point of reference and set targets to compare performance. The most appropriate method appears to be measuring food waste as a total amount compared to the number of meals served and the number of employees. 22 • Identifying food waste source-points and their causes – Food waste source-points and their primary causes should be identified throughout the life cycle of the operations. This could help to measure the amounts and proportion of wasted food at each source point. • Keeping records and tracking the inventory – Storing food materials by date of purchase and a regular inventory checking should be in place. Having an assigned individual to manage the inventory is particularly important for this. • Adequate forecasting and menu planning – Having proper systems in place to avoid having to dispose of food as a result of excess (i.e., overproduction, overpreparation). However, it is difficult to project the exact amount of material needed for the mining camps where there are different employee shifts. As such, there will likely be a margin of error, especially for remote camps. This is further intensified by remote locations of the mining camps, where the food supply is limited and replenishment costs are high. • Proper food preparation and processing – Knowing how to properly handle food is paramount in limiting preparation food waste. Having an employee training program to increase awareness of food waste should be emphasized. • Food serving and consumption – In the post-consumer phase, food waste can be limited through careful design of the services (such as offering smaller plates and better portion sizing). This could include getting feedback on the quality of the food that is served and observing the types of food wasted from customer plates resulting in adjustment of the menu accordingly. • Collaboration and cooperation – A collaborated effort is extremely important to limit food waste. This could include negotiating with a client (in this case, the mining companies) for maximal use of food material, such as not keeping out a certain amount of 23 bread at the end of service, encouraging customers to eat all the food on their plate, and increasing awareness of food waste and the value of reducing it through information such as factsheets, posters and pictures. The literature analysis also identified that food waste sources and causes may be different in the food service sector than in regular restaurants. In particular, inaccurate planning and preparation has the potential to cause a large amount of food waste, due to the “ready-to-eat/ buffet style” nature of food service at these types of operations. 24 Chapter 3: Research Design As stated in Chapter 1 the design of this research was guided by the following research objectives: • To identify the quantity, category (type of material), source and the primary causes of food waste in mining camps in Canada. • To identify common food handling practices used by food service supply companies of mining camps in Canada, and to investigate food waste prevention measures used for the sector. • To provide recommendations on the areas in which food handling practices could be improved during food services to better limit food waste in mining camps in Canada. 3.1 Research Scope Although food waste handling in general has been considered, the survey used in this research focuses only on the prevention of food waste and its practices used during food service operations in mining camps. It is important to note here that the study did not investigate the food waste during pre-arrival activities (i.e., food production, selling, transportation); nor the final management of the food waste such as burial and landfill methods. These activities have been studied widely, they are not considered applicable to the scope of this research, which seeks to understand whether limiting food waste is a priority for mining food service supply companies, and whether or not it is considered an important issue among them. Even though the study inquires about the quantity of food wasted at various stages of food service, it does not investigate the reason for customer “plate waste”, since that would comprise a whole other research area related to individual preference and behavioral psychology. As such, the survey only focuses on wasted food during food service operations. To qualify and be included for this research, suppliers must 25 be have been providing services for at least one mining camp in Canada, at the time this study was conducted. 3.2 Research Method A survey format was chosen as the primary methodology for data collection, as surveys have been deemed the best methodology for understanding and exploring the interpretative nature of the research questions outlined in Chapter 1. Applying questionnaires is a method for collecting information from a sample of individuals in order to construct quantitative descriptors that pertain to the attributes of the larger population from which this sample is drawn (Brancati, 2018). The survey used a quantitative approach with qualitative elements for data collection in order to gain an overview of food waste prevention efforts among the food service supply companies in the mining industry in Canada. The quantitative research was conducted through the analysis of completed survey data for the generation of statistics. This was conducted using a combination of the survey software analysis tools provided by Qualtrics, which automatically creates visual elements such as tables or graphs based on the questions. Most of the analyses were done manually by exporting raw data into Excel, calculating descriptive statistics and preparing histograms and charts to illustrate the findings. A pilot test of the questionnaire applied was first provided to non-expert volunteers in order to solicit feedback on the survey design, the wording of the questions, and the reliability of the survey software. Ten people from different backgrounds reviewed and commented on the readability, consistency, and clarity of the questionnaire. The University of British Columbia Behavioral Research Ethics Board in Human Ethics certificate of Approval Minimal Risk can be found in Appendix B. The twenty-eight question survey, which includes branching logic, covers a variety of topics to facilitate both the exploratory 26 and casual aspects of the research. The identity of the research participants has been kept completely anonymous and no identifiable information was collected. 3.3 Research tools 3.3.1 Survey questionnaire design A significant portion of the survey was concentrated on gathering information about practices implemented by food service supply companies of mining camps, with the aim of limiting food wasted throughout food service operations. The questionnaire was developed and programmed into Qualtrics (ubc.qualtrics.com), an online survey platform that uses a series of questions designed to capture an overview of each respondent’s food handling experiences. The survey used question logic to tailor the questionnaire to gather the respondents’ current experiences with food handling. Information on wasted food and the respondents’ food handling experiences were gathered in the survey using a series of conditional branching logic. Branching is a questionnaire design technique that utilizes skip patterns to ensure that respondents are asked only those questions that apply to them, and the routing of respondents is based on their answers to these questions (Anderson-Knott, 2008). The programming of the questions was accomplished in the survey instruments using Boolean logic statements (i.e. if an answer to question 1 is = “Yes” then skip to question #). This type of survey programming provides a framework that enables the current experiences of the respondents to be gathered in a manner that is ready for further analyses, creating an overview of the food handling process for each respondent. The questions with respect to the survey process are outlined in Figure 4.27 Figure 4. The framework development of the survey questionnaire 28 3.3.2 Food waste handling framework: food waste prevention measures At the inception of this research, a conceptual and practical guide on data collection was developed. This guide is based on the works of Baldwin & Shakman (2012), which outlines the different phases where food waste appears in the service process (pre and post-consumer); on the work of Costello et al. (2016) regarding food waste mass by food category in the food service process. Moreover, work of CEC (2017a) with respect to the primary causes of food waste and source reduction approaches; and finally, on Thyberg & Tonjes (2016)’s work regarding food waste prevention measures according to three key areas (values, skills and logistics) were considered. The purpose of the survey was to create a map of the food handling experiences that reflects the life cycle of food service operations, and to create data on wasted food, including by type, source, quantity and causes. To obtain a full picture of the food handling experience, the life cycle of food service operations has been divided into two primary phases: pre-consumer phase; post-consumer phase. The pre-consumer phase of food service includes logistics waste (i.e., food storage, material ordering and menu planning) and kitchen waste (i.e., food preparation, processing and cooking). The post-consumer phase of food service includes service waste (food is prepared but not consumed) and plate waste (food served but not consumed). Detailed information on wasted food was collected during each phase of the food service process (pre and post-consumer phases). Respondents were asked to provide details on the following variables: • Type of wasted food category: vegetable, fruit, grains (i.e., rice, cereal, bread, pasta, baked goods) etc. • Quantity of highest wasted food category asked in percentage range: 1-5%, 6-10%, 11-15%, 16-20%…95-100%. 29 • Primary reasons for wasted food: inaccurate forecast, damage, date codes (“best before”/ “best by” dates), equipment malfunction, storage losses, human factors etc. In order to understand and evaluate each respondent’s food handling experiences and their efforts at preventing food waste (if any) during operations, structured questions that adopted a 5-point Likert type scale with values from one to five (where one signifies “never,” and five signifies “always”) were developed. For example, during inventory control and storage management stag when respondents were asked: “How often does your company take the following actions?”, the survey provided statements such as: having the right equipment and facility to store food properly, store various products differently, and store material in order of purchase etc. Then, the respondents were asked to choose accordingly from “always” to “never”. 3.3.3 Survey questions The survey questionnaire was developed based on the USEPA’s current waste management framework (EPA, 2017)(Chapter 2.5). The survey consisted of coherent and complete questions regarding food handling practices in the mining sector. On the first page of the web survey, respondents were provided with study details including their right to discontinue their participation at any time. The respondents gave informed consent before proceeding to the survey questions. The complete survey can be found in Appendix C. In the first section of the survey, a profile of the respondents was created. Information, including the size of the company, average number of meals served per day at per camp, and the position of the person who was responding to the survey were asked. In addition, general tendencies, including such variables as quality of service; affordability; proficiency; and sustainable business practices – in their business contract were included. Also, to see whether sustainable practices were an important variable that was considered when respondents obtained 30 the food services contract. The respondents were asked to rate each variable on a scale of one to five, with one being “not at all important” and five being “extremely important”. At the beginning of the second section, the definition of "food waste" was provided to the respondents to ensure that they were familiar with the concept, before commencing the survey. Food waste was defined as a wholesome edible material, intended for human consumption that has been lost, discarded or degraded at any point of the food chain. Therefore, it did not include unavoidable waste and the inedible part of food. The questionnaire goes on to ask whether or not the respondents separated food waste from general waste, and whether or not they could provide the total quantity of food wasted over the last year. Various metrics, including pounds (lb), percentage (%), number of meals, as well as an open-ended option (“other”) were provided. In the next section of the survey, the study asked about each respondent’s food handling experiences at each phase of the food service. A visual map of the questions contained within the survey can be found in Appendix D. The pre-consumer phase of food service process is the period from when the food is ordered from the supplier until it is served to the customer. The survey asked first how storage was managed and whether the company has a system in place to monitor their material usage. It then asked if the company had an assigned person to look after their inventory system and whether there was an employee training program to increase awareness of food waste and the value of preventing it. The purpose of these questions was to determine whether human factors were limited to a minimum to prevent the occurrence of food waste in the first place. Next, a list of practices was created using the existing literature regarding food waste prevention during inventory control and the storage management stage of food services. Respondents were asked, based on their current experiences, to rate each practice according to a 31 five-point scale type question (where one is “always” and five is “never”). Examples of these practices included such things as having the right equipment to store food material properly and checking date codes for food products carefully. After that, the survey asked about respondents’ experiences with material ordering and menu planning. Subsequently, a similar approach was taken in which a list of practices was created in correspondence with the existing literature, and respondents were asked to rate each practice on a five-point scale. They were then asked how food was handled in the kitchen where food was prepared, processed and cooked. Respondents were given a list of practices on limiting food waste during kitchen preparation, processing and cooking; respondents were asked to rate each practice. The last question in the pre-consumer phase asked for detailed information on food wasted by each respondent, using a side-by-side type question. Specifically, the questions asked about the types of food that were being wasted, and the quantity of waste the company experienced in this category at the following to different stages logistics and kitchen stages. Respondents were asked to choose from an existing set of answers consisting of food categories and percentage of food wastage in each category. For example, the answer choices included: fruit, vegetable, meat and alternative, fish and seafood, and other food categories. Further, the respondents were asked to identify the primary reasons for each food waste wasted in each category. A list of potential reasons was created in consultation with the existing literature. Examples of the primary reasons included: inaccurate forecast of food material, damage to the product, storage losses, and human factors. In the post-consumer phase of food service, food is served for consumption, two types of wasted food are typically indicated; service waste where food is prepared but not consumed, and plate waste where food is served but not consumed. In order to keep consistency within the survey, a similar approach was taken as when the survey asked about wasted food information. First, the 32 study asked about the type and amount of food wasted during this phase using side-by-side type questions. Respondents were asked to choose from a pre-set of answers that consisted of food categories and the amount of food at each category. The given sets of answers was created in consultation with the existing literature. A list of potential reasons for the primary cause of the service waste was given to the respondents. Examples of the reasons included aesthetic preference (e.g. the way it was displayed), overproduction (displaying too much at once), improper meal preparation (e.g. overcooking), and portion sizing. As mentioned previously, the study did not ask for the primary reasons for customer plate waste due to the scope of this research. The final question in the post-consumer phase of food service concerned how the food was handled in terms of serving and consumption. Respondents were given a list of practices on the prevention of food waste during the food serving process, and were asked to indicate each practice according to a five-point scale type (where one was “always” and five was “never”), based on their experience. For example, the answer choices included: offering different meal sizes and portions (e.g. smaller cut meat, half-size potato), using menu descriptions (e.g. health content, calories), careful design of the food displays (e.g. smaller steam table trays or smaller container for salad bars), and the provision of smaller plates. In the final section of the survey, the study asked about whether or not respondents had set a target to reduce food waste, and if so, they were asked to choose which realm of concern their companies had. The study then asked if there was any collaboration within the business sector or similar groups, in terms of limiting food waste, as well as the ways in which client engagement could help in this matter. Finally, survey respondents were asked to choose from an existing set of answers regarding final disposal of food waste.33 3.4 Survey distribution A total number of 35 mining food service supply companies were identified through online database search tools. Key contact lists of companies were developed and then reviewed by the research committee for further recommendations. The survey was distributed to mining food services supply companies via email invitation. This researcher contacted mining food service supply companies that had at least one operation in Canada at the time of this study. An initial email requesting potential respondent’s participation and containing the link to the survey was sent to the companies on November 7, 2018. Particular people’s email addresses were found on their public website. The email provided details about the study and included the researchers’ contact information. A reminder email was sent to all companies, two weeks following the initial invitation, except those who explicitly requested no further contact about the study. The survey was open for participation from November 7 to December 14, 2018. All relevant information regarding the identity of researchers, and confidentiality of data and its usage was included in the initial email that was sent out to potential participants (Appendix A). The questionnaire was accessible online through a secured website, and there was no incentive given to survey respondents. Information concerning the study’s purpose and data confidentiality were reiterated to participants on the first page of the questionnaire. This was done to ensure that all participants were thoroughly aware of the research prior to their participation. Consent was collected at the opening page of the questionnaire. 34 3.5 Data analysis For the most part the questions were not open-ended. The survey used a structured response format, with a dichotomous response scale (i.e., yes/no response) and single and multi-option variables (i.e., matrix tables). Matrix type questions were used due to their ability to address multiple variables (in this context, multiple food handling practices) in one question. When evaluating the responses, the average score of the response was calculated to get an overall rating for each variable. Respondents were given the opportunity to provide information in an open-ended option (“other”), in addition to the pre-set responses, whenever possible. The survey results were aggregated and grouped by the topic areas that emerged (i.e., if a number of respondents shared similar experiences with respect to certain stages of food service, in terms of food handling). When evaluating the responses, the average scores were calculated to get an overall rating for each practice. Once the data had been normalized, it was reviewed for food waste handling patterns, in terms of the prevention perspective. A lower score indicated that specific practices were performed less frequently among the respondents, and a higher score suggested that the respondents performed that specific practices more often. 3.6 Assumptions made in calculating potential reutilization of food waste Calculations are based on extrapolations from current available data. Table 1 provides details regarding all the assumptions that formed the basis of the calculation used to demonstrate the potential for the re-utilization of wasted food (i.e., food recycling and recovery) in mining camps. 35 Table 1. Basis of the assumption of calculations Re-utilization of food waste Units Number/ Yield/ Calculations References Comments/Industry A Number of respondents 8 From questionnaire data B Total number of camps for this study 11 From questionnaire data C Total number of meals served at all these 11 camps per day 21,640 From questionnaire data D Total number of people at these 11 camps, considering 3 meals served/day C3 = 7,213 E Average amount of food waste generated person/year (based on Canadian estimates) kg 118 (CEC, 2017) This report seeks to enhance the North American (US, Canada, Mexico) capacity to reduce disposal of food waste in ICI sector. F The total amount of food waste in all 11 camps/year kg CE G Cost estimate of plate waste person/year, (CAD) CAD 607 (Gooch, Marenick, Laplain, & Dent, 2012) This paper examines food waste at the consumer and retailer level in Canada. H Total monetary value of plate waste at 11 camps DG I Methane yield from food waste m3 CH4/kg 0.31 - 0.64 (Kuo & Dow, 2017) Biogas production from anaerobic digestion of FW. A case study was conducted by collecting field data from a wastewater treatment. 0.55 - 0.75 (Kuo & Dow, 2017) 0.144 (Environment Canada, 2013) Technical document on municipal solid waste organics processing in Canada. 0.11 (Levis and Barlaz, 2011b) State of the practice of anaerobic digestion of source separated organics. Wet digestion technologies were used. J The total amount of methane produced from food waste/year m3 CH4/kg FI K LPG yield from food waste m3 LPG per kg 0.27 (Kamboj et al., 2018) This paper discussed potential of biogas from university kitchen food 36 Re-utilization of food waste Units Number/ Yield/ Calculations References Comments/Industry waste: estimation, applications and economics. 0.501 (Vaid & Garg, 2013) This study done on five different hostel’s food waste for biogas potential. L The amount of LPG produced from food waste/year m3 FK M LPG price CAD per m3 3.5 (Global Petrol Prices, 2020) N The total monetary value of LPG produced from food waste/year (Based on Canadian estimates) CAD LM O Carbon dioxide (CO2) from food waste kg CO2/kg 1.90 (Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, 2017) National greenhouse gas accounts factors: Australian national greenhouse accounts. Table 42. 0.26 (Hodge, Levis, DeCarolis, & Barlaz, 2016a) ICI sector food waste management strategies in the US. CO2 equivalent of food waste when landfilled. P The total amount of CO2 emitted from food waste/year Kg FO Q The estimates of CO2 emitted by vehicle with 50 Litre of tank Kg CO2 per vehicle 115.6 (“Food Waste Greenhouse Gas Calculator » Watch My Waste,” n.d.) R The total amount of CO2 emitted from food waste/year demonstrated in CO2 emission from cars (based on the number of cars with 50L tanks) P115.6 S The estimate of embedded water lost with food waste person/day (estimated based on 217-290 Litres of water/person) Litres per person/day 284 (A. Chapagain & James, 2011) The water and carbon footprint of household food and drink in the UK. 217 (Griffiths-sattenspiel & Wilson, 2009) This report explores the energy and carbon emissions embedded in the US’s water supplies. 37 Re-utilization of food waste Units Number/ Yield/ Calculations References Comments/Industry T The total amount of embedded water wasted along with food waste/year litre SD365 days U The consumption of potable water person/day Litre/day 2 (WHO, 2016) V The amount of wasted embedded water demonstrated in potable water/person/year (based on 2L/person usage) T(365 daysU) W The estimate of potential compost produced from food waste m3/tonnes 0.764-1.146 (Debra Atlas, 2018) 2.1 (Platt et al., 2014) This study surveyed more than 40 community composting programs in US. X The total amount of potential compost produced from food waste/year m3 (F1000) W Y The estimate of compost for soil amendment per acre/year Tonnes per acre 1.5 (Melissa Hansen, n.d.) 1.5 and 10 tons of dry compost per acre for annual application. Z The potential usage of the compost for soil amendment (by acre) XY I The estimate of potential electricity from methane kWh/m3 3.33 (Environment Canada, 2013) Technical document on municipal solid waste organics processing in Canada. 6.52 (“Electricity Generation from Biogas - energypedia.info,” n.d.) Electricity generation from biogas and appropriate technology. 9.97 (UNIDO, 2017) II The potential electricity generated/year, (based on methane usage) kWh/year JI III The total energy consumed by household (Canadian estimates) kWh/year 6833.3 (Statistics Canada, 2017) Energy consumption by household in Alberta, Canada IV The potential electricity from food waste demonstrated in household usage/year IIIII V The estimates of electricity usage person/year IV2.4 (Statistics Canada, 2016) 38 Chapter 4: Survey Results A total number of 35 mining food service supply companies across Canada were identified through online search tools for this study. However, it is important to note that some of the companies identified as camp food service suppliers happened to be mobile kitchens and mobile food service suppliers; or had suspended their camp catering operations at the time of this study, so were dropped from the sample. Another three companies were unreachable, in that there was no public website or address, or their information was only available in French; therefore, the researcher had to also exclude those from the sample. This resulted in a total number of 23 potential respondents, including four First Nation’s owned companies. Most First Nation’s owned companies are smaller as compared to the larger conglomerates. Thus, companies of different sizes are represented in the sample. From the total of all the online invitations sent out, two emails bounced back, resulting in 21 successful invitations. Of these valid invitations, eight successful responses to the online survey were received back, resulting in a 38% response rate. It is worth mentioning that the survey sample included many of the biggest international companies that often have more than one client. Therefore, they represented more food handling experience than shown in the eight campsites discussed in this research. 4.1 Demographics of respondents A total of eight mining food service supply companies completed the survey. All of the survey respondents were in upper management or senior managerial positions, including a chief operation officer, a general manager, an operations director, a catering operations manager, an operations manager, a catering manager, a camp manager. Table 2 shows the average employee demographics (per site) that were represented by the survey respondents. Of the eight respondents, the largest 39 number of respondents had between 50 to 100 employees, with half of the total respondents falling within this range. There were three respondents who employed more than 100 people. One of the companies employed less than 50 people. Mean value of the employee numbers at the mining camps was 97 with a minimum of 36 employees and a maximum of 165 employees. Table 2. Company size and average meals served per day/site Number of food service supply companies’ employees per mine site Number of respondents Average meals served per day Less than 50 1 650 50 – 100 4 1302 100 – 150 2 2520 More than 150 1 3300 4.2 Detailed results on food waste at the mining camps Table 3 illustrates the size of the food service operations that respondents had completed. As indicated in Table 3, respondents were serving anywhere from 650 meals/day to 3,300 meals/day per site. The total number of meals served per day at these eight companies were 21,640 meals. When asked how many campsites each respondent served, of the eight respondents, only three of them provided answers to this question. Therefore, the results are from eight companies who, combined, served 11 mining operations. Table 3. Company's size of the service and operations (per site) Total number of meals served per day/site Total number of camps that you provide services (if known) Total number of meals considered for this study Total quantity of food waste experienced from the last calendar year/campsite Company 01 3,000 2 6,000 2% Company 02 1,320 1 1,320 NA Company 03 3,300 2 6,600 5% Company 04 650 1 650 NA 40 Total number of meals served per day/site Total number of camps that you provide services (if known) Total number of meals considered for this study Total quantity of food waste experienced from the last calendar year/campsite Company 05 1,140 2 2,280 NA Company 06 1,170 1 1,170 NA Company 07 2,040 1 2,040 NA Company 08 1,580 1 1,580 NA Total 11 21,640 When asked about the total quantity or value of food waste experienced from the last year per campsite, only two respondents provided their answers, with 2% and 5% respectively. The respondents were given the option to answer, using different metrics, including weight (lb), percentage (%), number of meals, and an open-ended option (“other”). Detailed information on wasted food was collected from four stages throughout the life cycle of food service operations: (1) logistics, (2) kitchen, (3) service and (4) plate. For each stage, respondents were asked to provide wasted food details on the following variables: type of highest wasted food categories, percentage of wasted food, and the primary reasons for wasted food (Appendix E). 4.2.1 The type of food waste (by food category) Although respondents did not disclosed the total quantity of wasted food per site, they provided detailed information on the type of food waste in relative percentage at each stage along the life cycle of food service operations. The Figure 5 shows the results from the questions related to the highest quantity of food waste at each stage during life cycle of service. The respondents were given the option to choose from following food categories: fruit (fresh, frozen, canned), vegetables, meat and alternatives, fish and seafood, dairy and alternatives, grains (rice, cereal, bread, pasta), beans and legumes, eggs, oil and fat, beverages, and an open-ended option (“other”). 41 Out of all the food categories examined, the “vegetable” category showed the highest amount of wasted food throughout life cycle of food service (they all listed “vegetable” but at different percentages). There were two respondents who stated that fruit (including fresh produce, frozen and canned products) comprised the highest food waste in the logistics stage. The results of the findings show that all the respondents indicated “vegetable” category as the highest amount of wasted food in the kitchen stage. Two respondents chose “grains” category as the highest amount of wasted food from the service stage. Meat and alternatives categories were mentioned by two respondents as the most wasted food categories from the plate waste. Plate wasteService wasteKitchen waste01234Number of respondentsLogistics wasteFigure 5. The type of food waste at each stage of the operation (by category) 42 4.2.2 Quantity of food waste The table below summarizes the results regarding the overall food waste estimated to occur during pre- and post-consumer phases of food service operation. Table 4 illustrate which food categories had the highest quantity of wasted food at each stage of the service. The researcher asked food waste details on the per site. Each column shows, for a specific type of food, the estimated waste occurring at each stage of the food service operation in relative percentage. Table 4. Wasted food categoried by range (in relative %) at each stage of the operation 1-5% 6-10% 11-15% 16-20% 21-25% 25-100% Pre-Consumer Logistics waste Vegetable 2 3 0 0 1 0 Fruits 0 0 2 0 0 0 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kitchen waste Vegetable 1 3 3 1 0 0 Fruits 0 0 0 0 0 0 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 Post-consumer Service waste Vegetables 1 1 3 1 0 0 Grains 0 2 0 0 0 0 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plate waste Meat 0 1 1 0 0 0 Vegetables 0 0 2 2 0 0 Grains 0 0 0 2 0 0 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 As seen in Table 4, five companies dealt with up to 10% vegetable waste and one company up to 25% during the logistics stage. There were two respondents who dealt with up to 15% of fruit 43 waste in the logistics stage. Of the eight companies, half of them wasted up to 20% of the vegetables in the kitchen stage. The result shows that during the service stage, five companies wasted up to 15% vegetable waste and one company up to 20%. The remainder two companies wasted up to 10% grains in the service stage. The results also show that the highest percentage of wasted food took place during the customer plate stage. Two companies reported up to 15% wasted meat, while four companies reported up to 20% wasted vegetables from the customer plate. Remainder two respondents dealt with up to 20% grains from the customer plate. 4.2.3 Primary causes of food waste Respondents were asked to identify the primary cause of food waste occurring in their business. The respondents were given the option to choose from a list of potential reasons. The list of the potential reasons was varied depending on the stages of the food service operation (Appendix E). For example, aesthetic preference (e.g. the way it was displayed) pertains only to service waste (prepared but not consumed); storage losses pertain only to logistic waste. Figure 6 provides a summary of results from the question related to the primary cause of most wasted food at each stage throughout the life cycle of food service operation. In the logistics stage, inadequate forecasting of materials and date code issues (“best before”/“used by” dates) were cited as the primary causes of waste in the vegetable category. In contrast, damage to the products and inadequate forecasting were cited as the main causes of fruit waste. During the kitchen stage, human factors, inadequate forecasting of materials and date code issues (“best before”/“used by” dates) were cited as the primary causes of vegetable waste. 44 Figure 6. Primary causes of the highest wasted food categories at each stage In the service stage, the results show that the overproduction of food material (i.e., displaying too much all at once) was the most frequently cited cause for the wasted food. Out of the eight companies, six reported overproduction as the main reason for waste in the grains and vegetable categories. Other causes that the respondents entered as reasons for food waste in the service stage included individual meal preferences and inappropriate client requests, such as asking to prioritize protein or/and starch. It is important to note that the study did not ask the primary cause of customer plate waste since it is more related to individual preferences and behavioural psychology, which is out of this study’s scope. Therefore, the study only asked for the primary cause of the respondents’ waste when the respondents had control over the cause 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9VegFruitVegVegGrainsLogisticKitchenServiceNumber of respondentsStage of the food services operationThe primary causes of the highest wasted foodDamage Human factor Date codesInaccurate forecast Overproduction Individual meai preferenceOther45 4.3 Food waste handling practices Survey respondents were asked whether they practiced activities that would lead to food waste prevention and minimization. Through the survey, the respondents were asked to provide information on their current food handling experience during the life cycle of the food service. Figure 7 shows some of the practices that were represented by the respondents. Figure 7. Food handling practices during food service operation When asked about their food handling practices, five respondents answered that they did separate their food waste from the general waste, while another three of the respondents answered, “they do not separate” their waste. Of the three respondents who answered “do not separate” their food waste from the other waste, two indicated that they plan to start keeping track of their food waste in the near future. One of the respondents who chose “not planning to track their food waste in the near future” said that there is no value of doing so, as their reason. 482854630% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%Do you have an employee training program toincrease awareness of food waste and the value ofreducing it?Have your employees been professionally trained tohandle food (e.g., having Red Seal designation, Foodhandler certificate)?Do you have an assigned individual to manage yourinventory?Do you have systems in place to track and recordyour inventory (i.e., monitoring food material inputsand outputs)?Do you separate your food waste?TRAININGTRACKINGSEPARATEFood handling practicesYes No46 In terms of how storage is being managed, all the respondents indicated that they have systems in place to track and record their inventory, such as monitoring of food material input and output. Six of the respondents answered that they did not have an assigned individual in charge of their inventory system, while two of the respondents said they did have an assigned individual to manage their inventory system. In order to determine whether human factors were limited to a minimum, the respondents were asked questions about their employee training programs. As seen in Figure 7, all the respondents indicated that their employees had been professionally trained to handle food, and had credentials such as the Red Seal designation and/or a food handler certificate. However, when the respondents were asked whether they had programs in place to increase their employees’ awareness of food waste and value of preventing waste, half of the respondents indicated that they had such programs implemented, while the rest of the respondents (n=4) did not. Of the respondents who provided services at more than one campsite, said that there were similar food handling practices from one site to another site. Figure 8 illustrates the summary of results in response to the question: “How do you think that your clients rank the importance of these different aspects when they hire you to do service as a third-party contractor?”. The respondents were asked to rank different aspects from 1 to 5, where the higher the score, the higher the importance and the lower the score indicated, the lower the 47 importance. Figure 8 below was compiled based on the respondents’ answers; the final scores were calculated considering the average responses given for each aspect. Figure 8. The importance of variables (to the mining companies) in contracting for food services As seen in Figure 8, when asked about the importance of aspects to the mining companies in contracting for food services, “sustainable business practice” ranks least considered, with an average score of 1.6 after “previous work experiences with the vendors,” averaging 1.8. Among five aspects, “proficiency” ranks the highest, with an average score of 4, followed by “affordability” and “quality of services,” with average scores of 3.9 and 3.1, respectively. In the following sections, survey results on food handling practices will be broken down by each stage along the life cycle of food service operation. 4.3.1 Food handling practices: pre-consumer phase The pre-consumer phase of food service is defined as the phase existing between the point when food is ordered from the supplier until it is served to the customer. The respondents were asked questions about practices on the following processes: inventory control and storage management, ordering material and menu planning, food preparation and processing and cooking. 012345Quality ofServicesCost Sustainability Previous workExperienceProficiencyAverage scorePlot displaying average response given by the respondents 48 Figure 9 reflects the answers given by the respondents and represents the average score attributed to each food handling practice. Figure 9. Food handling practices during inventory control and storage management As indicated in Figure 9, during inventory control and storage management, the practice of storing materials in order of purchase and carefully checking the date codes of the food materials had the lowest average score of 4.8 and 4.0 points, respectively. Other practices such as, regular inventory check and having the right equipment and facility to store food properly, were rated 5.0. In terms of material ordering and menu planning, the practice of using several core items in the menu and using smart merchandising were the highest rated practices, both with an average score of 4.4, as seen in Figure 10. The next highest-rated practice were using seasonal ingredients in the menu with an average score of 3.0 and including made-from-scratch products, such as “special dish of the day,” in the menu with an average score of 2.8. Negotiating with a client for maximal use of the material was the lowest-rated practice, with an average score of 2.1. 44.95550 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5a careful check of date codes ("best before" or "usedby" dates of the product)store material in order of purchase (First-in-first-out(FIFO) method of stock rotation)having the right equipment and facility to store foodproperlystore various product differentlyregular inventory checkAverage scoreFood handling practicesInventory control and storage management 49 Figure 10. Food handling practices during material ordering and menu planning Figure 11. Food handling practices in the kitchen 4.44.43.02.82.10 1 2 3 4 5smart food merchandising (timely purchasing for thetypes and volume needed) use a number of core items in the menuuse seasonal ingredients in the menuinclude a "Special dish of the day" in the menu made-from-scratch products basednegotiate with a client for maximal use of material (e.g.,not keeping a certain number of bread out at the end ofservice)Average scoreFood handling practicesMaterial ordering and Menu planning1.14.83.02.44.10.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0Avoid batch cookingUse right measurement toolsAvoid excess trimmings on vegetables and meatUse underutilized parts of ingredients (e.g. carrotpeelings as an ingredient for carrot cake) Freeze excess vegetables and fruits for laterusage (e.g., fruits for coulis or smoothies)Average ScoreFood handling practicesFood preparation and processing 50 As indicated in Figure 11, in the kitchen stage, the practice of using the right measurement tools and freezing excess vegetables and fruit for later usage had the highest average score of 4.8 and 4.1 points, respectively. It was followed by the practice of avoiding excess trimming on vegetables and meat, which was rated an average score of 3.0. According to the respondents, the practice of using under-utilized parts of ingredients in subsequent dishes and avoiding batch cooking was the least rated practice with average scores of 2.4 and 1.1, respectively. 4.3.2 Food handling practices: post-consumer phase The post-consumer phase of the food service is defined as the phase where food is served for consumption. The respondents were asked about practices of serving food to the customers and final management of the wasted food. The following Figure 12 reflects the answers given by the respondents and represents the average score attributed to each practice. Figure 12. Food handling practices during serving and consumption 4.64.03.92.11.81.81.00 1 2 3 4 5Having right portion control tools (e.g. servingspoon, ladle)Use menu description (e.g. health content, calories)Offer different meal sizes and portions (e.g. smallercut meat, half-size potato)Providing smaller platesCareful design of the food displays (e.g. smallersteam table trays or smaller container for salad bars)Use surplus material in a new dish or staff mealOffer tray-less serviceAverage ScoreFood handling practicesFood serving and consumption51 As seen from Figure 12, the respondents answered that providing correct portion control tools and using a menu description (i.e., health content and calories) were the highest-rated practices when serving food to the customers, with average scores of 4.6 and 4.0, respectively. This was followed by the practices of offering different meal sizes and portions, such as smaller cuts of meat and providing smaller plates, with average scores of 3.9 and 2.1, respectively. The practices of careful design of the food display and of surplus material usage both had the same average score of 1.8. According to the respondents, offering tray-less service during food serving received the lowest average score of 1.0. 4.3.3 Final management When the respondents asked whether they had set a fixed target for reducing their food waste, six responded that they had not, the remaining two responded that they had a specific fixed target for reducing it. The respondents who set a fixed target for reducing their food waste indicated that both environmental and financial impacts of the food waste were equally concerned. The survey respondents predominantly, six out of eight, indicated that landfill or burial as the final management of their wasted food. The remaining two of the respondents indicated controlled combustion as the primary way to deal with the overall edible food that was not consumed. After asking about their food handling experiences in different stages of the food service, respondents were then asked to indicate whether they had (if any) communication with their employees and/or collaboration with clients, in terms of reducing food waste. When asked about their customers' engagement in terms of food waste reduction, half of the respondents indicated that they did engage their customers proactively, while the other half indicated that they did not engage them. 52 Figure 13. Food handling practices: Fixed target, multi-stakeholder engagement The respondents who engaged their customers proactively did so in various activities listed in Figure 14 below. Regarding getting feedback on the quality of food served, the practice of using a food waste factsheet in the dining hall (i.e., pictures, texts, posters) was the most commonly taken action. Furthermore, actions of posting information signs reminding customers only to take an appropriate amount of food and encouraging them to eat all the food on their plates were also taken by respondents. The numbers do not add up to 100% because respondents engaged their customers in multiple activities. 24288460% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Do you work with other catering companies onreducing food waste?Are you getting any support from your clients(mining companies) on reducing food waste such..Do you engage your customers proactively in termsof reducing food waste?Have your company set a fixed target on reducingfood waste?Number of respondentsFood handling practicesMulti-shakeholder engagementYes No53 Figure 14. Customer engagement in terms of reducing food waste When the respondents asked whether they get specific (if any) support from the mining companies, in terms of reducing food waste, two of the respondents said they did get support from clients through different initiatives, such as informing employees about impacts of food waste and the benefits of eliminating it. The remainder of the respondents, six, answered that they did not get any support from clients to reduce food waste. In terms of collaboration with other food service supply companies to reduce food waste, all the respondents indicated that they did not work collaboratively.33440 1 2 3 4OtherProvide materials to assist customers to process their wasteproperlyProvide information about your sustainability and foodwaste practicesEncourage customers to eat all the food on their platePost information signs reminding customers to take anappropriate amount of foodUse food waste factsheets at the dining hall (e.g. picture,text, poster )Get feedback on the quality of the food you serveNumber of respondentsPractices for engaging customersHow do you engage your customers in terms of reducing food waste? 54 Figure 15 Summary of existing practices among the food service supply companies of mining industry 55 4.4 Summary of key findings In summary, the results of this research uncovered the following key findings: • Gaps in knowledge regarding quantities of food waste. • Vegetables was the category with the highest amount of food waste throughout the life cycle of the operation. • The primary causes of wasted food varied. For example, in terms of vegetables category following causes were identified. o Logistics: Inaccurate forecasting o Kitchen: Human factor (i.e. lack of experience in preparation) o Service: Overproduction, Meal preference • Food waste measurement is generally not calculated by the food service companies and not determined. • Food waste prevention practices are not fully implemented (Figure 15). • Using food waste as a resource is not incentivized, planned or implemented. • There are many opportunities for improving sustainable consumption and production, in accordance with SDG 12.3. Improvement in this regard could lead to reduced costs and increased profitaibility. 56 Chapter 5: Discussion 5.1 Food waste in mining camps in Canada 5.1.1 Estimated quantity of food waste The results from the question related to the quantity of wasted food show that the amount of food waste in mining camps in Canada has not been well determined. This aligns with Gustavsson et al. (2011)’s findings that there is significant data gaps in the knowledge of the quantity of food waste and loss along the food value chain. Moreover, Derqui et al. (2016) suggest that many businesses in the food sector are not aware of the amount of waste they have due to visible evidence of waste. To reduce food waste, it is necessary to understand the exact problem to be solved (Steen, Malefors, Röös, & Eriksson, 2018) and detailed quantification is an essential first step in this process (Eriksson, 2015). When asked about the total quantity of food waste experienced last year per campsite, out of eight respondents, only two provided their answers, with 2% and 5% respectively. This indicates that either the companies did not measure their food waste (therefore, they do not know the answer), or they simply did not want to disclose this information. A simplified explanation for this could be that the actual cost of food waste was externalized (Gooch et al., 2019) because the cost of the food waste is typically recorded as disposal cost. Therefore, the true cost of the food waste is often undervalued due to the fact that hidden costs (e.g., labour, energy, transport, invested capital, etc.) are not recognized (Ibid.). It was found that the amount of food wasted along the life cycle of food service operations in mining camps was relatively higher than the literature findings. According to Engström & Carlsson-Kanyama (2004)’s study, 4% to 10% of the amount of food delivered wasted on the handling of the food storage, preparation, and serving stage while plate waste was accounted for 57 11% to 13% of the amount delivered among Spanish food service companies. In the present study it was found that up to 25% of the amount was wasted during inventory control and storage management, preparation and processing of the food, and up to 20 % of the food as a result of plate waste. This reveals that overall food waste in the mining campsite is higher than other food services settings. 5.1.2 Highest wasted food categories The results from the question related to the highest quantity of food waste show that at each stage, the type of food material differed somewhat within each operation. The results revealed quite different food waste characteristics at each stage of the food service operation. Among all the food categories examined, the survey respondents predominately chose the “vegetable” category as the highest amount of wasted food throughout the life cycle of food service. This was similar to many studies that vegetables and starch are top food waste categories left by diners (Betz et al., 2015; Silvennoinen, Heikkilä, Katajajuuri, & Reinikainen, 2015; Wang et al., 2017). Moreover, the studies by Buzby & Hyman (2012) and Costello et al. (2016) identified the vegetable category as being the top wasted food category at the consumer stage. In fact, Lipinski et al.’s (2013) study found that globally fruits and vegetables are the most frequently lost or wasted food group by weight. The results also showed that more types of food are wasted in the post-consumer phase of the service (i.e. plate waste), as four companies reported vegetables, and the remainder four of the companies reported grains and meats, as the highest waste category. This matches Mirosa et al. (2016)’s findings identified in Reducing waste of food left on plates: Interventions based on means-end chain analysis of customers in foodservice sector that most food categories are found within the plate waste as people have different personal preferences when it comes to food. This 58 could also be related to the buffet-style service at mining camps that the larger menu option leads to more food waste as compared to the more consistent menu where staple ingredients are used in almost every meal; therefore, it is easy to incorporate leftovers into new meals (Rathje & Murphy, 2001). 5.1.3 Primary causes of food waste The reasons for food waste have been previously attributed to a variety of factors, as seen in the literature. The results from the question on food waste revealed that the primary causes differed, contingent upon the type of food material and its source point throughout the food service operations in mining camps. This was similar to the Göbel et al. (2015)’s findings that drivers of food waste depend on the type of food category and the point it is wasted along the food supply chain. It was found that difficulty in assessing demand (i.e. inadequate forecasting of material), and confusion over food dates (“best before”/“used by” dates) were cited as the most frequent causes of wasted food in pre-consumer phase of the operation. This matches the Nikkel et al. (2019)’s findings that date code, preparation waste, and inaccurate forecast were contributing to food waste and loss in the HRI sector. Another study also confirmed that accurately predicting demand and rigid food procurement specifications are significant factors that contribute to food waste generation, especially for the fruit and vegetable category (Göbel et al., 2015). Confusion over food dates (“best before”/“used by” dates) was cited as the primary cause of the vegetable waste during logistics and in the kitchen. This might be due to the fact that mining campsites are often located in remote places. Therefore there might be tendencies to stock up more material than actual demand. Moreover, now food travels long distances (Pretty, Ball, Lang, & Morison, 2005) keeping the quality standard for freshness (Gunders, 2012) might become an issue, 59 especially for the mining campsites. This was supported by the Mena, Adenso-Diaz, & Yurt’s (2011) findings that shelf life, demand fluctuation, and storage requirements have a significant influence on the level of food waste in the supplier-retailer interface. Similar to previous food waste studies, respondents indicated that human factor/error as the primary cause of vegetable waste in the kitchen stage, with up to 20% of wastage (Nikkel et al., 2019a). This was similar to Baldwin et al. (2012)’s study that unskilled trimming (i.e. human factor) was one of the leading causes of food waste in the pre-consumer phase of the foodservice operation. The results from the question related to food waste analysis at the post-consumer phase of the service show that food is wasted primarily due to overproduction (i.e., displaying too much food). This was confirmed by Silvennoinen et al. (2015)’s findings that the main drivers of wasted food are buffet services and overproduction. Moreover, the stage of foodservice establishments to “avoid disappointing customers by running out of menu choice” is explained as the reason behind overproduction (CEC, 2017). Even though it is a critical factor in contractor companies maintaining customer satisfaction, the overproduction of food indicates that there is an inefficiency in the food services model (Baldwin et al. 2012; Buzby & Hyman, 2012). In summary, food waste in mining camps was attributed to a wide variety of factors, and the inefficiency of food material management and overproduction were seen as key reasons for food waste. This inefficiency was identified by the respondents as the result of an excessive amount of food being wasted even after the food handling practices existed. Table 5 provides a brief comparison between the results of the research findings with that of the literature, in regard to the causes of food waste (by category). 60 Table 5. Comparison between the research findings and literature analysis: Primary causes of food waste Research findings Literature findings Pre-consumer Post-consumer Pre-consumer Post-consumer Vegetables - Inaccurate forecast - Date code ("best before"/ "used by" dates) - Human factor - Overproduction -(Othe)Inappropriate client request: prioritizing protein and/or starches - Quality standard for freshness (Gunders, 2012) -Overproduction (Otten et al. 2016) (Baldwin et al. 2012) - Unskilled trimming - Unidentified demand - Inefficient production - Poor communication - Staff behavior - Over-merchandising - Food safety - Large serving sizes and unwanted side dishes (Parizeau, Massow, & Martin, 2015; Wansink & van Ittersum, 2013) -Increase in portion size (Gunders, 2012) - Inefficient service model (Baldwin et al. 2012) - Customer’s menu acceptance (Baldwin et al. 2012) Grains - Overproduction - Individual meal preferences Fruits - Damage - Inaccurate forecast 5.2 Opportunity for improvement: Food handling practices The results from the question related to the food handling experiences show that preventing food waste proactively is not shown to be a priority among food service suppliers of mining camps. Also, practices that led to food waste prevention has not complied equally throughout the food service operation. Table 6 below describes the results of existing practices that the companies are taking in regard to food waste prevention at each stage of service. It was found that food waste is not segregated from general waste, as three respondents answered that they “do not separate” their food waste from the other waste. This indicates that respondents do not see the value of reducing food waste. It was further confirmed by respondents who answered that they are “not planning to track their food waste in the near future,” and when asked the reason, the answers were that there is no value in doing so.61 Table 6. Existing practices among mining food service supplier companies: Pre-consumer phase Post-consumer phase Inventory control & storage management Material ordering & menu planning Food preparation & processing Food serving and consumption Commendable (Average score  4) - Having the right equipment and facility to store food properly (5) - Store various types of products differently (5) - Regular inventory check (5) - Store material in order of purchase (first-in-first-out (FIFO) method of stock rotation) (4.87) - A careful check of date codes ("best before" or "used by" dates of the product) (4) - Smart food merchandising (timely purchasing for the types and volume needed) (4.37) - Establish a number of core items across a menu (4.37) - Use correct measurement tools (4.75) - Freeze excess vegetables and fruit for later usage (e.g., fruits for coulis or smoothies) (4.12) - Having correct portion control tools (e.g. serving spoon, ladle) (4.62) - Use menu description (e.g. health content, calories) (4) Practices needing improvement (Average score <4) - Use seasonal ingredients in the menu (3) - Include a "special dish of the day" made-from-scratch products based - Negotiate with clients for maximal use of material (e.g., not keeping breads out at the end of service) (2.12) - Avoid excess trimming on vegetables and meat (3) - Use underutilized parts of ingredients (e.g. carrot peelings as an ingredient for carrot cake) (2.37) - Avoid batch cooking (1.12) - Offer different meal sizes and portions (e.g. smaller cut meat, half-size potato) (3.87) - Provide smaller plates (2.12) - Careful design of food displays (e.g. smaller steam table trays or smaller container for salad bars) (1.75) - Use surplus material in a new dish or staff meal (1.75) - Offer tray-less service (1) - Provide information about your company’s sustainability and food waste practices (e.g. seperate properly) (1) - Persuade people to take less food and come back for more (1) Source: Developed by the author62 In terms of efforts to prevent food waste, all companies that answered the survey did comply with the practices that led to food waste prevention in the logistics stage (during inventory control and storage management). However, during food ordering & menu planning and later, such as in the kitchen stage, the companies showed only partial compliance. This indicates that improved food handling practices are necessary as food waste can be reduced through careful planning, proper management, and documenting food waste data (Silvennoinen et al., 2015). Which then to help identify the campsite’s food waste sources and to form a basis for finding solutions. An interesting finding is that half of the catering companies who did the survey have no employee training program in place. At the same time, they said “human error” was the leading cause of wasted food from the kitchen. It confirms that there is a need for training among respondents. The correlation between more training and fewer human errors was noted in studies “The more education and training the venue receives, the greater the chance for success in diverting food residuals with little contamination,” according to (Christensen, 2009). It was found that a significant change in practice is needed in the later stage of the food service operation, as the respondents showed lesser compliance. A practice that focuses on increasing customer awareness around food waste and redesigning the service model is needed to reduce food waste. As discussed in the literature influence of dinnerware (i.e. plate size) and tray-less service showed significant results in reducing the amount of food waste (Kim & Morawski, 2013; Thiagarajah & Getty, 2013; Wansink & van Ittersum, 2013). However, practices such as offering different meal sizes and portions, providing smaller plates, offering tray-less service were not used among respondents. Therefore, companies could start incorporating practices such as removal of trays Costello et al. (2016), and reducing the physical size of plates Kallbekken & Sælen (2013) that has been found to reduce food waste by up to 30% and 20%, respectively. 63 An initiative started by Sodexo found that the company could reduce food waste on a college campus by introducing tray-less services. The environmental impact was calculated to be a savings of about 200 gallons of water a day per 1,000 meals served (“Sodexo Challenges Diners on College Campuses to Go Trayless and Go Green,” 2008). Sodexo is one of the word’s largest multinational corporations that provide food services & facilities management. 5.2.1 Increased collaboration and multi-stakeholder engagement Food waste is a complex issue; therefore, a solution to food waste prevention needs multi-stakeholder engagement and collaboration. According to Halloran et al. (2014), food waste can be solved sustainably through multi-stakeholder collaboration and implementation of food systems thinking by all actors. However, the results from the question related to the waste prevention efforts show that there is limited collaboration among stakeholders (i.e. mining companies, food service supply companies, consumers) in regards to food waste prevention. When asked whether the respondents get (if any) support from mining companies, in terms of reducing food waste, six out of eight respondents answered that they did not get any support to reduce food waste. Also, a question related to collaboration with other food service supply companies to reduce food waste; all the respondents indicated that they did not work collaboratively. This indicates that there is a lack of collaboration between stakeholders in terms of food waste reduction. Along with the collaboration, increasing awareness of food waste is one of the most important drivers of waste prevention (Engström & Carlsson-Kanyama, 2004; Pongrácz, 2009). However, the findings of this research show that awareness of food waste prevention has not been up to par for the food service supply companies and mining companies alike. When asked if the respondents had an employee training program in place to increase awareness of food waste and the value of reducing it, half of the respondents answered that they did not. This indicates that there is a lack 64 of awareness around food waste among food service supply companies of mining. This lack of awareness of food waste is one of the reasons for the slow progress in reducing food waste (Finn, 2014). Therefore, efforts to increase awareness is vital; the inter and intra collaboration among stakeholders (i.e. mining companies, food service supply companies, consumers) are equally important factors to succeed. 5.3 Potential re-utilization of food waste in mining camps The results from the question about food waste management revealed two key facts related to food wasted in mining camps. First, that there are significant levels of inefficiency in the use of resources (i.e. food waste) at mining camps in Canada. Second, it also revealed that there has been no discussion around the reduction of food waste within the mining context. When asked about the final stages in the management of food that is not consumed at the end of service, six out of eight respondents stated that the final stage of management of their food waste involved landfill or burial. Even though further questions regarding the design of their landfill (such as having leach proof layering) were not asked in the survey, the impacts of potential leachate, groundwater contamination, and GHG emissions (Gooch et al., 2019; IPCC, 2007) clearly exist. Considering that the companies do not separate food waste from general waste prior to disposal. Through alternative forms of management, food waste has the potential to generate benefits and value such as through composting, anaerobic digestion, livestock animal feed, and through the use of landfills with efficient gas collection systems (Kim et al., 2011; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2016). It was found that, despite the existence of food handling practices, a notable amount of food is being wasted in mining camps, and that food waste is not being utilized efficiently. Therefore, as seen in Table 7 and Figure 16 below, in support of the quantitative findings on food waste, further 65 calculations were made to demonstrate the potential re-utilization of wasted food in mining camps. These calculations are based on extrapolations from the current literature (Chapter 3.6). The different ranges reported through different sources are shown as maximum and minimum ranges. For the purpose of this research and demonstration, these numbers are rounded. The research used food waste weight data from Statistics Canada to assess how much food was being wasted at the mining camps (Nikkel et al., 2019b). Calculations were based on the total number of meals served/day at those 11 camps together. The total cost estimate associated with food waste at these 11 camps was acquired through the approach by Martin (2012). The monetary value of the potential re-utilization estimate of food waste was determined based on the calculation of methane gas and LPG gas at the current Canadian market price of CAD 0.14/m3 and CAD 2.64/litre, respectively (Natural gas rates, 2020; Global Petrol Prices, 2020). The embodied CO2e (CO2 equavalent) associated with food waste for all 11 camps was calculated based on the following references (Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, 2017; Hodge, Levis, DeCarolis, & Barlaz, 2016b). In another example, it would mean that the total amount of embodied CO2 generated at these 11 camps would be equal to 9000 cars (with 50L tanks) being driven until their fuel is exhausted. It is important to note that calculations may vary depending on a variety of factors. The calculations of food waste re-utilization are a significant part of this research because of their importance with respect to underpinning the survey’s findings in terms of a tangible business case. The calculations demonstrate the potential environmental, social and economic footprints associated with food waste, as well as the value recovery from the wasted food. Moreover, since businesses are being prompted to embrace sustainability in meaningful ways (Jarvie-Eggart, 2015), this research serves as a stepping stone to beginning the dialogue around food waste reduction and 66 re-utilization in mining camps in order to show one of the many ways in which the mining industry can contribute to sustainable development.67 Table 7. Calculations made to demontrate the potential for the re-utilization of wasted food in mining camps Potential for re-utilization of wasted food in mining Maximum (thousand) Minimum (thousand) 1 The total amount of food waste in all 11 camps/year (kg) 850 2 Total cost estimate of plate waste/year, (CAD) 4,376 3 The total amount of methane produced from food waste/year, (m3/kg) 640 260 4 The amount of LPG produced from food waste/year, (m3) 426 230 5 The total monetary value of LPG produced from food waste/year, (based on Canadian estimates) 1,500 800 6 The total amount of CO2 emitted from food waste/year, (kg) 1,600 221 7 The total amount of CO2 emitted from food waste/year demonstrated in CO2 emission from cars (based on the number of cars with 50L tanks) 14 2 8 The total amount of virtual water wasted along with food waste/year (Litre) 750,000 570,000 9 The amount of wasted virtual water demonstrated in potable water person/year (based on 2L/person usage) 1,000 782 10 The total amount of potential compost produced from food waste/year (m3) 2 0.6 11 The potential usage of the compost for soil amendment (by acre) 1 0.4 12 The potential electricity generated/year, (kWh) (based on methane usage) 6,000 850 13 The potential electricity from food waste demonstrated in household usage/year 0.9 0.125 14 The potential electricity demonstrated in per person usage/year 2.2 0.3 Note: All maximum and minimum ranges are rounded estimates. LPG – Liquefied petroleum gas, is a flammable mixture of hydrocarbon gases used as fuel in heating appliances, cooking equipment, and vehicles. CO2 – Carbon dioxide kWh – Kilowatt-hour (a unit of energy) commonly used as a billing unit for energy delivered to consumers by electric utilities. 68 Figure 16 Demonstration for the re-utilization of wasted food in mining camps69 5.4 Making shifts towards a sustainable culture This study suggest that mining companies need to consider the following question: How can mining companies take part in the process of reducing food waste at mine sites? As discussed earlier, food waste in mining camps can be solved through multi-stakeholder collaboration (Halloran et al., 2014) as well as an increased sense of conscientiousness with respect to sustainability in general, and through efforts at sustainability at the campsites. For mining companies, the issue of food waste at camps may seem insignificant in comparison to their massive environmental footprint, but by reducing food waste, mining companies can potentially alleviate the environmental burden. The argument is that if the industry makes even relatively small shifts towards working with their contractors on sustainable practices in camp kitchens, then it could be argued that the mining industry is progressing on its way towards having “embraced” a culture that includes sustainable practices. This shift can be exemplified by contracting food suppliers based on their conscientious efforts towards sustainability. It was found that when hiring food service suppliers, mining companies ranked “sustainable business practices” as the lowest among the five variables presented (affordability, proficiency, sustainable business practices, quality of services, previous experiences with the vendors). This is indicative of an overlooked area of improvement in sustainable procurement practices for the mining sector. It was noted in the literature that food procurement practice had the most significant impact for environmental improvement (Baldwin, Wilberforce, & Kapur, 2011). As mentioned earlier, an increasing effort has been made by many organizations and programs to promote sustainability objectives in mining. One of these efforts, “Mapping Mining to the Sustainable Development Goals: An Atlas,” brings together many different stakeholders of the 70 industry and illustrates ways in which the mining sector can contribute to the goals set out by the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) (Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, 2016). Although the Atlas maps many ways industry can contribute towards most of the 17 SDGs, the SDG 12.3, a commitment to reducing global per-capita food waste has not been included. That sustainability practices are a concern at mining sites is obvious. However, the mining industry does not yet have a full perspective on how to apply these practices to the reduction of food waste. 71 Chapter 6: Conclusions The mining industry faces high expectations from society regarding its contributions to sustainable development and the promotion of sustainability at all levels of its operations, including at mine sites. However, food waste in mining camps is overlooked by the industry despite its adverse environmental implications such as greenhouse gas emissions, inefficient use of energy, and potential groundwater contamination, all of which are critical concerns for the industry in terms of sustainability. In order to highlight the importance of food waste issues at mining camps, it is important to discuss current food handling practices among food service suppliers in the mining industry. This research has evaluated the efforts that mining food service suppliers are taking to prevent food waste at mining camps. The design of this research was guided by three overarching objectives; • To identify the quantity, category (type of material), source and the primary causes of food waste in mining camps in Canada. • To identify common food handling practices used by food service supply companies of mining camps in Canada, and to investigate food waste prevention measures used for the sector. • To provide recommendations on the areas in which food handling practices could be improved during food service to better limit food waste in mining camps in Canada. A survey was chosen as the primary methodology for data collection as it was deemed the best-fit methodology for understanding current food waste information and food handling practices. The survey used a quantitative approach with qualitative elements for data collection. Based on their responses, food handling data was analyzed and revealed that efforts at preventing food waste in mining camps in Canada is not a priority among mining food services providers. 72 Although the food handling experiences had distinct trends, overall food handling practices indicated that it is not a priority to proactively prevent food waste. In terms of efforts to prevent food waste, all of the respondents indicated that they had complied with the practices that led to food waste prevention during the logistics stage (during inventory control and storage management). However, during food ordering & menu planning, and later, in the kitchen stage, the respondents indicated only partial compliance. Practices such as offering different meal sizes and portions, providing smaller plates, offering trayless service were not used by the respondents. Therefore, a significant change in practice is needed during the later stages of food service operations. Particularly, the practice must focus on increasing sense of conscientiousness around food waste and redesigning the service model. Information on food waste reveals that the actual cost of the wasted food at mining camps is undervalued. Some respondents indicated that they do not measure their food waste, and they answered that they “do not see the value of reducing it” as their reason for not measuring it. Food handling practices also revealed the need for employee training. Although this study did not consider the effectiveness of training programs, some respondents revealed that they did not have access to employee training programs to increase food waste awareness and the value of reducing it. At the same time, they responded that “human error” was the primary cause of wasted food from their kitchen. The respondents of this study indicated that wasted food at the end of the service cycle is either landfilled or buried. Even though this study did not ask further questions regarding landfill design and burial methods, potential environmental impacts are sure to exist. Based on the responses received from the food service suppliers, further calculations of potential food waste re-utilization 73 were made by extrapolating upon the current literature. These calculations are important as they represent potential business opportunities that would have reduced environmental impact. Although the improvements identified with regard to food handling practices and prevention efforts are significant, many ways in which food service supply companies, as well as the mining industry, could benefit from potentially re-utilized food waste were recognized. With respect to these improvements, there exist significant opportunities through which to further promote the mining industry’s contribution to sustainable development, especially SDG’s 12.3 target. This research approached food waste as an overlooked sustainability issue and sought to investigate the efforts that mining food service supply companies have put in to reducing food waste. This stated aim was based on the consistent results of previous studies that have indicated that multi-stakeholder engagement and increased awareness around food waste are important aspects of reducing environmental footprint, increasing profitability, and enhancing sustainability. To reduce food waste at mining camps, mining companies need to evaluate the conscientiousness of their sustainability practices in general, including their efforts at sustainability at the campsites, and actively consider and act upon their levels of sustainable consumption and production. 74 Chapter 7: Research Limitations and Recommendations for Future Work 7.1 Research limitations In order to eliminate the primacy bias (i.e., “first choice selection” problem) and recency bias (i.e., “last choice” selection: remembering something that has happened most recently), choice randomization was established whenever possible. This was done to prevent the tendency of respondents selecting either the primary option or the last option presented to them in a list of options (Holbrook, 2008). Despite having taken these measures, all surveys have inherent issues in regard to the design and interpretation of the data that can be subject to the researcher’s biases (Anderson-Knott, 2008). A discussion of the study’s limitations is essential, as it demonstrates the boundaries of generalizability and conclusiveness (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). Data was generated from a small sample group and cannot be generalized to a larger population. Interpretation of data and identification of food handling experiences are limited by the researcher’s level of expertise in mining food services and could be influenced by bias. Table 8 outlines some of the key issues to consider within the research design and analysis. Table 8 Key issues in research design and analysis Research Limitation Application in Research study Sampling issue To find a complete list of the food service supply companies was challenging due to the (informal) nature of the registration of the businesses in the sector, since there is no mandatory registration in place. Food service operations of mining were commonly registered as part of camp services. Selection Bias (unrepresentative sample) The survey was offered only in English; this may have contributed to the underrepresentation of French speaking, Quebec-based respondents. Lack of common terminology Respondents were provided with a detailed definition of “food waste.” However, the lack of common terminology literature, showing the difference between the terms: food loss and food waste (Xue et al., 2017), 75 and the inconsistent interpretation between organizations or even among different persons within the same organization (Derqui et al., 2016) may have contributed to the ways in which questions were answered regarding the amount of wasted food. 7.2 Recommendations for Future Work This study highlights the need for further research regarding food waste issues at mining camps. In particular, a real need has been identified for explorative studies that highlight the potential to develop an industrial utilization process to follow, such as implementing bioreactors for the generation of biogas utilized from the decomposition of organic waste and wastewater sludge in mining camps. This development could offset electricity and heating cost in mining camps. Such studies would be helpful in highlighting and addressing the issue of food waste at mining camps, and would shed light on ways that the efficient use of food waste could improve sustainability and lead to better economic efficiency and reduced environmental impacts. The scope of this research was to establish an understanding of the efforts that have been made with regard to food waste prevention at remote mining sites in the Canadian context. This research provides the groundwork for further comparative research, potentially in terms of different industries such as hospitality (hotel, resorts, etc.) or as compared to the mining industry outside of Canada. Increased numbers of related studies would support guidelines and/or the standardized development of food waste prevention in the industry. This research could also be further be expanded upon through the use of different methodologies with larger samples. In terms of theoretical applications, other types of interdisciplinary studies that would integrate behavioural psychology to investigate the causes of plate waste with the objective of moving towards waste reduction and prevention would also be recommended. 76 Bibliography Abdulla, M., Martin, R., Gooch, M., & Jovel, E. (2013). The Importance of Quantifying Food Waste in Canada. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 137–151. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2013.032.018 Al-Domi, H., Al-Rawajfeh, H., Aboyousif, F., Yaghi, S., Mashal, R., & Fakhoury, J. (2011). Determining and addressing food plate waste in a group of students at the University of Jordan. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 10(9), 871–878. Anderson-Knott. (2008). Branching. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947 Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy. (2017). National greenhouse accounts factors. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/353023a0 Baldwin, C., Wilberforce, N., & Kapur, A. (2011). Restaurant and food service life cycle assessment and development of a sustainability standard. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0234-x Beretta, C., Stoessel, F., Baier, U., & Hellweg, S. (2013). Quantifying food losses and the potential for reduction in Switzerland. Waste Management, 33(3), 764–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.11.007 Betz, A., Buchli, J., Göbel, C., & Müller, C. (2015). Food waste in the Swiss food service industry - Magnitude and potential for reduction. Waste Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.015 BIO Intelligence Service. (2010). Preparatory Study on Food Waste Across EU27. BIO Intelligence Service, a report commissioned by the European Commissiona. October (Vol. 33). https://doi.org/10.2779/85947 77 Brancati, D. (2018). Social Scientific Research. (N. Aguilera, Ed.), Sage Publications Ltd. SAGE Publications. Buzby, J., & Hyman, J. (2012). Total and Per Capita Value of Food Loss in the United States. Food Policy, 37(5), 561–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.06.002 Canali, M., Amani, P., Aramyan, L., Gheoldus, M., Moates, G., Östergren, K., … Vittuari, M. (2017). Food waste drivers in Europe, from identification to possible interventions. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010037 CEC. (2017). Characterization and Management of Food Loss and Waste in North America. Montreal, Canada. Retrieved from http://www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/11772-characterization-and-management-food-loss-and-waste-in-north-america-en.pdf Chapagain, A., & James, K. (2011). The water and carbon footprint of household food and drink waste in the UK A report containing quantification and analysis of the water and carbon. WRAP Report. Chapagain, A. K., & James, K. (2013). Accounting for the Impact of Food Waste on Water Resources and Climate Change. In Food Industry Wastes. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-391921-2.00012-3 Christensen, E. M. (2009). BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) FOR INCORPORATING FOOD RESIDUALS INTO EXISTING YARD WASTE COMPOSTING OPERATIONS. Retrieved from www.compostingcouncil.org Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment. (2016). Mapping Mining to the Sustainable Empowered lives. Resilient nations. Development Goals: An Atlas. Retrieved from https://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Sustainable Development/Extractives/Mapping_Mining_SDGs_An_Atlas_Executive_Summary_FINA78 L.pdf Costello, C., Birisci, E., & McGarvey, R. G. (2016). Food waste in campus dining operations: Inventory of pre-and post-consumer mass by food category, and estimation of embodied greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 31(3), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170515000071 Derqui, B., Fayos, T., & Fernandez, V. (2016). Towards a More Sustainable Food Supply Chain: Opening up Invisible Waste in Food Service. Sustainability, 8(7), 693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070693 Dorward, L. J. (2012). Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? A comment. Food Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.04.006 Electricity Generation from Biogas - energypedia.info. (n.d.). Retrieved March 24, 2020, from https://energypedia.info/wiki/Electricity_Generation_from_Biogas Engström, R., & Carlsson-Kanyama, A. (2004). Food losses in food service institutions Examples from Sweden. Food Policy, 29(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.03.004 Environment Canada. (2013). Technical Document on Municipal Solid Waste Organics Processing. Environment Canada. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004265.pub3. EPA. (2017). Food Recovery Hierarchy. Sustainable Management of Food. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2013.09.019 Eriksson, M. (2015). Supermarket food waste: Prevention and management with the focus on reduced waste for reduced carbon footprint. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2502.3447 European Commission. (2011). Guidelines on the Preparation of Food Waste Prevention Programmes, 1–32. 79 European Parliament and Council. (2008). Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives (Waste framework. LexUriServ. Do, 3–30. https://doi.org/2008/98/EC.; 32008L0098 FAO. (2013). Food Wastage Footprint : Impacts on Natural Resources. Rome: FAO. Retrieved from http://replace-me/ebraryid=10815985 FAO. (2014a). Food Wastage Footprint: Fool cost-accounting. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). https://doi.org/ISBN 978-92-5-107752-8 FAO. (2014b). Food wastage footprint full cost accounting final. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/food-loss-and-waste/en/ FAO. (2014c). Mitigation of food wastage societal costs and benefits. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/a530f2ad-499c-400f-b9c0-6c8988f2ee9d FAO, F. and A. O. of the U. N. (2015). Climate Data Explorer. Finn, S. M. (2014). Valuing our food: Minimizing waste and optimizing resources. Zygon. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12131 Food Waste Greenhouse Gas Calculator » Watch My Waste. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2020, from http://watchmywaste.com.au/food-waste-greenhouse-gas-calculator/ FUSIONS. (2016). Estimates of European food waste levels. Retrieved from https://www.eu-fusions.org/index.php/publications Garnett, T. (2008). Cooking up a storm and our changing climate. Strategy. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijccsm.2009.41401bae.006 Garnett, T. (2011). Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.010 80 Gjerris, M., & Gaiani, S. (2013). Household food waste in Nordic countries: Estimations and ethical implications. Etikk i Praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, 7(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v7i1.1786 Global Mining Sustainability - Collaboration. (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2020, from https://globalminingsustainability.com/ Göbel, C., Langen, N., Blumenthal, A., Teitscheid, P., & Ritter, G. (2015). Cutting food waste through cooperation along the food supply chain. Sustainability (Switzerland), 7(2), 1429–1445. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7021429 Gooch, M., Bucknell, D., LaPlain, D., Dent, B., Whitehead, P., Felfel, A., … Maguire, M. (2019). The Avoidable Crisis of Food Waste: Technical Report. Gooch, M., Marenick, N., Laplain, D., & Dent, B. (2012). Cut Waste, GROW PROFIT; How to reduce and manage food waste, leading to increased profitability and environmental sustainability. Value Chain Management Centre, 39. Retrieved from http://vcm-international.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Cut-Waste-GROW-PROFIT-Food-and-Associated-Wastes-May-30-2013.pdf Gooch, M. V., & Felfel, A. (2014). $27 Billion Revisited the Cost of Canada’s Annual Food Waste. Value Chain Management International Inc. Retrieved from www.vcm-international.com Griffin, M., Sobal, J., & Lyson, T. A. (2009). An analysis of a community food waste stream. Agriculture and Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9178-1 Griffiths-sattenspiel, B., & Wilson, W. (2009). The Carbon Footprint of Water. Retrieved from http://eec.ucdavis.edu/events/documents/water-energy_rivernetwork_carbon-footprint-of-water.pdf Gruber, L. M., Brandstetter, C. P., Bos, U., Lindner, J. P., & Albrecht, S. (2016). LCA study of 81 unconsumed food and the influence of consumer behavior. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0933-4 Gunders, D. (2012). Wasted: How America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from farm to fork to landfill. NRDC Issue Paper, (August), 1–26. https://doi.org/12-06-B Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., & Meybeck, A. (2011). Global food losses and food waste: extent, causes and prevention. International Congress: Save Food!, 38. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0126 Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., Meybeck, A., & FAO. (2011). Global Food Losses And Food Waste. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rom. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0126 Halloran, A., Clement, J., Kornum, N., Bucatariu, C., & Magid, J. (2014). Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark. Food Policy, 49(P1), 294–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.09.005 Hawkes, J. (2001). The fourth pillar of sustainability: Culture’s essential role in public planning. Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd in Association with the Cultural Development Network (Vic). Hodge, K. L., Levis, J. W., DeCarolis, J. F., & Barlaz, M. A. (2016a). Systematic Evaluation of Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Food Waste Management Strategies in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(16), 8444. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27387287 Hodge, K. L., Levis, J. W., DeCarolis, J. F., & Barlaz, M. A. (2016b). Systematic Evaluation of Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Food Waste Management Strategies in the United 82 States. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(16), 8444–8452. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00893 Intergovernmental panel on climate change. (2019). Food waste emissions report, (1), 1–4. IPCC, I. P. O. C. C. (2007). Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Science. https://doi.org/volume Jarvie-Eggart, M. E. (2015). Responsible Mining: Case Studies in Managing Social & Environmental Risks in the Developed World. Society for Mining, Metallurgy $ Exploration. Kallbekken, S., & Sælen, H. (2013). “Nudging” hotel guests to reduce food waste as a win-win environmental measure. Economics Letters. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.03.019 Kamboj, S., Maharshi, J., Kachari, N. S., & Saeed, A. (2018). Biogas from Kitchen Food Waste: Estimation, Applications and Economic analysis. International Journal for Research in Engineering Application & Management (IJREAM), 04(08), 409–416. https://doi.org/10.18231/2454-9150.2018.1114 Kantor, L. S., & Lipton, K. (1997). Estimating and addressing America’s food losses. FoodReview, 20(1), 2. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9710250764&site=ehost-live&scope=site Kenny, B., & Bezuidenhout, A. (1999). Contracting, complexity and control: An overview of the changing nature of subcontracting in the South African mining industry. Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Kim, K., & Morawski, S. (2013). Quantifying the Impact of Going Trayless in a University Dining Hall. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2012.732918 83 Kranert, M., Hafner, G., Barabosz, J., Schneider, F., Lebersorger, S., Scherhaufer, S., … Leverenz, D. (2012). Determination of discarded food and proposals for a minimization of food wastage in Germany. Department Für Wasser-Atmosphäre-Umwelt. Kummu, M., de Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., & Ward, P. J. (2012). Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Science of the Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.092 Kuo, J., & Dow, J. (2017). Biogas production from anaerobic digestion of food waste and relevant air quality implications. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 67(9), 1000–1011. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2017.1316326 Langley, J., Yoxall, A., Heppell, G., Rodriguez, E. M., Bradbury, S., Lewis, R., … Rowson, J. (2010). Food for Thought? — A UK pilot study testing a methodology for compositional domestic food waste analysis. Waste Management & Research, 28(3), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X08095348 Lebersorger, S., & Schneider, F. (2011). Discussion on the methodology for determining food waste in household waste composition studies. Waste Management, 31(9–10), 1924–1933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.05.023 Lin, C. S. K., Pfaltzgraff, L. A., Herrero-Davila, L., Mubofu, E. B., Abderrahim, S., Clark, J. H., … Luque, R. (2013). Food waste as a valuable resource for the production of chemicals, materials and fuels. Current situation and global perspective. Energy and Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2ee23440h Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L., Waite, R., Searchinger, T., & Paper, W. (2013). Reducing Food Loss and Waste. World Resource Institute, (May), 1–40. 84 https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896295827_03 Lord Kelvin and the Importance of Measurement. (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2020, from https://www.loyalty.com/home/insights/article-details/lord-kelvin-and-the-importance-of-measurement Lundqvist, J., Fraiture, C. De, & Molden, D. (2008). Saving Water: From Field to Fork Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain. SIWI Policy Brief. Ma, Y., Cai, W., & Liu, Y. (2017). An integrated engineering system for maximizing bioenergy production from food waste. Applied Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.190 Ma, Y., & Liu, Y. (2019). Turning food waste to energy and resources towards a great environmental and economic sustainability: An innovative integrated biological approach. Biotechnology Advances, 37(7), 107414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2019.06.013 Melissa Hansen. (n.d.). Getting the most from compost | Good Fruit Grower. Retrieved March 24, 2020, from https://www.goodfruit.com/getting-the-most-from-compost/ Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B., & Yurt, O. (2011). The causes of food waste in the supplier-retailer interface: Evidences from the UK and Spain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(6), 648–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.09.006 Mirosa, M., Munro, H., Mangan-Walker, E., & Pearson, D. (2016). Reducing waste of food left on plates. British Food Journal, 118(9), 2326–2343. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2015-0460 National Zero Waste Council. (2017). Food Waste Management & Climate Action: National GHG Reduction Potential, (February). Retrieved from http://www.nzwc.ca/focus/food/working-group/member-resources/FoodWorkingGroupDocs/FoodWasteClimateChange.pdf Nikkel, L., Maguire, M., Gooch, M., Bucknell, D., LaPlain, D., Dent, B., … Felfel, A. (2019a). 85 The Avoidable Crisis of Food Waste: Technical Report, 1–122. Retrieved from www.SecondHarvest.ca/Research Nikkel, L., Maguire, M., Gooch, M., Bucknell, D., LaPlain, D., Dent, B., … Felfel, A. (2019b). The avoidable crisis of Food Waste: The Roadmap. Quality, 32. Retrieved from www.SecondHarvest.ca/Research Otten, J., Diedrich, S., Getts, K., & Benson, C. (2016). Food Waste Prevention and Recovery Assessment Report, (June). Retrieved from https://depts.washington.edu/uwcphn/reports/SeattleFoodWasteReport.PDF Papargyropoulou, Effie, Lozano, R., Steinberger, J., Wright, N., & Ujang, Z. Bin. (2014). The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.020 Papargyropoulou, Effie, Wright, N., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J., Padfield, R., & Ujang, Z. (2016). Conceptual framework for the study of food waste generation and prevention in the hospitality sector. Waste Management, 49, 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.017 Papargyropoulou, Effrosyni. (2016). Food waste generation in the hospitality and food service sector : Prevention insights from Malaysia. 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 B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 3065–3081. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0126 Parizeau, K., Massow, M. Von, & Martin, R. (2015). Household-level dynamics of food waste production and related beliefs , attitudes , and behaviours in Guelph , Ontario. Waste 86 Management, 35, 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.019 Pham, T. P. T., Kaushik, R., Parshetti, G. K., Mahmood, R., & Balasubramanian, R. (2015). Food waste-to-energy conversion technologies: Current status and future directions. Waste Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.12.004 Platt, B., McSweeney, J., & Davis, J. (2014). Growing Local Fertility : a Guide To Community Composting. Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1–121. Pongrácz, E. (2009). Through Waste Prevention Towards Corporate Sustainability: Analysis of the Concept of Waste and a Review of Attitudes Towards Waste Prevention. Environmental Technology, 101(March), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd Pretty, J. N., Ball, A. S., Lang, T., & Morison, J. I. L. (2005). Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.02.001 Quested, T. E., Parry, A. D., Easteal, S., & Swannell, R. (2011). Food and drink waste from households in the UK. Nutrition Bulletin, 36(4), 460–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-3010.2011.01924.x Raak, N., Symmank, C., Zahn, S., Aschemann-Witzel, J., & Rohm, H. (2017). Processing- and product-related causes for food waste and implications for the food supply chain. Waste Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.027 Rathje, W. L., & Murphy, C. (2001). Rubbish!: The Archaeology of Garbage. University of Arizona Press. Saltman, J. (2016, November 9). National strategy aims to reduce the tonnes of food going to waste each year in Canada. Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/national-strategy-aims-to-reduce-the-tonnes-of-food-going-to-waste-each-year-in-87 canada Schneider, F. (2013). Review of food waste prevention on an international level. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Waste and Resource Management, 166(4), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1680/warm.13.00016 Shakman Andrew. (2013). LeanPath: How to Cut Pre-Consumer Food Waste. Retrieved February 23, 2020, from https://www.food-management.com/facilities-management/how-cut-pre-consumer-food-waste Silvennoinen, K., Heikkilä, L., Katajajuuri, J. M., & Reinikainen, A. (2015). Food waste volume and origin: Case studies in the Finnish food service sector. Waste Management, 46, 140–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.010 Sodexo Challenges Diners on College Campuses to Go Trayless and Go Green. (2008). Science Letter, 3941. Retrieved from https://go-gale-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ps/i.do?p=HRCA&u=ubcolumbia&id=GALE%7CA366279617&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon Statistics Canada. (2018). Food Service Contractors - 72231 - Summary - Canadian Industry Statistics - Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. Retrieved November 8, 2019, from https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/app/cis/summary-sommaire/72231 Steen, H., Malefors, C., Röös, E., & Eriksson, M. (2018). Identification and modelling of risk factors for food waste generation in school and pre-school catering units. Waste Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.05.024 Strotmann, C., Friedrich, S., Kreyenschmidt, J., Teitscheid, P., & Ritter, G. (2017). Comparing food provided and wasted before and after implementing measures against food waste in three healthcare food service facilities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(8), 1409. 88 https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081409 The Mining Association of Canada. (2018). Facts and figures of the Canadian Mining Industry. Thiagarajah, K., & Getty, V. M. (2013). Impact on Plate Waste of Switching from a Tray to a Trayless Delivery System in a University Dining Hall and Employee Response to the Switch. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2012.07.004 Thyberg, K. L. (2015). Food Waste and Sustainability : Quantifying Food Waste Disposal and Evaluating the Environmental Impacts of Technologies and Policies A Dissertation Presented by Krista Lee Thyberg to The Graduate School in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the. Stony Brook University. Thyberg, K. L., & Tonjes, D. J. (2016). Resources , Conservation and Recycling Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling Recycling, 106, 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.016 United Nations. (2016). The sustainable development goals report. The sustainable development goals report 2016. https://doi.org/10.29171/azu_acku_pamphlet_k3240_s878_2016 USEPA. (2016). Advancing sustainable materials management: 2014 Fact Sheet. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, Washington, DC 20460. Uzea, N., Gooch, M., Sparling, D., Prepared, N. U., & S, M. G. D. (2013). Developing an Industry Led Approach to Addressing Food Waste in Canada. Provision Coalition. Vaid, V., & Garg, S. (2013). Food as Fuel : Prospects of Biogas Generation from Food Waste. International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science Technology (IJAFST), 4(2249), 68–71. Ventour, L. (2008). The food we waste. WRAP. Banbury: WRAP. Retrieved from 89 http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/groenekennis/1944512 Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M., & Ingram, J. S. I. (2012). Climate Change and Food Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608 Wang, L. en, Liu, G., Liu, X., Liu, Y., Gao, J., Zhou, B., … Cheng, S. (2017). The weight of unfinished plate: A survey based characterization of restaurant food waste in Chinese cities. Waste Management, 66, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.04.007 Wansink, B., & van Ittersum, K. (2013). Portion size me: Plate-size induced consumption norms and win-win solutions for reducing food intake and waste. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19(4), 320–332. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035053 Whitehair, K. J., Shanklin, C. W., & Brannon, L. A. (2013). Written Messages Improve Edible Food Waste Behaviors in a University Dining Facility. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2012.09.015 World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Brundtland Report: Our Common Future. United Nations. World Resources Institute. (2016). Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard, (Version 1.0), 160. WRAP. (2013). Estimates of Food and Packaging Waste in the UK Grocery Retail and Hospitality Supply Chains. Wrap, 1–17. Retrieved from http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/UK Estimates October 15 (FINAL)_0.pdf Xue, L., Liu, G., Parfitt, J., Liu, X., Herpen, E. Van, Stenmarck, Å., … Cheng, S. (2017). Missing Food, Missing Data? A Critical Review of Global Food Losses and Food Waste Data. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(12), 6618. Retrieved from 90 https://search.proquest.com/docview/1924621071 91 Appendices Appendix A Survey communication Research Title: An Evaluation of the current state of food waste handling at mining camps in Canada Principal Investigator: Dr. Dirk Van Zyl Department of Mining Engineering Norman B Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering dvanzyl@mining.ubc.ca. Co-Investigator: Mandakh-Erdene Sayannyambuu Graduate Student - Master of Applied Science Department of Mining Engineering, Norman B Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering mandakherdene@alumni.ubc.ca 778-323-8489 Dear Sir or Madam, My name is Mandakh-Erdene (Mandy) Sayannyambuu and I am a Master of Applied Science student in the Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering at the University of British Columbia (UBC). 92 With the help of my Supervisor and Principal Investigator, Dr. Dirk Van Zyl, I am conducting this research project that will comprise my master’s thesis. I am writing to invite you to participate in a short online survey that I have compiled as part of my research project: An Evaluation of the current state of food waste handling at mining camps in Canada. The survey aims to assess and investigate current food waste handling practices at mining camps in Canada. We consider this is a critical research to both environmental protection as well as contributions to sustainability concerns. We are interested in food waste and loss; how food service suppliers (i.e., catering companies) have approaching to limit the waste of edible food, among other topics. We will ask you a set of questions regarding food waste handling practices at mine campsites. The research will examine the possible reasons for food waste and its amount at mining camps and to find out any practices that are existed to limit the food waste. Thus, we consider the potential risk to you as a participant will be minimal. Your participation in the survey is voluntary and all your responses will be treated with the strictest confidentiality. Individual responses will not be published, and responses will be presented in statistical aggregate only. The data collected from this study will be maintained on a password-protected computer with access limited to the researcher of this study. Electronically archived data will be erased after completion of the final data aggregation. This research is to be undertaken by a Master of Applied Science candidate Mandakh-Erdene Sayannyambuu under the supervision of Dr. Dirk Van Zyl at the Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering at the University of British Columbia. The results of each survey will be preserved in a secure encrypted online software (the UBC-hosted version of Qualtrics). If you are kindly willing to participate, please click the link below (this link will be available until December 14, 2018). The survey will take 8-12 minutes. Survey link: Take the survey 93 If you have any questions about this research, the survey process, or any other matter relating to this please contact me by email at mandakherdene@alumni.ubc.ca or by phone at (778-323-8489). Alternatively, you can contact my supervisor, Dr. Dirk Van Zyl, by email at dvanzyl@mining.ubc.ca. If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while participating in this study, contact the Research Participant Complaint Line in the UBC Office of Research Ethics at 604-822-8598 or if long distance e-mail RSIL@ors.ubc.ca or call toll free 1-877-822-8598. Sincerely, Mandakh-Erdene Sayannyambuu MASc. Candidate Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering University of British Columbia94 Appendix B Behavioural Research Ethics Certificate The University of British ColumbiaOffice of Research ServicesBehavioural Research Ethics BoardSuite 102, 6190 Agronomy Road, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z3CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL - MINIMAL RISKPRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: INSTITUTION / DEPARTMENT: UBC BREB NUMBER:Dirk Van Zyl UBC/Applied Science/Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering H17-00914INSTITUTION(S) WHERE RESEARCH WILL BE CARRIED OUT:Institution SiteUBC Vancouver (excludes UBC Hospital)Other locations where the research will be conducted:The research will be carried out through an online based software survey tool, the UBC-hosted version of Qualtrics. CO-INVESTIGATOR(S):Mandakh-Erdene Sayannyambuu SPONSORING AGENCIES:N/A PROJECT TITLE:An evaluation of mining camp food waste management practices in Canada: An OverviewCERTIFICATE EXPIRY DATE: October 29, 2019DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS APPROVAL: DATE APPROVED: October 29, 2018Document Name Version DateProtocol:An evaluation of food waste handling practices at mining camps in CanadaN/A October 1, 2018Consent Forms:Research Consent N/A October 29, 2018Questionnaire, Questionnaire Cover Letter, Tests:Survey questionnaire N/A October 29, 2018Letter of Initial Contact:Letter of initial contact N/A October 27, 2018 The application for ethical review and the document(s) listed above have been reviewed and the procedures were found to be acceptable on ethical grounds for research involving human subjects. This study has been approved either by the full Behavioural REB or byan authorized delegated reviewer 95 Appendix C Complete Survey 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Appendix D Visual Map of the Survey Questions 109 Appendix E Detailed information on food waste asked in the survey
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Mining Engineering
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
An evaluation of mining camp food waste management practices in Canada : an overview
Text