ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES

Transcription

1 OCTOBER 2017 R B ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES AUTHOR Darby Hoover, Natural Resources Defese Coucil LEAD RESEARCHER Laura Moreo

2 Table of Cotets Appedix A: Coformace with Food Loss ad Waste Stadard Residetial...3 Appedix B: Coformace with FLW Stadard Idustrial, Commercial, Istitutioal (ICI) Appedix C: Baselie Assessmet Field Methodology...22 Appedix D: Kitche Diary Backgroud for Aalysis...29 Appedix E: Kitche Diary Data...35 Appedix F: Survey 1 Data...38 Appedix G: Residetial Bi Dig Data...75 Appedix H: Comparig Demographics with Wasted Food Geeratio...87 Appedix I: Comparig Attitudes ad Behaviors with Wasted Food Geeratio...95 Appedix J: Survey 1 ad 2 Compariso ad Survey 2 Uique Questios Appedix K: ICI Bi Digs Coversio Factors Appedix L: ICI Estimates Coversio Factors Appedix M: Sample Idividual Facility ICI Report Appedix N: ICI Sectors Appedix O: ICI ad Residetial Combied Appedix P: Study Templates These appedices provide more iformatio o the methodology, research, ad templates associated with the report Estimatig Quatities ad Types of Food Waste at the City Level, available at Page 2 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

3 Appedix A: Coformace with Food Loss ad Waste Stadard Residetial The Food Loss ad Waste Accoutig ad Reportig Stadard (FLW Stadard 1 ) provides a framework for accoutig for ad reportig o food loss ad waste. The graphic below describes the scope of the residetial assessmet usig the FLW Stadard. BASELINE FOOD WASTE ASSESSMENT: RESIDENTIAL (FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING STANDARD) TIMEFRAME MATERIAL TYPE DESTINATION BOUNDARY RELATED ISSUES ONE WEEK (SEPT 2016 JAN 2017) * This specifically refers to food that is fed to pets/aimals i households. FOOD INEDIBLE PARTS ** Both backyard compostig ad subscriptio/ curbside compostig services are icluded. Note: At the time of the measuremet, residetial waste materials collected curbside were set to ladfill (Nashville), to ladfill ad compost (Dever), ad to ladfill, compost, combustio, ad codigestio (NYC). ANIMAL FEED* BIOMATERIAL/ PROCESSING CO/ANAEROBIC DIGESTION COMPOST/AEROBIC** CONTROLLED COMBUSTION LAND APPLICATION LANDFILL NOT HARVESTED REFUSE/DISCARDS FOOD CATEGORY = ALL FOOD AND BEVERAGE DISCARDED AT HOME LIFECYCLE STAGE = CONSUMPTION GEOGRAPHY = NASHVILLE, TN DENVER, CO NEW YORK CITY, NY ORGANIZATION = 613 HOUSEHOLDS WEIGHT OF LIGHTWEIGHT PACKAGING IS INCLUDED. PARTICIPANTS WERE ASKED TO EXCLUDE OR RECORD AND DESCRIBE INCLUSION OF HEAVIER PACKAGING. SEWER REQUIREMENT 1: BASE FLW ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING ON THE PRINCIPLES OF RELEVANCE, COMPLETENESS, CONSISTENCY, TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCURACY A. Relevace: Characterize wasted food i households by type, weight, edibility, loss reaso, ad discard destiatio Explore food waste-related behaviors to better uderstad how they relate to the amout of food wasted by households ad to idetify potetial itervetios (e.g. behavior educatio campaigs) Cotribute to a workig model for other cities to perform similar assessmets 1 Food Loss ad Waste Accoutig ad Reportig Stadard, (accessed October 16, 2017). Page 3 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

4 B. Completeess: A total of 613 households i three cities tracked all food ad beverage discarded to all destiatios (icludig trash, home compost, curbside compost, drai disposal, feedig to pets) for oe week usig a kitche diary. Additioal data were derived from surveys ad bi digs. C. Cosistecy: Methodologies ad templates used for trackig ad aalyzig data were idetical across study cities (except for variatios as oted i the detailed methodology below). D. Trasparecy: Methodology, icludig assumptios ad defiitios, is available i this report (with additioal details available upo request). E. Accuracy: Aalyses ad calculatios have bee tested ad verified; some accuracy of primary data caot be assured due to icosistecies i idividual study participat trackig. REQUIREMENT 2: ACCOUNT FOR AND REPORT THE PHYSICAL AMOUNT OF FLW EXPRESSED AS WEIGHT Reported i pouds REQUIREMENT 3: DEFINE AND REPORT SCOPE A. Timeframe: The kitche diary ad bi digs accout for oe week (seve days) of residetial waste. Nashville: The field research took place durig September/October 2016 i metropolita Nashville, TN, icludig Atioch, TN. Participats were asked to start their kitche diary o the day after their trash collectio day ad coclude o the followig trash collectio day. Start dates raged from September 27 to 30, Two bi digs were completed for a subset of participatig households. The first bi dig was the week prior to the kitche diary ad the secod bi dig was the same trash collectio day that the kitche diary was completed. Dever: The field research took place durig November 2016 i Dever, Colorado. Participats were asked to start their kitche diary o the day after their trash collectio day ad coclude o the followig trash collectio day. Oe bi dig was completed for a subset of participatig households. The bi dig collectio was timed to take place the morig after the day that the kitche diary was completed. NYC: The field research took place durig Jauary/February 2017 i New York City (icludig all boroughs except State Islad). Participats were asked to start their kitche diary o a give day (varied by household) ad coclude after oe week of recordig. Oe bi dig was completed for a subset of participatig households. I NYC, sigle family households ad small multi-family buildigs have trash collected two to three times per week. I Survey 1, participats were asked which day of the week they most frequetly set out their trash. Trash was collected from the radomly selected households o the day idicated o Survey 1 to icrease the likelihood of collectig a sample durig the week of their kitche diary. The bi dig results were the scaled appropriately to represet oe week s worth of trash. Large multi-family buildigs do ot have a set schedule for trash collectio by uit; istead, residets place trash dow a chute or ito a shared bi. For these buildigs, arragemets were made with the buildig maager to collect trash samples from the compactor room. (See methodology i Requiremet 4 for more details.) Material Type: All food items icluded i both the kitche diary ad bi digs were give classificatios related to edibility. Participats were asked to report both food ad beverage items that were discarded. The primary classificatio first splits all items ito edible food ad iedible parts (the primary classificatio aligs with the defiitios of food ad iedible parts used i the FLW Stadard). Edible food refers to ay substace iteded for huma cosumptio (compatible with the defiitio of food i the FLW Stadard). Edible does ot reflect the state of food at ay particular poit i time (such as purchase or disposal), but is used to describe a item that would have bee cosidered edible at some poit. Iedible parts refers to compoets of food which are ot typically cosumed i the Uited States (e.g. baaa peels) ad/or for which sigificat skill or effort would be required to reder this part of food edible (e.g. citrus rids). (This defiitio is compatible with the defiitio of iedible parts i the FLW Stadard.) The secodary classificatio seeks to capture the complexity of defiig edibility, especially i terms of culture ad preferece. Accordigly, items cosidered edible food were split ito two groups: 1) Typically Edible ad 2) Questioably Edible. Typically Edible: These items are iteded for huma cosumptio ad are ot geerally cosidered iedible. Examples iclude pizza, liquid coffee, ad baaas without the peel. Page 4 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

5 Questioably Edible: These items ca be safely eate, but may ot be cosidered edible by a portio of the populatio due to culture or preferece. These items might also require additioal processig/cookig to make them desirable to eat. Examples iclude potato peels, beet grees, kale stems, carrot peels/tops, ad apple cores/peels. TWO LEVELS OF CLASSIFICATION OF DISCARDED FOOD BASED ON EDIBILITY ALL DISCARDED FOOD & BEVERAGES PRIMARY CLASSIFICATION EDIBLE FOOD INEDIBLE PARTS SECONDARY CLASSIFICATION TYPICALLY EDIBLE QUESTIONABLY EDIBLE INEDIBLE See Appedix D for comprehesive lists of materials idetified i the kitche diaries ad bi digs that were cosidered iedible parts, questioably edible, ad typically edible. For the bi digs, materials were sorted ito te food waste categories, oe for iedible parts (usig the defiitio of iedible parts described above), eight categories subcategorizig edible food, ad oe category for uidetifiable food waste. All kitche diary etries were also coded to match the bi dig categories for compariso. 1. Iedible Parts: Items ot iteded for huma cosumptio (smalls amout of edible material associated with the iedible material were permitted to be icluded). 2. Edible Meat & Fish: Ucooked or cooked meat (with mostly edible compoets) umixed with other types of food. Examples iclude beef, pork, ad fish. 3. Edible Dairy & Eggs: Solid dairy or egg products umixed with other food types or i origial form. Examples iclude milk, cheese, butter, ad eggs. 4. Edible Fruits & Vegetables: Solid ucooked or cooked vegetables ad fruits (with mostly edible compoets) umixed with other types of food. Examples iclude apples, lettuce, ad fresh herbs. 5. Edible Baked Goods: Baked goods ad bread-like products umixed with other food types or i origial form, icludig pastries. Examples iclude bread, cake, ad tortillas. 6. Edible Dry Foods: Cooked or ucooked grais, pastas, legumes, uts, or cereals umixed with other food types or i origial form. Examples iclude flour, uts, letils, ad cereal. 7. Edible Sacks, Codimets, & Others: Icludes cofectios, processed sacks, codimets, ad other miscellaeous items. Examples iclude cady, chips, ad sauces. 8. Edible Liquids/Oils/Grease: Items that are liquid, icludig beverages. Examples iclude cookig oil, liquid coffee, ad soda. 9. Edible Cooked/Prepared Items/Leftovers: Items that have may food types mixed together as part of cookig or preparatio. Examples iclude lasaga, burritos, falafel, stir-fry, sadwiches, ad pizza. 10. Uidetifiable: Used oly if ecessary Additioally, waste that was ot food was sorted ito the followig categories: 1. Food-Soiled Paper; 2. Yard Trimmigs; 3. Glass; 4. Recyclable Paper ad Cardboard (ot food-soiled); 5. Metals; 6. Rigid Plastics; 7. Plastic Films ad Composites; ad 8. All Other Materials. Page 5 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

6 While categorizatio of these materials was ot the focus of the waste audit, collectig this additioal iformatio o wastage rates of commoly recyclable ad other materials provides additioal cotext ad data o the types of materials foud i the waste overall. C. Discard Destiatios: Nashville: At the time of the study, Nashville s trash oly wet to ladfill, ot icierators or other alterative destiatios. For bi digs, the oly discard destiatio icluded was ladfills. For kitche diaries, the followig discard destiatios were icluded: Ladfill (curbside trash collectio) Home Compost or Subscriptio Compost Collectio (curbside orgaics collectio ot available i Nashville; respodets did ot distiguish which type of compost) Feedig Aimals/Pets Drai Disposal Dever: At the time of the study, Dever s trash oly wet to ladfill, ot icierators or other alterative destiatios. Material collected i the curbside orgaics collectio program was composted. For bi digs, the oly discard destiatios icluded were ladfills (ad some curbside compost). For kitche diaries, the followig discard destiatios were icluded: Ladfill (curbside trash collectio) Home Compost Curbside Compost Collectio Feedig Aimals/Pets Drai Disposal NYC: At the time of the study, New York City s trash primarily wet to ladfill, with a small portio (approximately 15%) set to icierators. Material collected i the curbside orgaics collectio program was composted or aaerobically digested/co-digested. For bi digs, the oly discard destiatios icluded were ladfills (icludig a portio to icieratio) ad some curbside compost (icludig a portio to co/aaerobic digestio). For kitche diaries, the followig discard destiatios were icluded: Ladfill (majority of curbside trash collectio) Home Compost Curbside Compost Collectio Compost Drop-off Feedig Aimals/Pets Drai Disposal Cotrolled Combustio (ot distiguished by respodet from ladfill; represets destiatio of a portio of NYC s trash) Co/Aaerobic Digestio (ot distiguished by respodet from curbside compost; represets destiatio of a portio of NYC s curbside compost) D. Boudary: 1. Food category: All food ad beverage items discarded i households were icluded i the study. Participats were asked to qualitatively track how much food they discarded outside of their household, but that iformatio was ot itegrated ito the quatitative aalysis of household-level wasted food. 2. Lifecycle stage: Cosumptio 3. Geography: Metropolita Nashville, TN (icludig Atioch, TN); Dever, CO; New York City, NY (icludig all boroughs except State Islad) Page 6 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

7 4. Orgaizatio: 613 households total Nashville: 68 households completed the kitche diaries. 51 of those households had their trash collected for bi digs. Dever: 198 households completed the kitche diaries. 51 of those households had their trash collected for bi digs, aother 14 had their trash ad compost collected, ad oe had oly its compost collected. NYC: 347 households completed the kitche diaries. 94 of those households had their trash collected for bi digs, aother 10 had their trash ad compost collected, ad 5 had oly their compost collected. E. Related Issues Packagig: While kitche diary participats were ecouraged to use provided cotaiers (tared) to weigh wasted food, some participats weighed food i other packagig. For the kitche diaries ad bi digs, lightweight packagig (such as plastic film) was icluded i the weight of the food materials, sice it geerally weighs very little compared with the food material. Heavier packagig materials (e.g. metal ad glass) were removed from the food material for bi digs. For kitche diaries, participats were asked to either remove food from heavy packagig, or to weigh the food i the heavy packagig but also describe the packagig material so it could be excluded later by researchers from the weight of the food material. However, a majority of respodets idicatig the presece of heavier packagig did ot provide size or other detailed iformatio o the packagig, so we were uable to accurately remove the weight of packagig from weights tracked i the kitche diaries. As a result, a small amout of packagig is icluded i the kitche diary estimates. REQUIREMENTS 4 AND 5: DESCRIBE THE QUANTIFICATION AND SAMPLING METHODS Recruitmet: I all cities, participats who siged up for the study received a free digital kitche scale. Participats who completed the kitche diary ad surveys were give a $50 gift card. Nashville: There were two basic recruitmet methods used i Nashville: 1. Radom Samplig: From a list of all households receivig trash collectio service from Metro Nashville, 300 households were radomly selected. The 300 households received post cards with iformatio o the study ad a olie lik to participate. May of those households were also visited i-perso by the field team. 2. Coveiece Samplig: Usig social media ad lists, iformatio o how to participate i the study was publicized ad participats could self-select to participate i the study. It should be oted that participats who opted i to the study via the coveiece samplig method were more likely to complete the kitche diaries ad surveys tha those recruited via radom samplig, likely resultig i a bias towards people already cocered ad iformed about the issue. I total, 115 households i Nashville were recruited ad 68 of them completed the kitche diary as well as the surveys. Dever: I total, 1,000 households were selected from a list of all households i Dever receivig trash collectio services ad each of those households received a postcard with iformatio about the study ad a olie lik to participate. 200 households were selected per trash collectio day (five days a week). Additioally, 120 of the 1,000 households selected were subscribed to curbside orgaics collectio. The 1,000 households were selected by radomly selectig a iitial list of 50 households per trash collectio day. To icrease the ease of recruitmet, households adjacet to the iitial selected households were icluded util 200 households were selected per day. Households opted ito the study usig the followig: 1. Postcard: Some (uder 50) of the origial 1,000 households that received postcards opted ito the study usig the lik provided. 2. Door-to-Door Recruitmet: Households that received postcards were visited by door-to-door recruiters to solicit participatio. Additioally, recruiters also visited surroudig households (withi a block s radius of the iitially selected household) to recruit other households. Recruitmet was opeed up to surroudig residets to icrease participatio ad reduce burde of travelig o the recruitmet team. I total, 350 households i Dever were recruited ad 198 of them completed the kitche diary as well as the surveys. Page 7 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

8 NYC: Two techiques were used to recruit participatig households, oe for households i large multi-family buildigs (10 or more uits), ad oe for sigle-family households ad small multi-family buildigs (9 uits or fewer). Differet recruitmet techiques were used owig to the difficulty of accessig the frot doors of households i large multi-family buildigs without permissio for door-to-door recruitmet. 1. Sigle-Family ad Small Multi-Family Buildigs (9 uits or fewer): These types of households were assumed to have frot doors accessible to recruiters without previous permissio; thus, door-to-door recruitmet techiques were used. I Brookly, Quees, ad the Brox, cesus tracts with at least 50% of households i that tract beig sigle-family or small multi-family buildigs were idetified. From these selected cesus tracts, a total of 26 cesus tracts were radomly selected i Brookly, Quees ad the Brox for recruitmet. I Brookly ad Quees, 12 cesus tracts were chose i each borough (3 with curbside compost collectio ad 9 without). I the Brox, 2 cesus tracts without curbside compost collectio were chose. Recruiters wet door-to-door i the cesus tracts for recruitmet. 2. Large Multi-Family Buildigs (10 or more uits): These types of households were assumed to have frot doors that were ot easily accessible to our recruitmet team. To recruit these households, homeowers associatios ad buildig maagers were cotacted to grat permissio to post iformatio o the study or to preset at buildig meetigs. Participats i these buildigs could opt i to the study oce permissio was grated. Where permitted by the buildig maager/homeower associatio, recruiters set up a table i the buildig lobby to recruit residets as they passed through or preseted to the homeowers associatio as part of their regular mothly meetig. I total, 686 households i NYC were recruited ad 347 of them completed the kitche diary as well as the surveys. Kitche Diaries ad Surveys: Participatig households were asked to complete oe-week log kitche diaries that track food ad beverages that were discarded or ot eate. Additioally, each participatig household was asked to complete two surveys (oe before ad oe after participatig i the kitche diary) that collected basic demographic iformatio as well as iformatio o the household s food-related attitudes ad behaviors. The followig iformatio was collected i the kitche diary for all discarded food ad beverages: Date Time Associated with Which Meal: Breakfast, Luch, Dier, Dessert, Sack, Other Descriptio of Food/Beverage Beig Discarded: Writte i by respodet (e.g. lasaga, baaas, ham sadwich with cheese, broccoli stems) State of Food/Beverage at Time of Discard: Cooked/Leftovers, Prepped (chopped or prepared, but ot cooked), Whole, Iedible Parts, Other Weight: Measured to the earest teth of a ouce (ouces with oe decimal poit) o provided kitche scale Packagig: If wasted food was i a glass, metal, or hard plastic cotaier whe weighed, participat was asked to estimate the size (dimesios or volume). Participats were istructed ot to iclude the weight of plastic cotaiers provided for weighig. Discard Destiatio: Trash, Drai Disposal, Home Compost, Curbside Compost Collectio (Dever ad NYC oly), Compost Drop-off (NYC oly), Feedig Pets, Other Loss Reaso: Past Date o Label, Moldy or Spoiled, Did t Taste Good, Improperly Cooked, Iedible Parts, Left Out Too Log, Too Little to Save, Do t Wat as Leftovers, Other Participats were provided with a pre-prited kitche diary (see Appedix C for sample) to reduce time eeded to complete each etry. They were also give a digital kitche scale ad two small plastic cotaiers to assist with weighig the food. Additioally, a short guidebook describig how to complete the kitche diary was provided to every participat, icludig iformatio o how to prepare/tare the scale before use ad aswers to frequetly asked questios. Participats also had access to support via text, phoe, ad/or throughout the measuremet process. Households were oly asked to weigh ad record details of food that is wasted i the household. However, households were asked to provide a short, daily arrative o food discarded outside of the household for every member of the household. Page 8 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

9 Physical kitche diaries were collected ad trasferred to a spreadsheet. All etries were coded to: Stadardize food ames; Idicate edibility i terms of how it is defied for the study; ad Categorize ito food types i lie with bi dig categories. All origial iputs from participats were saved; however, correctios were made if participat made a mistake i characterizig food. For istace, some etries described the food as moldy, but idicated that the loss reaso was iedible parts. The origial etry was saved; however, the fial loss reaso was corrected to moldy/spoiled. Bi Digs: A subset of radomly selected houses (of those participatig i the study) had their trash collected oce before the study ad oce while participatig i the study (Nashville oly) or oce while participatig i the study (Dever ad NYC). The waste material was collected, sorted, ad categorized (see Requiremet 3 for specific sortig categories). The bi digs were ot used as a primary source of data to determie how much food is wasted; however, they were used to validate kitche diary data (to compare reported quatities of wasted food with what was foud i the trash bi). As metioed above, households i NYC have trash collectio 2-3 days per week. I order to estimate weekly waste geeratio for bi digs, NYC households were asked i the secod survey to idicate how may times they put out their trash the week of the study. This umber was used to scale the results of the bi digs to represet oe week s worth of material. For istace, if household X had their trash collected for the study ad idicated that they put out their trash twice that week i the survey, their bi dig results were multiplied by two to represet oe week s worth of trash. REQUIREMENT 6: PROVIDE A QUALITATIVE OR QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF UNCERTAINTY The mai source of iformatio used to determie food waste geeratio was the kitche diaries. The kitche diaries oly captured oe week s worth of discarded food ad beverages, ad therefore did ot capture the seasoality of food waste geeratio ad disposal, icludig seasoal differeces i what types of food are eate ad thus discarded. Additioally, there is some evidece that people may be less likely to compost i raiy or cold weather, which is ot captured. The weeklog kitche diaries were extrapolated to a etire year, thus there is ucertaity i that extrapolatio. Other factors may also ifluece the accuracy of or ability to extrapolate from kitche diary data collected, icludig the challege of accurately reportig all discards by multiple household members; havig a sample populatio that may be more biased tha average toward greater awareess aroud food ad waste issues; ad the hypothesis that our study may ot have captured refrigerator or freezer clea-outs, which likely icrease the amout of food discarded whe they occur. Additioal sources of ucertaity iclude aspects metioed i other sectios of this Appedix ad i Appedix D, such as sample sizes, iclusio of some packagig i reported weights, o-ormal distributio, samplig bias, ad participats chagig behaviors as a result of study participatio. Accoutig for Uderreportig i Kitche Diaries Whe recordig wasted food through kitche diaries, it is expected that there will be uderreportig as a result of: Chages of Behavior Social Acceptability Bias: Most people do ot like wastig food or cosider wastig food a socially uacceptable behavior, thus may chage their behavior durig the kitche diary process, both kowigly ad ukowigly. I geeral, it is expected that behavior would chage to waste less tha if their behavior were ot beig recorded. Improper Recordig Coveiece: Some people may ot record all items because they are too small or delay recordig items util after the study period due to the effort of recordig every food item wasted. For example, respodets may decide to delay a refrigerator cleaout because of the burde of recordig each item. Cofusio: Some respodets may ot record items if they do t thik it is food or waste. This study requested that both wasted food ad beverages be recorded; however, there may be a uderreportig of beverages because they are ot cosidered food by respodets. Additioally, wasted orametal food, like pumpkis for Hallowee, may ot be reported because they are ot cosidered food by the household. Page 9 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

10 For this study, uderreportig rates were determied by collectig discarded curbside material (primarily trash, as well as compost, whe available) from a subset of households that were also participatig i the kitche diary data recordig. Bi dig data from all three cities ivolved i this study (Nashville, Dever, ad New York City) were combied to determie the uderreportig rate for all three cities. I Nashville, trash was collected twice from selected households durig the study period. The first set of bi digs were performed prior to the respodets startig the kitche diary, thus theoretically represetig their ormal trash geeratio. The secod set of bi digs were performed at the ed of the kitche diary period; thus, wasted food foud i the trash collected i the secod set should be the same food as that recorded i the correspodig kitche diary. I Dever ad New York City, trash (ad curbside compost whe it was available) was collected oce from selected households durig the study period. The bi digs were performed at the ed of the kitche diary period; thus, wasted food foud i the trash collected should be the same food as that recorded i the correspodig kitche diary. I New York City, trash/compost is collected regularly two to three days per week per household; for our sample, however, trash was oly collected from households o oe of their collectio days. Respodets were asked i their secod survey (completed after the kitche diary period) to idicate how may times they set out their trash durig the week-log study period. Usig the iformatio provided i the survey, the weekly amout of disposed material was extrapolated. Note that sice oly oe bi dig was performed i these cities, this aalysis does ot iclude uderreportig as a result of chages i behavior from participatig i the research. To uderstad the level of uderreportig, a subset of households that participated i the kitche diary data recordig also had their trash (ad curbside compost whe available) collected at some poit durig the kitche diary study period ad sorted ito the categories used i the bi dig aalysis. The amout of total wasted food foud i the trash or compost was compared to the amout of total wasted food reported as beig throw i the trash or compost i the kitche diary. Trash ad compost were compared separately. Oe of the mai challeges to this method is collectig oly material for the week that correspods to the kitche diary. Collectig material from a specific week is challegig to do without sigificatly alterig the behavior of the respodets. To get the most accurate results, the study desig aimed to miimize the impact o the respodets regular routies. However, there were may issues that arose, icludig: Gettig respodets to put out their trash durig the week of collectio. Some households do t regularly put out their trash or wait util their trash ca is full to put it at the curb. Despite remiders, some respodets did ot put out their trash. Gettig more tha a week s worth of trash If households do ot put out their trash each week, collected material may represet multiple weeks of trash. Additioally, trash collected i idoor waste bis may have icluded waste geerated prior to the kitche diary period. Gettig all the week s trash to the curb Some respodets may record their wasted food per week ad put out their trash cas for collectio; however, some waste material from the week may remai i their idoor waste bi, thus ot makig it to the curbside bi. As a result of the above challeges, overreportig, i additio to uderreportig, was observed. For the purposes of this report, we performed two sets of aalyses: 1) Uderreportig calculatios cosiderig all households; ad 2) Uderreportig calculatios o the subset of households where more trash was foud durig the bi digs tha reported. The secod aalysis aims to reduce the error caused by false istaces of overreportig. Both sets of aalyses are reported below; however, the first method is a more coservative method for determiig uderreportig (ad the method we selected for our study). Uderreportig Aalyses ad Results Whe aalyzig all households, the average total wasted food uderreportig rate raged from 24% to 65% i the three cities (see Table 1 for more details). Both uderreportig ad overreportig were observed at the idividual household level. O average, however, uderreportig was domiat i each of the three cities. Page 10 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

11 TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF UNDERREPORTING FOR FOOD IN TRASH IN NASHVILLE, DENVER, AND NEW YORK CITY ANALYSIS WITH ALL HOUSEHOLDS ANALYSIS WITH ONLY UNDERREPORTING HOUSEHOLDS NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS UNDERREPORTING RATE (BY WEIGHT) NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS UNDERREPORTING RATE (BY WEIGHT) NASHVILLE 30 24% 17 71% DENVER 37 65% % NEW YORK CITY 53 47% % AVERAGE 47% 108% Whe comparig wasted food reportedly discarded i compost bis i the kitche diary compared to what was foud i the compost bis, a uderreportig rate of 144% was foud i New York City, while a overreportig rate of 19% was foud i Dever (see Table 2). I NYC, this is likely a result of may sampled households havig wasted food i their curbside collectio bis, but havig very little reported i their kitche diary (potetial causes for this iclude idoor bis ot beig emptied ito curbside collectio bis by the time of our pickup). I additio, some smaller NYC multi-family resideces share compost bis (though may ot ecessarily share trash bis); samples collected from those shared compost bis may have icluded material discarded by eighborig o-participat households i additio to material discarded by the households participatig i the study. The overreportig i Dever could be a result of respodets iaccurately reportig disposig of food i the compost, as compostig is a more socially acceptable behavior tha throwig food i the trash. TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF REPORTING FOR FOOD IN COMPOST IN DENVER AND NEW YORK CITY ANALYSIS WITH ALL HOUSEHOLDS NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS REPORTING RATE (BY WEIGHT) DENVER 14 19% Overreportig NEW YORK CITY 6 144% Uderreportig I Nashville, two bi digs were performed, oe prior to the kitche diary ad oe right after the kitche diary. The compariso betwee the two digs was desiged to capture ay chages i behavior that resulted from participatig i measurig their wasted food through the kitche diary. The average total food waste geeratio for the first bi dig was 8 pouds/household/week while the average for the secod was 5.9 pouds/household/week. This was a reductio i food waste geeratio of 22%. Edible food waste had a eve larger reductio of 33% from the first to secod bi dig. Study Correctio Factor For the purposes of this study, the average total wasted food uderreportig rate from the trash digs of all three cities combied, 47%, was used as a correctio factor applied to kitche diary results. This correctio factor is applied to total food waste geeratio ad is ot depedet o discard destiatio (it is used for all discard destiatios). The uderreportig rate for trash is beig used as a proxy for all other discard destiatios. Eve though the reportig rate for compost was also calculated, the sample size was too small to be sigificat, ad the results were icoclusive. Page 11 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

12 Appedix B: Coformace with FLW Stadard Idustrial, Commercial, Istitutioal (ICI) A. ICI Estimates (All Cities) The Food Loss ad Waste Accoutig ad Reportig Stadard (FLW Stadard 1 ) provides a framework for accoutig for ad reportig o food loss ad waste. The graphic below describes the scope of the ICI estimate usig the FLW Stadard. BASELINE FOOD WASTE ASSESSMENT: ICI ESTIMATES (FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING STANDARD) TIMEFRAME MATERIAL TYPE DESTINATION BOUNDARY RELATED ISSUES PROXY EXTRAPOLATION (ONE YEAR) FOOD INEDIBLE PARTS ANIMAL FEED BIOMATERIAL/ PROCESSING FOOD CATEGORY = ALL FOOD (NOT BEVERAGE) WEIGHT OF PACKAGING IS EXCLUDED Note: The sources used for extrapolatio were for total food waste geeratio ad did ot specifically ote whether beverages were icluded; the assumptio is that they are ot. The umbers used for proxy extrapolatio were for total food waste geeratio ad thus theoretically represet all discard destiatios. CO/ANAEROBIC DIGESTION COMPOST/AEROBIC CONTROLLED COMBUSTION LAND APPLICATION LANDFILL NOT HARVESTED LIFECYCLE STAGE = VARIABLE (CONSUMER-FACING BUSINESSES & INSTITUTIONS, MANUFACTURING, DISTRIBUTION) GEOGRAPHY = NASHVILLE, TN DENVER, CO NEW YORK CITY, NY REFUSE/DISCARDS SEWER ORGANIZATION = 34,040 FACILITIES REQUIREMENT 1: BASE FLW ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING ON THE PRINCIPLES OF RELEVANCE, COMPLETENESS, CONSISTENCY, TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCURACY A. Relevace: Estimate the amouts of food likely to be wasted i specific sectors i the study cities, icludig the residetial sector Cotribute to a workig model for other cities to perform similar assessmets B. Completeess: All facilities withi desigated subsectors ad geographies were icluded. Food waste geeratio estimates were derived from specific facility iformatio obtaied usig several public ad proprietary databases. Additioal data were derived from surveys ad bi digs. 1 Food Loss ad Waste Accoutig ad Reportig Stadard, (accessed October 16, 2017). Page 12 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

13 C. Cosistecy: Methodologies ad templates used for trackig ad aalyzig data were idetical across study cities; defiitios used were idetical to defiitios used i residetial study (ad ICI bi digs) where applicable. D. Trasparecy: Methodology, icludig assumptios ad defiitios, is available i this report (with additioal details available upo request). E. Accuracy: Aalyses ad calculatios have bee tested ad verified; some accuracy of facility data caot be assured due to icosistecies i iformatio provided i available databases. REQUIREMENT 2: ACCOUNT FOR AND REPORT THE PHYSICAL AMOUNT OF FLW EXPRESSED AS WEIGHT The metric reported is total food waste geeratio i tos per year. REQUIREMENT 3: DEFINE AND REPORT SCOPE A. Timeframe: The ICI food waste estimates were based o proxy extrapolatio, thus do ot represet a specific timeframe; however, the estimates are based o idustrial, commercial, ad istitutioal facilities operatig for oe year. B. Material Type: The estimates iclude edible food ad its associated iedible parts (as defied i Appedix A); however, they are ot separated i the aalysis. C. Discard Destiatios: The umbers used for proxy extrapolatio are for total food waste geeratio ad thus theoretically represet all discard destiatios. D. Boudary: 1. Food category: All food (ot beverage) items 2. Lifecycle stage: Variable (Cosumer-facig busiesses & istitutios, maufacturig, distributio) 3. Geography: Facilities withi the city limits of Nashville, TN; Dever, CO; New York City, NY (all five boroughs) 4. Orgaizatio: 34,040 facilities (4,698 Nashville, 2,565 Dever, 26,777 NYC) were icluded from the followig sectors: Colleges & Uiversities Correctioal Facilities Evets & Recreatio Facilities Food Maufacturig & Processig Food Wholesalers & Distributors Grocers & Markets Health Care (Hospitals ad Nursig Homes) Hospitality (Hotels) K-12 Schools Restaurats & Caterers Page 13 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

14 The followig types of ICI facilities were ot icluded eve though they may sigificatly cotribute to total food waste geeratio i the cities: Coveiece Stores (lack of iformatio o food waste geeratio) Food Baks ad Patries (lack of iformatio o food waste geeratio) Coffee Shops (lack of iformatio o food waste geeratio) Airports (lack of iformatio o food waste geeratio) Corporate Cafeterias (lack of iformatio o food waste geeratio ad locatios) E. Related Issues: Numbers used did ot iclude packagig. REQUIREMENTS 4 AND 5: DESCRIBE THE QUANTIFICATION AND SAMPLING METHODS Facility-Level Iformatio I order to coduct ICI food waste geeratio estimates, iformatio o the types of facilities i each geographic area was obtaied usig several databases, both public ad proprietary. Iformatio o locatio, sales, umber of employees, umber of studets, square footage, ad umber of beds at each facility was obtaied to estimate food waste geeratio, wheever possible. The iformatio collected from the database was cleaed to remove duplicates, facilities outside of the sectors of iterest, ad facilities located outside of the city limits. The followig public databases were used (facility iformatio for other sectors was foud o proprietary databases): Natioal Ceter for Educatio Statistics: Provided list of colleges/uiversities ad K-12 schools (both public ad private), icludig locatio, educatio levels, ad umber of studets. America Hospital Directory: Provided list of hospitals, icludig locatio ad umber of beds. PrisoPro.com: Provided list of correctioal facilities by locatio ad umber of beds. Covertig Facility-Level Iformatio to Food Waste Estimates For each sector, coversio factors were used to covert facility-level iformatio to food waste geeratio estimates (see Table 1 below for list of coversio factors). The coversio factors used for this aalysis were idetified by the U.S. Evirometal Protectio Agecy i their report etitled Techical Methodology for the U.S. EPA Wasted Food Opportuities Map (Versio 1.0) 2. The sources were compared to other potetial sources of iformatio, icludig some of the limited umber of food waste characterizatios completed by local ad state govermets (see Appedix L for specific sources ad more details). Below is the mai piece of facility-level iformatio used to estimate food waste geeratio for each sector: Colleges & Uiversities (# of studets) Correctioal Facilities (# of imates/beds) Evets & Recreatio Facilities (# of seats) Food Maufacturig & Processig (reveue) Food Wholesalers & Distributors (reveue) Grocers & Markets (# of employees) Health Care (# of beds for hospitals; reveue for ursig homes) Hospitality (Hotels) (# of employees) K-12 Schools (# of studets, grade levels) Restaurats & Caterers (# of employees) 2 Evirometal Protectio Agecy, Techical Methodology for the U.S. EPA Wasted Food Opportuities Map (Versio 1.0), to be available at sustaiable-maagemet-food/techical-methodology-wasted-food-opportuities-map (ot yet available at time of prit). Page 14 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

15 TABLE 1. CONVERSION FACTORS USED IN ANALYSIS SECTOR CONVERSION FACTOR(S) USED DATABASE USED FOR LIST OF FACILITIES Colleges & Uiversities.35 lbs/meal Natioal Ceter for Educatio Statistics Residetial 405 meals/studet/yr No-Residetial 108 meals/studets/yr Correctioal Facilities 1 lb/imate/day PrisoPro.com Evets & Recreatio Facilities 100 days/yr Olie Search.6 lbs/seat/day Attedace is 80% of capacity OR (depedig o available facility iformatio).45 lbs/visitor Food Maufacturig & Processig.053 lbs/$ of reveue/yr Proprietary Database Food Service Sector (Restaurats & Caterers) 3,000 lbs/employee/yr Proprietary Database Food Wholesalers & Distributors.01 lbs/$ of reveue/yr Proprietary Database Grocers & Markets 3,000 lbs/employee/yr Proprietary Database Health Care Hospitals 3.42 lbs/bed/day America Hospital Directory Health Care Nursig Homes 1.8 lbs/bed/day Proprietary Database 23 beds/$ millio of reveue Hospitality (Hotels) 1,984 lbs/employee/yr Proprietary Database K-12 Schools 31 weeks/year Elemetary 1.13 lbs/studet/week Middle.73 lbs/studet/week High.35 lbs/studet/week All.74 lbs/studet/week Elemetary/Middle -.93 lbs/studet/week Middle/High -.54 lbs/studet/week Natioal Ceter for Educatio Statistics K-12 Schools For K-12 schools, differet wastage rates were used for elemetary, middle, ad high schools. However, some schools are combied middle/high schools or have all grades. It was assumed that there were 31 weeks of school per year. For combied schools, a average was used: Elemetary/Middle School:.93 lbs per studet per week Middle/High School:.54 lbs per studet per week All Grades:.74 lbs per studet per week Nursig Homes For ursig homes, it was estimated that 23 beds equate to $1 millio i reveue. This estimate was geerated usig iformatio from the America Health Care Associatio 3 statig that there are 1.7 millio beds i ursig homes i the U.S. represetig $72 billio of reveue. 3 America Health Care Associatio, Fast Facts, available at (accessed o October 17, 2017). Page 15 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

16 Evets & Recreatio Facilities A comprehesive list of evets ad recreatio facilities servig food were ot available. A list of facilities was geerated through olie searches; however, iformatio o umber of seats, umber of employees, umber of visitors, ad reveue could ot be foud for all facilities. Additioally, evets ad recreatio facilities represet a wide rage of facility types ad uses (umber of days per year the facility is i use, types of evet, etc.), thus determiig a coversio factor that works for all is difficult. EPA s methodology did ot iclude coversio factors for evet facilities, so two coversio factors from Recyclig Works Massachusetts 4 were used due to the overall similarity betwee umbers used by Recyclig Works ad EPA. If iformatio o umber of seats was available, the followig assumptios ad coversio factors were used: Each facility is i operatio for 100 days per year (assumptio by NRDC) 80% capacity (assumptio by NRDC).6 lbs/seat/day If iformatio o the umber of visitors was available ad umber of seats was ot, the followig assumptios ad coversio factors were used:.45 lbs/visitor REQUIREMENT 6: PROVIDE A QUALITATIVE OR QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF UNCERTAINTY The formulas used i this method should ot be used to determie a idividual facility s food waste geeratio. The coversio factors used are sector-based averages of food waste geeratio. The average represets a etire sector of diverse facilities with wide-ragig food waste geeratio rates. Additioally, this method caot be used to track progress i reducig food waste; the data geerated by these methods represet a estimate of sector-based food waste geeratio that should be used as a baselie estimate oly. The coversio factors used for this aalysis were idetified by the U.S. Evirometal Protectio Agecy i their report etitled Techical Methodology for the U.S. EPA Wasted Food Opportuities Map (Versio 1.0) 5. Some of the factors were based o data ad sources more tha a decade old ad others were based o data with a small sample size of facilities. While these coversio factors are based o some of the best existig data, the coversio factors used i this aalysis should still be used with cautio. Overall, there is very little research that would allow us to cofidetly determie whether these coversio factors are or are ot idicative of idustry-level averages. More research must be doe to determie this. Ackowledgig that there are other potetial sources of food waste geeratio iformatio, we compared EPA s coversio factors to other potetial sources of iformatio, icludig some of the limited umber of waste characterizatios completed by local ad state govermets. Additioally, potetial cocers about specific coversio factors were idetified as potetial areas for further research (see Table 2 below for cocers). Please ote that this table is ot comprehesive of all studies o food waste geerated i the istitutioal, commercial, ad idustrial sectors. A sesitivity aalysis was performed for some of the facility types (see Table 2 for list ad Appedix L for sesitivity aalysis) to determie the potetial impact of specific coversio factors o the etire food waste geeratio estimate. Although we believe that the most appropriate coversio factors were selected for this aalysis, the alterate estimatios derived from the scearios used to coduct the sesitivity aalysis ca be used as a rage to show certaity if desired. (See Appedix L for detailed scearios ad coversio factors derived from the sesitivity aalysis.) Additioally, the formulas we used were derived from food waste characterizatio studies, of which there have bee a very limited umber to date. May waste characterizatio studies do ot iclude specific aalysis of food waste separate from other orgaic waste, ad those that do geerally do ot subdivide food waste ito specific subcategories (such as estimates of the amout of food waste which was potetially edible or avoidable). Cosequetly, the formulas derived from these studies do ot provide a way to estimate how much of the food geerated by the ICI sector may have bee edible, oly estimates of total waste geerated. (See NRDC s report Modelig the Potetial to Icrease Food Rescue: Dever, New York City ad Nashville 6 for iformatio o how to estimate the amout of food that may be suitable for doatio.) 4 Recyclig Works Massachusetts, Food Waste Estimatio Guide, available at (accessed o October 17, 2017). 5 Evirometal Protectio Agecy, Techical Methodology for the U.S. EPA Wasted Food Opportuities Map (Versio 1.0), to be available at sustaiable-maagemet-food/techical-methodology-wasted-food-opportuities-map (ot yet available at time of prit). 6 JoAe Berkekamp, Modelig the Potetial to Icrease Food Rescue, Natural Resources Defese Coucil (2017), available at Page 16 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

17 TABLE 2. CONCERNS ABOUT DATA AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS SECTOR CONCERNS ABOUT DATA SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS? Colleges & Uiversities Correctioal Facilities Evets & Recreatio Facilities Food Maufacturig & Processig Food Service Sector (Restaurats & Caterers) Food Wholesalers & Distributors Grocers & Markets Health Care Hospitals Health Care Nursig Homes Depeds sigificatly o evet types, umber of evets/year, ad other factors that make this sector diverse Seat capacity vs. visitors is importat distictio (may oly be able to fid seat capacity) May be sigificat differeces based o type of restaurat: quick service vs. full service vs. limited service 3,000 lb umber is from 1990 s. There has bee a reductio i employee size for grocers which may mea a higher food waste per employee umber Does ot distiguish betwee hypermarkets, supermarkets, ad smaller grocers Does ot iclude food that goes to reclaimer No No No No Yes (Used Metro Vacouver s ad Califoria s umbers & differet assumptios for limited/quick service vs. full service). No Yes (Used Califoria s umber). No No Hospitality May sigificatly deped o what types of food services are provided (e.g. room service, restaurats, bars, etc) K-12 Schools May be sigificat differeces by public vs. private school withi school level Yes (Used Califoria s umber). No Page 17 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

18 B. ICI Bi Digs (All Cities) The Food Loss ad Waste Accoutig ad Reportig Stadard (FLW Stadard 7 ) provides a framework for accoutig for ad reportig o food loss ad waste. The graphic below describes the scope of the ICI bi digs usig the FLW Stadard. BASELINE FOOD WASTE ASSESSMENT: ICI BIN DIGS (FOOD LOSS AND WASTE ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING STANDARD) TIMEFRAME MATERIAL TYPE DESTINATION BOUNDARY RELATED ISSUES VARIABLE (SEPT 2016 JAN 2017) FOOD INEDIBLE PARTS Note: At the time of the measuremet, waste materials collected were set to ladfill (Nashville), to ladfill ad compost (Dever), ad to ladfill, compost, combustio, ad codigestio (NYC). ANIMAL FEED BIOMATERIAL/ PROCESSING CO/ANAEROBIC DIGESTION COMPOST/AEROBIC CONTROLLED COMBUSTION LAND APPLICATION LANDFILL NOT HARVESTED FOOD CATEGORY = ALL FOOD AND BEVERAGE LIFECYCLE STAGE = VARIABLE (CONSUMER-FACING BUSINESSES AND INSTITUTIONS, MANUFACTURING, DISTRIBUTION) GEOGRAPHY = NASHVILLE, TN DENVER, CO NEW YORK CITY, NY WEIGHT OF LIGHTWEIGHT PACKAGING IS INCLUDED. SINGLE SAMPLES WITH MAXIMUM WEIGHT 220 LBS. WERE TAKEN FROM EACH FACILITY (ONE DAY S WORTH FOR MOST FACILITIES). REFUSE/DISCARDS SEWER ORGANIZATION = 93 FACILITIES REQUIREMENT 1: BASE FLW ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING ON THE PRINCIPLES OF RELEVANCE, COMPLETENESS, CONSISTENCY, TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCURACY A. Relevace: Use bi digs to help uderstad how much ad what types of food are discarded from ICI facilities ad to groudtruth ICI estimates. Cotribute to a workig model for other cities to perform similar assessmets B. Completeess: Represetative facilities withi desigated subsectors ad geographies were icluded. The facilities were recruited with the goal of workig with at least oe to four facilities per city from each sector listed below. C. Cosistecy: Methodologies ad templates used for trackig ad aalyzig data were idetical across study cities; defiitios used were idetical to defiitios used i residetial study (ad ICI estimates) where applicable. D. Trasparecy: Methodology, icludig assumptios ad defiitios, is available i this report (with additioal details available upo request). E. Accuracy: Aalyses ad calculatios have bee tested ad verified; some accuracy of or ability to extrapolate from facility data caot be assured due to icosistecies i materials collected as described below. 7 Food Loss ad Waste Accoutig ad Reportig Stadard, (accessed October 16, 2017). Page 18 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

19 REQUIREMENT 2: ACCOUNT FOR AND REPORT THE PHYSICAL AMOUNT OF FLW EXPRESSED AS WEIGHT The metric reported is total food waste geeratio i pouds (extrapolated where feasible to pouds per year). REQUIREMENT 3: DEFINE AND REPORT SCOPE A. Timeframe: The ICI bi digs collected trash ad compost (whe available) material from facilities. Most facilities had oe day or a portio of oe day s trash collected. The timeframe of the bi dig was oted for each facility. B. Material Type: For the bi digs, materials were sorted ito te food waste categories, oe for iedible parts (usig the defiitio of iedible parts described i Appedix B), eight categories subcategorizig edible food (see Appedix B), ad oe category for uidetifiable food waste. 1. Iedible Parts: Items ot iteded for huma cosumptio (it is acceptable for a small amout of edible material associated with the iedible material to be icluded). 2. Edible Meat & Fish: Ucooked or cooked meat (with mostly edible compoets) umixed with other types of food. Examples iclude beef, pork, ad fish. 3. Edible Dairy & Eggs: Solid dairy or egg products umixed with other food types or i origial form. Examples iclude milk, cheese, butter, ad eggs. 4. Edible Fruits & Vegetables: Solid ucooked or cooked vegetables ad fruits (with mostly edible compoets) umixed with other types of food. Examples iclude apples, lettuce, ad fresh herbs. 5. Edible Baked Goods: Baked goods ad bread-like products umixed with other food types or i origial form, icludig pastries. Examples iclude bread, cake, ad tortillas. 6. Edible Dry Foods: Cooked or ucooked grais, pastas, legumes, uts, or cereals umixed with other food types or i origial form. Examples iclude flour, uts, letils, ad cereal. 7. Edible Sacks, Codimets, & Others: Icludes cofectios, processed sacks, codimets, ad other miscellaeous items. Examples iclude cady, chips, ad sauces. 8. Edible Liquids/Oils/Grease: Items that are liquid, icludig beverages. Examples iclude cookig oil, liquid coffee, ad soda. 9. Edible Cooked/Prepared Items/Leftovers: Items that have may food types mixed together as part of cookig or preparatio. Examples iclude lasaga, burritos, falafel, stir-fry, sadwiches, ad pizza. 10. Uidetifiable: Used oly if ecessary Additioally, waste that was ot food was sorted ito the followig categories: 1. Food-Soiled Paper; 2. Yard Trimmigs; 3. Glass; 4. Recyclable Paper ad Cardboard (ot food-soiled); 5. Metals; 6. Rigid Plastics; 7. Plastic Films ad Composites; ad 8. All Other Materials. While categorizatio of these materials was ot the focus of the waste audit, collectig this additioal iformatio o wastage rates of commoly recyclable ad other materials provides additioal cotext ad data o the types of materials foud i the waste overall. C. Discard Destiatios: The umbers used for proxy extrapolatio are for total food waste geeratio ad thus theoretically represet all discard destiatios eve though oly composted ad ladfilled waste were collected. Facilities that discarded wasted food i other ways were either asked to collect that material for collectio or provide iformatio o their discard to other destiatios. Facilities where the material collected or reported did ot represet all food waste geeratio did ot have their bi digs extrapolated to pouds per year. Page 19 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

20 D. Boudary: 1. Food category: All food ad beverage items 2. Lifecycle stage: Variable (Cosumer-facig busiesses & istitutios, maufacturig, distributio) 3. Geography: Metropolita areas of Nashville, TN; Dever, CO; New York City, NY (all boroughs except State Islad) 4. Orgaizatio: 93 facilities were icluded from the followig sectors: Airports Colleges & Uiversities Corporate Cafeterias Correctioal Facilities Evets & Recreatio Facilities Food Maufacturig & Processig Food Rescue Orgaizatios Food Wholesalers & Distributors Grocers & Markets Health Care (Hospitals) Hospitality (Hotels) K-12 Schools Restaurats & Caterers E. Related Issues Packagig: Lightweight packagig (such as plastic film) was icluded i the weight of the food materials, sice it geerally weighs very little compared with the food material. For food i heavier packagig materials (e.g. metal ad glass), if the cotaier was mostly empty (i.e. the weight of the cotaier exceeded the weight of the food), the the item was icluded i the packagig material s category. If the cotaier was mostly full (i.e. the weight of the food exceeded the weight of the cotaier), the item was icluded with the food category ad the cotaier type oted. REQUIREMENTS 4 AND 5: DESCRIBE THE QUANTIFICATION AND SAMPLING METHODS Bi digs were performed i Nashville, Dever, ad New York City to help uderstad how much ad what types of food are discarded from istitutioal, commercial, ad idustrial (ICI) facilities. Facilities were recruited usig existig relatioships ad cold calls i each of the cities. Facilities were give a cofidetial report of their results ad aoymity was promised. The facilities were recruited to get at least a couple of facilities from each sector listed above. Waste was collected from each facility o their regular trash collectio day (or the eveig before) ad take to a off-site locatio to be sorted by a field team. If facilities curretly compost (usig a hauler), waste material from their orgaics bis was also collected ad sorted. Facilities that discarded wasted food i ways other tha trash or compost were either asked to collect those materials for our collectio or provide iformatio o their discards to other destiatios. Samples of up to 200 pouds of trash (ad compost, whe available) were collected from each facility, take off-site, ad sorted ito 10 food ad 8 o-food categories. Sortig protocols ad categories were the same as for residetial bi digs. Most facilities had oe day s worth or a portio of oe day s worth of trash collected. Whe samples collected did ot represet a etire day s worth of waste material, the amout of waste that facility would typically geerate i a day was estimated if possible from the proportio of total material collected (ad used to derive aual geeratio estimates, as outlied below ad i Appedix K). Additioally, facilities were asked to fill out a survey which icluded basic iformatio to aid i sample pickup coordiatio, facility characteristics such as umber of employees ad aual reveue, ad iformatio o curret food- ad food wasterelated behaviors. Participatig facilities received a free food waste characterizatio ad a subsequet cofidetial report providig recommedatios specific to their facility. Whe feasible, fidigs from the bi digs were extrapolated to geerate aual food waste geeratio estimates. Two methods of extrapolatio were used based o available iformatio: 1) If the bi dig represeted all or a kow portio Page 20 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

21 of food waste discarded for a kow period of time, the amout was extrapolated for a etire year based o the umber of days a facility operates per year (if the portio of waste material collected was ot kow, the bi dig was ot extrapolated); ad/or 2) If the bi dig represeted all trash ad/or compost materials discarded by that facility ad the facility provided aual estimates of total waste geeratio i their survey, the percetage of total trash or compost material that food represeted by weight i the bi dig was multiplied by the estimate of total food waste discarded per year. I some cases, both methods could be used to geerate a estimate ad umbers are preseted as a rage. For most cases, there was oly eough iformatio ad/or the bi dig oly allowed for extrapolatio usig oe method. However, if it was evidet that the sampled material did ot represet a facility s ormal waste patter, the bi dig results were ot extrapolated. Usig estimated aual food waste geeratio as determied, coversio factors were estimated for each facility, wheever possible. As applicable by facility type, coversio factors iclude food waste geeratio per: 1) employee; 2) bed; 3) studet; 4) $ of reveue; 5) rooms; ad 6) meals. (See Appedix K for food waste geeratio estimates derived from ICI bi digs.) REQUIREMENT 6: PROVIDE A QUALITATIVE OR QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF UNCERTAINTY Bi digs were oly coducted oe time ad geerally represeted betwee oe ad three days of waste materials from each facility. As such, these bi digs are sapshots ad may ot represet a facility s ormal waste geeratio patter. Additioally, the samples collected were a maximum of 200 pouds of material each; for example, for larger facilities with o-homogeeous waste (e.g., grocers), a sigle 200-poud sample may ot have bee represetative of that facility s waste. Whe it was obvious that the sampled material did ot represet a facility s ormal waste patter, the bi dig results were ot extrapolated. (See Appedix K for more iformatio o bi dig extrapolatio.) Page 21 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

22 Appedix C: Baselie Assessmet Field Methodology Thaks to Tetra Tech for providig field iformatio. Note: More iformatio ad documets referred to i this appedix are available upo request from NRDC. 1. STAFFING A. Recruitmet Tactics Advertised job o Craigslist, Ideed, ad to cotacts at uiversities Templates available for job postig laguage ad iterview questios B. Notes o Staffig Logistics Staff were expected to eter their hours ito a web-based form each eveig Staff were required to have a passport, or alterative pieces of idetificatio, to complete their T9 form ad prove that they were legally able to work i the U.S. 2. KITCHEN DIARY PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT A. Staff Traiig Webiar A webiar was hosted for Commuity Ambassadors i the moth prior to o-groud research. Staff were provided with Commuity Ambassador Traiig Guide Staff were provided with Recruitmet Script First Day Traiig Workshop O the first day of recruitmet, all staff were give 2 hours of i-perso traiig. Topics covered were: 1. Kitche Diary Kit Materials 2. Daily data etry 3. Practicig the recruitmet script 4. Safety measures ad Persoal Protective Equipmet O-the-Groud Traiig Tetra Tech field lead was preset for the first week of recruitmet. Each day, approximately oe hour was spet oeo-oe with each Commuity Ambassador to esure that messagig was cosistet ad they were cofidet i their recruitmet skills B. Safety Cosideratios Staff wore high-visibility vests Staff were set out i teams of 2 or 3 (but kocked o doors idepedetly) Staff were istructed to wear weather-appropriate, protective clothig (icludig footwear to miimize the risk of slippig or fallig) Page 22 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

23 C. Sigle Family & Small Multi-Family Staff worked approximately 6 hour shifts Staff were provided with maps of cesus areas via a shared olie map. If they ra out of doors to kock o, they were istructed to go to streets adjacet to the cesus tracts for additioal recruitmet. D. Large Multi-Family Buildigs Multi-family buildig maagers were cotacted i advace of the project ad asked to sed out the participat sig-up lik to all teats i their buildigs A recruitmet flyer was set out by or posted i the buildig (with maager permissio) A date was arraged i which Commuity Ambassadors set up a table i the lobby of the buildig Commuity Ambassadors gave out the kits to participats who had siged up via the olie sig-up lik ad to ew sig-ups Remaiig kits from olie sig-ups were left with the doorperso E. Olie Sigups Participats were able to directly sig up olie. Most olie sigups received the sig-up lik through: Receivig a door hager from a Commuity Ambassador Residig i a targeted multi-family buildig which had set out a otice about the project to all teats Remaiig kits from olie sig-ups were left with the doorperso F. Materials Commuity Ambassadors were provided with the followig materials for door-to-door work: Kit Demostratio Folder 1. Quick Start Guide 2. Kitche Diary 3. Kitche Diary Kit Maual 4. Backgroud o study Data sheets to track participat iformatio Door-hagers to leave at resideces where people were ot home 3. DATA TRACKING FOR RESIDENTIAL PARTICIPANTS A. Commuity Ambassador Data Etry Commuity Ambassadors were resposible to eter the participats that they had recruited o a daily basis ito a web-based form. B. Data Maagemet Researchers off-site maaged the spreadsheet of participats, icludig data etry, data cleaig, verifyig each stage of recruitmet ad participatio, ad commuicatig with field researchers. 4. RESIDENTIAL PARTICIPANT FOLLOW-UP All participat follow-up correspodece was set from a cetral project address, phoe, or text Participats were provided with ad phoe cotacts for questios Participat Follow-Up Schedule ad Methodology scripts were used to esure cosistecy Page 23 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

24 5. KITCHEN DIARY KIT DELIVERY A. Kit Assembly The followig supplies were icluded i residetial study participatio kits: All kitche diary ad related materials Quick Start Guide (with fill-i blaks for start date, ed date, ad survey 2 deadlie) Kitche Diary Kitche Diary Kit Maual Backgroud o study Pe Two pieces of flaggig tape per kit, approximately 1 yard each (oly ecessary i cases where you eed to idetify which garbage belogs to participats out of mixed source ot ecessary where you are collectig from idividual carts) Labels with participat ID umber affixed to all the above materials Maila evelopes (postage icluded) if participats had the optio to mail back completed diary Kitche scales B. Kit Delivery Most kits were had-delivered by Commuity Ambassadors, either o-site at time of recruitmet or to multiple participats over the weeked to all sig-ups from the previous week If had-delivered durig recruitmet, recruiters must be able to trasport kits with them durig recruitmet (may be less ideal if all recruitmet is doe o foot) Kits were mailed to the followig participats: Ayoe who requested that their kits be mailed to them Participats i large multi-family buildigs without a doorperso Olie sig-ups who were located very far away from other participats Late sig-ups 6. KITCHEN DIARY RETURNS AND PROCESSING I Nashville/Dever, participats retured the kitche diary via direct pickup by Commuity Ambassadors I NYC, participats were istructed to retur their kitche diary via oe of the followig methods: Mailig it back i the provided maila evelope with prepaid postage Scaig the diary ad ig it back to the project address 7. KITCHEN DIARY DATA ENTRY Kitche diaries were etered ito a spreadsheet as they were received Kitche diaries were checked for completeess upo receivig. If received by from the participat, ay clarifyig questios were asked (e.g. If oe page was left blak, participats were asked to clarify why. Did they eat out all day? Did they eat at home but ot discard aythig? Were they out of tow?). Page 24 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

25 8. RESIDENTIAL BIN DIGS A. Curbside Pick-Ups Used routig software to create a route of curbside pick-ups for bi digs Participats o the curbside route were remided via or text message to set out their trash ad/or compost (or keep i desigated area) before a specified time the followig day Pick-ups were doe either i the early morig (Nashville/Dever) or at ight (NYC), ofte whe it was dark, so headlamps were provided to researchers B. Multi-Family Pick-Ups Made arragemets with property maager for pick-ups at a specified date/time Participats were give tags for their bags ad istructed to throw away waste as usual, but to tie a tag aroud the bag before placig i trash chute or dumpster 9. ICI BIN DIGS A. Participat Recruitmet Started recruitmet about 6 weeks prior to field work Most participats preferred a phoe call to discuss what the study would etail, ad the the call was used to arrage logistics as well Oce they agreed to do the study, they received a with a lik to the survey B. Pick-ups Schedulig oe to two weeks i advace worked best Iformatio eeded for schedulig pick-ups icluded: Address, icludig specific area where waste is located Access requiremets, such as security check-i or gates O-site cotact (ame ad phoe umber) Time ad date of pick-up Descriptio of bis or locatio where bags will be placed Whether there is trash ad/or compost Iformatio recorded whe pickig up waste: Sample ID Bags collected of each type Weight of sample, if applicable Subsamples collected, if applicable What percetage of total waste was represeted by amout of waste collected (if oly a portio of waste was collected for sample) Page 25 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

26 10. GENERAL BIN DIG SORTING Samples were separated by ID ito differet piles Each sample was pre-weighed Geeral set-up: Food categories i bis o oe side of the table No-food categories i bis o other side of the table Other (#18) category at ed of the table Oe to two people o each side of the table, focusig o the categories o their side to icrease speed of sortig Samples were sorted accordig to categories (see below), the weighed bi by bi Weights were recorded i a spreadsheet template Represetative photos of food categories were take (ad some icluded i idividual facility reports) # CATEGORIES DEFINITION GUIDES FOR WASTE SORT SAMPLE WASTE SORTING PICTURE 1 Iedible Items ot iteded for huma cosumptio (acceptable for a small amout of edible material associated with iedible material to be icluded). Peels, Pits, Shells, Boes, Husks 2 Edible - Meat & Fish Ucooked or cooked meat (with mostly edible compoets) umixed with other types of food. Beef, Pork, Poultry, Fish, icludes Processed Meats, Fats. Icludes small boes which are uavoidable. Meat/fish waste which is primarily boes should be placed i iedible waste category. 3 Edible - Dairy & Eggs Solid dairy or egg products umixed with other food types or i origial form. Eggs. Milk, Cheese, Yogurt, Butter, Eggs, Sour Cream 4 Edible - Vegetables/ Fruits Solid ucooked or cooked vegetables ad fruits (with mostly edible compoets) umixed with other types of food. Fruits, Vegetables, Soy ad Meat-Like Products, Salads/Grees, Caed Beas, Fresh Herbs. Icludes whole fruits ad vegetables eve though they may cotai some iedible parts (e.g. whole orage icludes peel). Icludes edible peeligs (e.g. apple or potato) 5 Edible - Baked Goods Baked goods ad bread-like products umixed with other food types or i origial form, icludig pastries. Bread, Tortillas, Naa, Pastry, Muffis, Cakes ad Baked Desserts. From the bakery (either homemade or shop bought). No overly processed sacks. 6 Edible - Dry Foods (Grais, Pasta, Cereals) Cooked or ucooked grais, pastas, or cereals umixed with other food types or i origial form. Dry Pasta, Rice, Cereal, Couscous, Quioa, Flour, Oats, Nuts, Dried Letils ad Beas, Bakig Supplies Page 26 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

27 7 Edible Sacks, Codimets, & Other Icludes cofectios, processed sacks, codimets, ad other miscellaeous items. Record other foods separately. Cady, Processed Sacks, Cofectioery, Crackers, Juk Food, Processed Desserts, Codimets, Spreads, Sauces. Items ot icluded above that are geerally packaged ad processed. Chips, chocolate bars, ice cream, jam, ketchup. 8 Edible - Liquids/Oils/ Grease Items that are liquid, icludig beverages. Juice, Pop, Coffee, Bottled Water, Oil 9 Edible - Cooked/ Prepared Items/Leftovers Items that have may food types mixed together as part of cookig or preparatio. Cooked food - homemade meals, take-away ad microwave meals. All composite food icludig Soups, Sadwiches, Curry, Pasta dishes, Casseroles, Stir Fry, Samosa, Pizza) 10 Uidetifiable Use oly if ecessary Icludes food that was ot sortable durig the compositioal aalysis, food that has decomposed ad is o loger idetifiable, semi-liquid material, ad food that is too mixed/small to be sorted. 11 Food Soiled Paper food-soiled paper, pizza boxes, paper towels 12 Yard Trimmigs grass, leaves, braches, maure 13 Glass glass cotaiers ad bottles, excludes ceramics or glass objects 14 Recyclable Paper ad Cardboard ewspaper, office paper, cardboard, coffee cups, books 15 Metals metal cotaiers ad bottles, empty aerosol cas, foil trays, excludes metal objects Page 27 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

28 16 Rigid Plastics #1-7 bottles ad packagig, excludes compostable plastics, polystyree foam ad plastic products 17 Plastic Films ad Composites retail bags ad wrap, o-packagig such as zipper bags, tarps, pallet wrap 18 All Other Materials ad Fies polystyree foam, ceramics, plastic/glass/metal objects (o-packagig), compostable plastics, leather, textiles, rubber, treated wood, furiture, electroics, appliaces, costructio material, household hazardous waste, items <1 i size Page 28 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

29 Appedix D: Kitche Diary Backgroud for Aalysis Below is additioal iformatio that pertais to data collected for the residetial study, primarily data derived from kitche diaries. (See Appedix A for more details related to the residetial study.) 1. HISTOGRAMS OF DATA DISTRIBUTION As oted i the report, kitche diary data results i terms of food wasted per household ad per capita are ot ormally distributed. A o-ormal distributio meas that the data are ot symmetrically distributed aroud the mea (see histograms of distributio below). For the statistical calculatios used i our aalysis, a ormal distributio is a required assumptio. However, because of the large sample size of our data i all three cities (see Sectio 2 below), the o-ormal distributio is likely to have a miimal effect o the statistical aalysis. 1 NASHVILLE PER CAPITA DATA DISTRIBUTION DENVER PER CAPITA DATA DISTRIBUTION NYC PER CAPITA DATA DISTRIBUTION NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS PER CAPITA FOOD GENERATION PER WEEK (LBS) PER CAPITA FOOD GENERATION PER WEEK (LBS) PER CAPITA FOOD GENERATION PER WEEK (LBS) 2. SAMPLE SIZE FOR FUTURE STUDIES Give that similar studies have ot bee udertake i the Uited States ad very few have bee coducted iteratioally, there was ot eough iformatio prior to the study to accurately estimate the eeded sample size. Specifically, the variace for total food wasted by households or per capita was ot available. After completig the study, the ideal sample size was back-calculated from the study results. The ideal sample size depeds o a variety of factors, icludig variace, size of the populatio of iterest, margi of error, ad cofidece level. If the purpose of the study is to estimate total food wasted (both edible ad iedible portios) per household, the ideal sample size for Nashville is: 207 households (10% margi of error, 90% cofidece level) 297 households (10% margi of error, 95% cofidece level) 1 Thomas Lumley, Paula Diehr, Scott Emerso, ad Lu Che, The Importace of the Normality Assumptio i Large Public Health Data Sets, Aual Review of Public Health, Volume 23, 2002, Page 29 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

30 If the purpose of the study is to specifically estimate edible food wasted per household, the ideal sample size for Nashville is: 258 households (10% margi of error, 90% cofidece level) 370 households (10% margi of error, 95% cofidece level) For this study, 68 Nashville households completed the kitche diary ad 76 completed the surveys. If the purpose of the study is to estimate total food wasted (both edible ad iedible portios) per household, the ideal sample size for Dever is: 206 households (10% margi of error, 90% cofidece level) 294 households (10% margi of error, 95% cofidece level) If the purpose of the study is to specifically estimate edible food wasted per household, the ideal sample size for Dever is: 283 households (10% margi of error, 90% cofidece level) 405 households (10% margi of error, 95% cofidece level) For this study, 198 Dever households completed the kitche diary ad 222 completed the surveys. If the purpose of the study is to estimate total food wasted (both edible ad iedible portios) per household, the ideal sample size for New York City is: 228 households (10% margi of error, 90% cofidece level) 325 households (10% margi of error, 95% cofidece level) If the purpose of the study is to specifically estimate edible food wasted per household, the ideal sample size for New York City is: 401 households (10% margi of error, 90% cofidece level) 573 households (10% margi of error, 95% cofidece level) For this study, 347 New York City households completed the kitche diary ad 428 completed the surveys. 3. LIST OF STANDARDIZED FOOD TYPES USED IN KITCHEN DIARY ANALYSIS Each kitche diary etry had a short descriptio of the food or beverage wasted that was filled i by participats. To determie the most wasted foods (see Sectio of the mai report), the descriptio give by participats was used by researchers to code each etry with a stadardized food ame. Etries were separated first ito the primary classificatio of either edible food or iedible parts ; items cosidered edible food were split ito two groups: 1) typically edible ad 2) questioably edible (see Appedix A for more iformatio o defiitios related to edibility). The lists below iclude all stadardized food ames for all items tracked i kitche diaries, separated ito the three secodary classificatios (iedible parts, questioably edible, ad typically edible). Page 30 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

31 List of Iedible Parts Below is the list of materials idetified i the kitche diaries ad bi digs that were cosidered iedible parts (the list is the same for all three cities). Iedible parts were determied to be those which are ot typically cosumed i the Uited States (e.g. baaa peels) ad/or whether sigificat skill or effort would be required to reder this part of food edible (e.g. citrus rids). (See Appedix A for more iformatio.) Artichoke leaves (edible parts removed) Avocado skis/pits Baaa/platai peels Bea shells (tough shells icludig fava ad edamame) Pepper cores/stems Boes Citrus rids Coffee grouds Cor cobs/husks Date pits Drago fruit ski Eggshells Eggplat tops Garlic skis Giger peels Hard stems & stalks (icludig tomato, apple, bea) Lychee skis/pits Melo skis/seeds Okra tops Oio skis/root ed Papaya seeds/peels Pieapple skis/tops Pomegraate peels Shells (mollusks ad ut) Squash skis/seeds (icludig butterut ad kabocha squash) Stoe fruit pits Strawberry tops Tea bags Watermelo rids List of Questioably Edible Food Items Below is the list of materials idetified i the kitche diaries ad bi digs that were cosidered questioably edible (the list is the same for all three cities). Questioably edible is defied as items that ca be safely eate, but may ot be cosidered edible by a portio of the populatio due to culture ad preferece. These items might also require additioal processig/cookig to make them desirable to eat. (Note that these items were give a primary classificatio of edible food for this study. See Appedix A for more iformatio.) Apple cores/ski Asparagus eds Broccoli stalks Cabbage cores Carrot peels/tops Cauliflower stalks Cheese rids Chive/gree oio/scallio eds Celery tops Cucumber peels Herb stems (e.g. cilatro/parsley) Leek eds Lettuce cores Kale stalks Kiwi peels Meat/fish parts (fat/ski) Mushroom stems Pear cores/ski Pickle juice Pieapple core Potato peels Radish leaves Root vegetable peels Summer squash peels Tomato core/ski Page 31 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

32 List of Typically Edible Food Items Below is the list of materials idetified i the kitche diaries ad bi digs that were cosidered typically edible (the list varies for all three cities). Typically edible is defied as iteded for huma cosumptio ad ot geerally cosidered iedible. (See Appedix A for more iformatio.) Some items were mixtures of multiple food types, so they were coded i oe of three ways: 1. Mixed food items appearig frequetly, such as salad, pasta, pizza, ad sadwich, were coded as such (e.g. sadwich); 2. Produce-based mixed food items that were uprepared or ucooked ad that appeared ifrequetly (e.g. vegetable scraps of ukow vegetable origi) were categorized as mixed fruits & vegetables ; ad 3. Mixed food items that were cooked or prepared ad that appeared ifrequetly (e.g. lasaga, squash casserole) were categorized as o-meat dish, poultry dish, seafood dish, or red meat dish. Uidetifiable was used oly i cases where food did ot meet ay of the criteria above ad it could ot be determied if food was o-meat-based or meat-based. Nashville Typically Edible Foods almod milk cheese grees oil salad apple chicke grits okra sadwich artichoke chickpeas guacamole olive sauce arugula chips herb oio seafood dish asparagus chocolate hot dog orage seita avocado cocout milk ice cream pacake shellfish baaa coffee jicama parsip soda beas cookie kale pasta soup beef cor kiwi pastry sour cream beer couscous kohlrabi peach spiach beet cracker leek pear squash berries craberry lemo pepper strawberry bread cream cheese letils pieapple sugar broccoli cucumber lettuce pizza tea browie dout lime pomegraate tomato brussels sprout egg mago popcor tortilla burrito eggplat melo pork turkey butter fig milk potato turip cabbage cake cataloupe carrot cauliflower celery cereal fish garlic giger graola grape grapefruit gree bea mixed fruits & vegetables muffi mushroom o-meat dish utritioal yeast uts oatmeal poultry dish pumpki radish raisi raspberry red meat dish rice uidetifiable waffle watermelo wie yogurt zucchii Page 32 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

33 Dever Typically Edible Foods alfalfa sprouts cocout water mago pretzels almod butter coffee margarie pumpki almod milk cookie milk radicchio apple artichoke arugula asparagus avocado baby formula bamboo shoot baaa beas beef beer beet berries bread broccoli brussels sprouts burrito butter cabbage cactus pear cake cady cataloupe caramel carrot cauliflower celery cereal chard cheese chicke chili chips cor cottage cheese couscous crackers cream cheese cucumber edamame egg eggplat elk feel fish flour garbazo beas garlic giger goat graola grape grapefruit gree bea grees guacamole herb ice cream jalapeo kale kiwi kohlrabi lamb lemo lettuce lime mixed fruits & vegetables mushroom o-meat dish uts oatmeal oil olive oio orage pacake papaya parsley passiofruit pasta pastry peach peaut butter pear peas pepper persimmo pheasat pieapple pistachio pizza platai plum pomegraate popcor pork potato poultry dish radish raisi red meat dish rice salad salt sadwich sauce seafood dish seaweed shrimp soda soup sour cream soy milk spiach squash sugar taro tea tomato tortilla turkey turip uidetifiable viegar waffle watermelo wie yogurt zucchii Page 33 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

34 NYC Typically Edible Foods apple collard grees lemo pomelo turip artichoke cookie letil popcor uidetifiable arugula cor lettuce pork viegar asparagus couscous lime potato waffle avocado cracker lotus poultry dish watercress bamboo shoot cream cheese lychee pretzel wheat baaa crepe mago prue wie beas cucumber melo puddig yogurt beef dates milk pumpki yucca beer beet berry bok choy bread broccoli brussels sprout burrito butter cabbage cake cady capers carrot cauliflower celery cereal cereal & milk cheese cherry chicke chili chiese yam chips chocolate cocout coffee drago fruit dry spices duck edamame egg eggplat edive fig fish flour frostig garbazos garlic giger grape grapefruit gree bea guacamole herbs hoey ice cream jackfruit juice kale kiwi lamb leek mixed fruits & vegetables muffi mushroom ectarie o-meat dish uts oatmeal oil okra olive oio orage pacake papaya parsip pasta pastry peach pear peas pepper persimmo pickle pieapple pizza plum pomegraate quioa radish red currat red meat dish rice salad sadwich sauce seafood dish seaweed seeds smoothie soda soup sour cream soursop soybea spiach squash sugar swiss chard tamarid taro tea tomato tortilla turkey zucchii Page 34 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

35 Appedix E: Kitche Diary Data FOOD WASTED BY HOUSEHOLDS (CORRECTED FOR UNDERREPORTING) NASHVILLE DENVER NYC WEIGHTED AVERAGE ALL CITIES AVERAGE TOTAL POUNDS PER HOUSEHOLD AVERAGE EDIBLE POUNDS PER HOUSEHOLD AVERAGE TOTAL POUNDS PER CAPITA AVERAGE EDIBLE POUNDS PER CAPITA FOOD WASTED BY EDIBILITY NASHVILLE DENVER NYC TOTAL # LB % # LB % # LB % # LB % Typically Edible % % % % Iedible % % % % Questioably Edible % % % % (blak) 3.5 1% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 3.5 0% Total % % % % FOOD WASTED BY CATEGORY NASHVILLE DENVER NYC TOTAL # LB % # LB % # LB % # LB % Iedible % % % % Meat & Fish (edible) 8.6 2% % % % Dairy & Eggs (edible) % % % % Fruits & Vegetables (edible) % % % % Baked Goods (edible) 9.9 3% % % % Dry Food (edible) 4.1 1% 5.9 0% % % Sacks & Codimets (edible) Liquids, Oils, & Grease (edible) Prepared Foods & Leftovers (edible) % % % % % % % % % % % % Uidetifiable 4.4 1% 4.5 0% 0.0 0% 8.9 0% Total % % % % Page 35 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

36 FOOD WASTED BY DISCARD DESTINATION NASHVILLE DENVER NYC TOTAL # LB % # LB % # LB % # LB % Trash % % % % Home Compost % % % Curbside Compost % % % Compost (uspecified) % % Compost Dropoff % % Dow the Drai % % % % Feedig Aimals % % % % Other 3.2 1% 1.8 0% % % (blak) 4.6 1% % % % Total % % % % All Compost (above combied) % % % % FOOD WASTED BY LOSS REASON NASHVILLE DENVER NYC TOTAL # LB % # LB % # LB % # LB % Improperly Cooked 3.2 1% 2.8 0% % % Left Out Too Log % % % % Do't Wat As Leftovers % % % % Past Date o Label 9.5 3% % % % Too Little to Save % % % % Moldy or Spoiled % % % % Does't Taste Good % % % % Iedible Parts % % % % Other or Multiple Reasos % % % % (blak) 9.3 3% % % % Total % % % % Page 36 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

37 FOOD WASTED BY MEAL NASHVILLE DENVER NYC TOTAL # LB % # LB % # LB % # LB % Breakfast % % % % Luch % % % % Dier % % % % Sacks % % % % Other & Multiple Meals % % % % Total % % % % Page 37 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

38 Appedix F: Survey 1 Data Q1. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES WHO LIVES IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD? # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL FAMILY OR RELATED INDIVIDUALS 48 63% % % % I LIVE ALONE 16 21% 47 21% 68 16% % NON-RELATED INDIVIDUALS (E.G. ROOMMATES) 12 16% 26 12% 45 11% 83 11% OTHER 0 0% 2 1% 2 <1% 4 1% TOTAL % % % % Q2. HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD, INCLUDING YOURSELF? # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL % 48 22% 71 17% % % 78 35% % % % 48 22% 87 20% % % 26 12% 94 22% % 5 3 4% 10 5% 30 7% 43 6% 6 3 4% 7 3% 12 3% 22 3% 7 0 0% 2 1% 7 2% 9 1% 8 0 0% 3 1% 1 0% 4 1% 9 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% % 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% (BLANK) 2 3% 0 0% 7 2% 9 1% TOTAL % % % % Q3. WHAT IS THE AGE OF EACH HOUSEHOLD MEMBER (YEARS)? # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL AVG %/AGE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN (CHILDREN = UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE) AVERAGE AGE OF OLDEST HOUSEHOLD MEMBER 25 33% 69 31% % % AVERAGE AGE OF ALL PARTICIPANTS OVER 18 YEARS OF AGE Page 38 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

39 Q4. WHAT IS THE GENDER OF EACH HOUSEHOLD MEMBER? NASHVILLE PRIMARY RESPONDENT ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS # % # % MALE 19 25% 85 43% FEMALE 57 75% % TRANSGENDER 0 0% 1 1% NEITHER MALE, FEMALE, OR TRANSGENDER 0 0% 1 1% (BLANK) 0 0% 0 0% TOTAL % % DENVER PRIMARY RESPONDENT ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS # % # % MALE 79 36% % FEMALE % % TRANSGENDER 1 0% 1 0% NEITHER MALE, FEMALE, OR TRANSGENDER 0 0% 1 0% (BLANK) 2 1% 2 0% TOTAL % % NYC PRIMARY RESPONDENT ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS # % # % MALE % % FEMALE % % TRANSGENDER 2 0% 2 0% NEITHER MALE, FEMALE, OR TRANSGENDER 1 0% 1 0% (BLANK) 27 6% 27 2% TOTAL % % TOTAL PRIMARY RESPONDENT ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS # % # % MALE % % FEMALE % % TRANSGENDER 3 0% 4 0% NEITHER MALE, FEMALE, OR TRANSGENDER 1 0% 3 0% (BLANK) 29 4% 29 1% TOTAL % % Page 39 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

40 Q5. WHAT IS THE EMPLOYMENT OF EACH HOUSEHOLD MEMBER? NASHVILLE PRIMARY RESPONDENT ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS # % # % FULL-TIME 44 58% 86 52% PART-TIME 10 13% 19 12% STUDENT 12 16% 42 26% RETIRED 2 3% 3 2% UNEMPLOYED 5 7% 14 9% (BLANK) 3 4% 0 0% TOTAL % % DENVER PRIMARY RESPONDENT ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS # % # % FULL-TIME % % PART-TIME 26 12% 53 10% STUDENT 26 12% % RETIRED 5 2% 48 9% UNEMPLOYED 29 13% 63 12% (BLANK) 8 4% 2 0% TOTAL % % NYC PRIMARY RESPONDENT ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS # % # % FULL-TIME % % PART-TIME 51 12% % STUDENT 44 10% % RETIRED 46 11% 86 8% UNEMPLOYED 45 11% % (BLANK) 47 11% 47 4% TOTAL % % TOTAL PRIMARY RESPONDENT ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS # % # % FULL-TIME % % PART-TIME 87 12% % STUDENT 82 11% % RETIRED 53 7% 137 8% UNEMPLOYED 79 11% % (BLANK) 58 8% 49 3% TOTAL % % Page 40 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

41 Q6. WHAT IS THE ETHNICITY/RACE OF EACH HOUSEHOLD MEMBER? HOUSEHOLD MAKE-UP BY ETHNICITY/RACE # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL WHITE (ALL) 52 68% % % % BLACK OR AFRICAN- AMERICAN (ALL) AMERICAN INDIAN/ ALASKAN NATIVE (ALL) 8 11% 8 4% 40 9% 56 8% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 1 0% HISPANIC/LATINO (ALL) 0 0% 28 13% 15 4% 43 6% ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER (ALL) 1 1% 3 1% 46 11% 50 7% MIXED RACE HOUSEHOLD 11 14% 41 18% 84 20% % (BLANK) 4 5% 8 4% 44 10% 56 8% TOTAL % % % % NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH AT LEAST ONE MEMBER IDENTIFYING AS THE FOLLOWING # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL WHITE 62 82% % % % BLACK OR AFRICAN- AMERICAN AMERICAN INDIAN/ ALASKAN NATIVE 11 14% 20 9% 63 15% 94 13% 2 3% 8 4% 4 1% 14 2% HISPANIC/LATINO 6 8% 47 21% 32 7% 85 12% PACIFIC ISLANDER 0 0% 0 0% 4 1% 4 1% ASIAN 5 7% 11 5% 79 18% 95 13% OTHER 0 0% 0 0% 27 6% 27 4% Q7. WHAT IS THE PRIMARY LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME? # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL ENGLISH 66 87% % % % SPANISH 1 1% 6 3% 3 1% 10 1% CHINESE 0 0% 0 0% 17 4% 17 2% MORE THAN ONE LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME 0 0% 6 3% 29 7% 35 5% OTHER 3 4% 0 0% 21 5% 24 3% (BLANK) 6 8% 34 15% 71 17% % TOTAL % % % % Page 41 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

42 Q8. WHAT IS THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF EACH HOUSEHOLD MEMBER? # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS WITH MEMBER BORN OUTSIDE OF UNITED STATES HOUSEHOLDS WITH NO MEMBERS BORN OUTSIDE OF UNITED STATES 12 16% 40 18% % % 53 70% % % % (BLANK) 11 14% 54 24% 95 22% % TOTAL % % % % Q9. WHAT IS THE EDUCATION LEVEL OF EACH HOUSEHOLD MEMBER? HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ACHIEVED BY ANY HOUSEHOLD MEMBER # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL K % 4 2% 4 1% 9 1% HIGH SCHOOL/GED 3 4% 9 4% 29 7% 41 6% SOME HIGHER EDUCATION 4 5% 32 14% 44 10% 80 11% BACHELOR'S DEGREE 31 41% 64 29% 90 21% % GRADUATE DEGREE 24 32% 57 26% % % PROFESSIONAL DEGREE 6 8% 27 12% 49 11% 82 11% (BLANK) 7 9% 29 13% 64 15% % TOTAL % % % % Q10. WHAT IS YOUR APPROXIMATE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME? # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL LESS THAN $25K 5 7% 22 10% 58 14% 85 12% $25K-$35K 10 13% 17 8% 27 6% 54 7% $35K-$45K 9 12% 22 10% 26 6% 57 8% $45K-$55K 4 5% 13 6% 20 5% 37 5% $55K-$65K 10 13% 13 6% 22 5% 45 6% $65K-$75K 9 12% 16 7% 20 5% 45 6% $75K-$85K 6 8% 11 5% 22 5% 39 5% $85K-$95K 3 4% 20 9% 25 6% 48 7% $95K AND OVER 20 26% 84 38% % % (BLANK) 0 0% 4 2% 16 4% 20 3% TOTAL % % % % Page 42 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

43 Q11. APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH MONEY DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD SPEND ON FOOD AND BEVERAGES EATEN AT HOME EACH WEEK? (DO NOT INCLUDE FOOD EATEN AWAY FROM HOME) # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL $50 OR LESS 10 13% 34 15% 44 10% 88 12% $51-$ % 65 29% % % $101-$ % 68 31% % % $151-$ % 28 13% 73 17% % $201-$ % 14 6% 35 8% 55 8% $251-$ % 6 3% 26 6% 32 4% MORE THAN $ % 6 3% 11 3% 18 2% (BLANK) 1 1% 1 0% 10 2% 12 2% TOTAL % % % % Q12. APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH MONEY DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD SPEND ON FOOD AND BEVERAGES EATEN AWAY FROM HOME EACH WEEK? (DO NOT INCLUDE FOOD EATEN AT HOME) # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL $50 OR LESS 31 41% 96 43% % % $51-$ % 76 34% % % $101-$ % 26 12% 69 16% % $151-$ % 12 5% 31 7% 45 6% $201-$ % 7 3% 25 6% 33 5% $251-$ % 1 0% 7 2% 8 1% MORE THAN $ % 1 0% 7 2% 8 1% (BLANK) 3 4% 3 1% 12 3% 18 2% TOTAL % % % % Page 43 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

44 Q13. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE ISSUES RELATED TO WASTED FOOD? IF YES, HOW DID YOU LEARN ABOUT IT? FAMILIAR WITH ISSUES RELATED TO WASTED FOOD? # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL YES 53 70% % % % NO 21 28% 60 27% % % (BLANK) 2 3% 4 2% 8 2% 14 2% TOTAL % % % % Q13. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE ISSUES RELATED TO WASTED FOOD? IF YES, HOW DID YOU LEARN ABOUT IT? (CONTINUED) HOW DID HOUSEHOLDS LEARN ABOUT WASTED FOOD? # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL SOCIAL MEDIA 24 32% 73 33% % % ONLINE AD 6 8% 8 4% 30 7% 44 6% BILLBOARD 0 0% 1 0% 11 3% 12 2% RADIO 12 16% 35 16% 63 15% % WORD OF MOUTH 22 29% 61 27% % % DIRECT 7 9% 4 2% 20 5% 31 4% DOCUMENTARY 21 28% 63 28% % % TELEVISION 15 20% 68 31% % % BOOK 10 13% 18 8% 67 16% 95 13% CLASS/SCHOOLING 9 12% 42 19% 94 22% % SHOWING OF JUST EAT IT IN NASHVILLE 9 12% N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 1% OTHER 11 14% 46 21% 93 22% % Q14. WHERE, HOW FREQUENTLY, AND USING WHAT MODE OF TRANSPORTATION DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD NORMALLY PURCHASE FOOD? NASHVILLE LESS THAN ONCE PER WEEK 1-2 TIMES PER WEEK 3 OR MORE TIMES PER WEEK TOTAL NASHVILLE # # # # % OF HH SUPERSTORE % GROCERY STORE % CORNER STORE/CONVENIENCE STORE % FARMERS MARKET % FOOD PANTRY % BACKYARD GARDEN % LOCAL GARDEN (NOT AT YOUR HOUSEHOLD) % COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE % ONLINE DELIVERY SERVICE % Page 44 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

45 Q14. WHERE, HOW FREQUENTLY, AND USING WHAT MODE OF TRANSPORTATION DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD NORMALLY PURCHASE FOOD? (CONTINUED) DENVER LESS THAN ONCE PER WEEK 1-2 TIMES PER WEEK 3 OR MORE TIMES PER WEEK TOTAL DENVER # # # # % OF HH SUPERSTORE % GROCERY STORE % CORNER STORE/CONVENIENCE STORE % FARMERS MARKET % FOOD PANTRY % BACKYARD GARDEN % LOCAL GARDEN (NOT AT YOUR HOUSEHOLD) % COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE % ONLINE DELIVERY SERVICE % NYC LESS THAN ONCE PER WEEK 1-2 TIMES PER WEEK 3 OR MORE TIMES PER WEEK TOTAL NYC # # # # % OF HH SUPERSTORE % GROCERY STORE % CORNER STORE/CONVENIENCE STORE % FARMERS MARKET % FOOD PANTRY % BACKYARD GARDEN % LOCAL GARDEN (NOT AT YOUR HOUSEHOLD) % COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE % ONLINE DELIVERY SERVICE % TOTAL LESS THAN ONCE PER WEEK 1-2 TIMES PER WEEK 3 OR MORE TIMES PER WEEK TOTAL ALL CITIES # # # # % OF HH SUPERSTORE % GROCERY STORE % CORNER STORE/CONVENIENCE STORE % FARMERS MARKET % FOOD PANTRY % BACKYARD GARDEN % LOCAL GARDEN (NOT AT YOUR HOUSEHOLD) % COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE % ONLINE DELIVERY SERVICE % Page 45 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

46 Q14. WHERE, HOW FREQUENTLY, AND USING WHAT MODE OF TRANSPORTATION DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD NORMALLY PURCHASE FOOD? (CONTINUED) NUMBER/PERCENTAGE SHOPPING AT LOCATION AT LEAST ONCE PER WEEK # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL SUPERSTORE 5 7% 38 17% 64 15% % GROCERY STORE 65 86% % % % CORNER STORE/ CONVENIENCE STORE 8 11% 32 14% % % FARMERS' MARKET 9 12% 15 7% 54 13% 78 11% FOOD PANTRY 0 0% 7 3% 9 2% 16 2% BACKYARD GARDEN 14 18% 53 24% 18 4% 85 12% LOCAL GARDEN (NOT AT YOUR HOUSEHOLD) COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE 1 1% 5 2% 5 1% 11 2% 1 1% 7 3% 9 2% 17 2% ONLINE DELIVERY SERVICE 1 1% 11 5% 43 10% 55 8% NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS USING MODE OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FOOD SHOPPING # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL OWNED CAR 73 96% % % % BORROWED CAR 4 5% 19 9% 60 14% 83 11% PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 2 3% 4 2% 97 23% % BICYCLING 7 9% 28 13% 37 9% 72 10% WALKING 21 28% 80 36% % % DELIVERY 10 13% 10 5% % % Page 46 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

47 Q15. ON AVERAGE, HOW FREQUENTLY DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD PREPARE OR COOK (NOT NECESSARILY EAT) THE FOLLOWING MEALS AT HOME DURING AN AVERAGE WEEK? NASHVILLE EVERY DAY AT LEAST 5 DAYS BETWEEN 2-4 DAYS BETWEEN 1-2 DAYS LESS THAN ONCE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % BREAKFAST 38 50% 15 20% 9 12% 6 8% 7 9% 1 1% LUNCH 14 18% 25 33% 16 21% 15 20% 5 7% 1 1% DINNER 13 17% 38 50% 17 22% 5 7% 2 3% 1 1% SNACKS 22 29% 21 28% 10 13% 14 18% 7 9% 2 3% DENVER EVERY DAY AT LEAST 5 DAYS BETWEEN 2-4 DAYS BETWEEN 1-2 DAYS LESS THAN ONCE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % BREAKFAST % 45 20% 31 14% 24 11% 10 5% 3 1% LUNCH 42 19% 72 32% 53 24% 38 17% 10 5% 7 3% DINNER 48 22% % 65 29% 7 3% 1 0% 1 0% SNACKS 89 40% 43 19% 32 14% 22 10% 23 10% 12 5% NYC EVERY DAY AT LEAST 5 DAYS BETWEEN 2-4 DAYS BETWEEN 1-2 DAYS LESS THAN ONCE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % BREAKFAST % 70 16% 53 12% 45 11% 25 6% 18 4% LUNCH 86 20% 85 20% % 80 20% 42 10% 24 6% DINNER % % % 24 6% 11 3% 19 4% SNACKS % 72 17% 66 15% 43 11% 56 13% 42 10% TOTAL EVERY DAY AT LEAST 5 DAYS BETWEEN 2-4 DAYS BETWEEN 1-2 DAYS LESS THAN ONCE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % BREAKFAST % % 93 13% 75 10% 42 6% 22 3% LUNCH % % % % 57 8% 32 4% DINNER % % % 36 5% 14 2% 21 3% SNACKS % % % 79 11% 86 12% 56 8% NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO RESPONDED THEY PREPARE OR COOK THE FOLLOWING MEALS AT HOME BETWEEN 2-4 DAYS/WEEK OR MORE: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL BREAKFAST 62 82% % % % LUNCH 55 72% % % % DINNER 68 89% % % % SNACKS 53 70% % % % NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO RESPONDED THEY PREPARE OR COOK THE FOLLOWING MEALS AT HOME BETWEEN 1-2 DAYS/WEEK OR LESS: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL BREAKFAST 13 17% 34 15% 70 16% % LUNCH 20 26% 48 22% % % DINNER 7 9% 8 4% 35 8% 50 7% SNACKS 21 28% 45 20% 99 24% % Page 47 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

48 Q16. ON AVERAGE, HOW FREQUENTLY DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD EAT (NOT NECESSARILY PREPARE OR COOK) THE FOLLOWING MEALS AT HOME DURING AN AVERAGE WEEK? NASHVILLE EVERY DAY AT LEAST 5 DAYS BETWEEN 2-4 DAYS BETWEEN 1-2 DAYS LESS THAN ONCE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % BREAKFAST 38 50% 16 21% 8 11% 8 11% 5 7% 1 1% LUNCH 11 14% 10 13% 18 24% 30 39% 6 8% 1 1% DINNER 17 22% 36 47% 13 17% 6 8% 2 3% 2 3% SNACKS 22 29% 20 26% 18 24% 11 14% 4 5% 1 1% DENVER EVERY DAY AT LEAST 5 DAYS BETWEEN 2-4 DAYS BETWEEN 1-2 DAYS LESS THAN ONCE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % BREAKFAST 99 45% 36 16% 28 13% 28 13% 19 9% 12 5% LUNCH 29 13% 54 24% 47 21% 56 25% 24 11% 12 5% DINNER 55 25% 93 42% 50 23% 11 5% 8 4% 5 2% SNACKS 85 38% 42 19% 36 16% 22 10% 21 9% 16 7% NYC EVERY DAY AT LEAST 5 DAYS BETWEEN 2-4 DAYS BETWEEN 1-2 DAYS LESS THAN ONCE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % BREAKFAST % 70 16% 48 11% 44 10% 35 8% 25 6% LUNCH 72 17% 68 16% % 92 21% 55 13% 32 7% DINNER % % 79 18% 24 6% 12 3% 23 5% SNACKS % 78 18% 74 17% 50 12% 32 7% 44 10% TOTAL EVERY DAY AT LEAST 5 DAYS BETWEEN 2-4 DAYS BETWEEN 1-2 DAYS LESS THAN ONCE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % BREAKFAST % % 84 12% 80 11% 59 8% 38 5% LUNCH % % % % 85 12% 45 6% DINNER % % % 41 6% 22 3% 30 4% SNACKS % % % 83 11% 57 8% 61 8% NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO RESPONDED THEY EAT THE FOLLOWING MEALS AT HOME BETWEEN 2-4 DAYS/WEEK OR MORE: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL BREAKFAST 62 82% % % % LUNCH 39 51% % % % DINNER 66 87% % % % SNACKS 60 79% % % % NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO RESPONDED THEY EAT THE FOLLOWING MEALS AT HOME BETWEEN 1-2 DAYS/WEEK OR LESS: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL BREAKFAST 13 17% 47 21% 79 18% % LUNCH 36 47% 80 36% % % DINNER 8 11% 19 9% 36 8% 63 9% SNACKS 15 20% 43 19% 82 19% % Page 48 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

49 Q17. IS YOUR PRIMARY REFRIGERATOR GENERALLY # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL MOSTLY FULL 29 38% % % % HALF FULL 39 51% 98 44% % % FAIRLY EMPTY 7 9% 21 9% 29 7% 57 8% DON'T HAVE ONE 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% (BLANK) 1 1% 1 0% 15 4% 17 2% TOTAL % % % % Q18. IS YOUR SECONDARY REFRIGERATOR OR FREEZER GENERALLY # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL MOSTLY FULL 14 18% 28 13% 55 13% 97 13% HALF FULL 8 11% 37 17% 62 14% % FAIRLY EMPTY 5 7% 23 10% 25 6% 53 7% DON'T HAVE ONE 47 62% % % % (BLANK) 2 3% 2 1% 17 4% 21 3% TOTAL % % % % Q19. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT YOUR REFRIGERATOR? # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL IT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE OR NERVOUS IF MY REFRIGERATOR IS TOO EMPTY IT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE OR NERVOUS IF MY REFRIGERATOR IS TOO FULL I DON'T CARE OR DON'T THINK ABOUT HOW FULL MY REFRIGERATOR IS 21 28% 46 21% % % 18 24% 48 22% 81 19% % 36 47% % % % (BLANK) 1 1% 1 0% 16 4% 18 2% TOTAL % % % % Page 49 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

50 Q20. WHEN PLANNING A VISIT TO THE GROCERY STORE OR WHEN SHOPPING FOR FOOD, HOW OFTEN DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD DO THE FOLLOWING NASHVILLE NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS N/A (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % # % MAKE A SHOPPING LIST 2 3% 7 9% 14 18% 22 29% 30 39% 0 0% 1 1% CHECK TO SEE WHAT IS IN YOUR REFRIGERATOR/FREEZER AND CUPBOARDS BEFORE YOU GO SHOPPING 2 3% 5 7% 12 16% 36 47% 20 26% 0 0% 1 1% PLAN YOUR MEALS BEFORE SHOPPING 2 3% 13 17% 25 33% 25 33% 10 13% 0 0% 1 1% ESTIMATE HOW MUCH OF EACH ITEM YOU NEED TO BUY BEFORE GOING SHOPPING BUY ONLY ITEMS ON YOUR SHOPPING LIST IN THE STORE BUY FOOD IN LARGER QUANTITIES THAN DESIRED DUE TO THE WAY FOOD IS PACKAGED PURCHASE MORE OF A PRODUCT THAN YOU NEED BECAUSE IT IS ON SALE PURCHASE MORE OF A PRODUCT THAN YOU NEED BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER TO BUY IN LARGER PACKAGES OR QUANTITIES PURCHASE SOMETHING UNPLANNED BECAUSE IT LOOKS GOOD AT THE TIME DENVER 3 4% 8 11% 14 18% 30 39% 20 26% 0 0% 1 1% 4 5% 17 22% 20 26% 29 38% 3 4% 2 3% 1 1% 1 1% 20 26% 43 57% 10 13% 1 1% 0 0% 1 1% 2 3% 17 22% 43 57% 12 16% 1 1% 0 0% 1 1% 4 5% 18 24% 36 47% 16 21% 1 1% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 8 11% 42 55% 24 32% 1 1% 0 0% 1 1% NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS N/A (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % # % MAKE A SHOPPING LIST 10 5% 22 10% 37 17% 63 28% 88 40% 0 0% 2 1% CHECK TO SEE WHAT IS IN YOUR REFRIGERATOR/FREEZER AND CUPBOARDS BEFORE YOU GO SHOPPING 7 3% 16 7% 37 17% 84 38% 76 34% 0 0% 2 1% PLAN YOUR MEALS BEFORE SHOPPING 9 4% 28 13% 73 33% 75 34% 34 15% 0 0% 3 1% ESTIMATE HOW MUCH OF EACH ITEM YOU NEED TO BUY BEFORE GOING SHOPPING BUY ONLY ITEMS ON YOUR SHOPPING LIST IN THE STORE BUY FOOD IN LARGER QUANTITIES THAN DESIRED DUE TO THE WAY FOOD IS PACKAGED PURCHASE MORE OF A PRODUCT THAN YOU NEED BECAUSE IT IS ON SALE PURCHASE MORE OF A PRODUCT THAN YOU NEED BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER TO BUY IN LARGER PACKAGES OR QUANTITIES PURCHASE SOMETHING UNPLANNED BECAUSE IT LOOKS GOOD AT THE TIME 10 5% 28 13% 47 21% 73 33% 62 28% 1 0% 1 0% 23 10% 52 23% 53 24% 76 34% 12 5% 5 2% 1 0% 9 4% 59 27% 95 43% 52 23% 5 2% 1 0% 1 0% 10 5% 62 28% 96 43% 46 21% 5 2% 2 1% 1 0% 14 6% 55 25% 82 37% 58 26% 9 4% 2 1% 2 1% 2 1% 31 14% % 55 25% 10 5% 1 0% 3 1% Page 50 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

51 Q20. WHEN PLANNING A VISIT TO THE GROCERY STORE OR WHEN SHOPPING FOR FOOD, HOW OFTEN DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD DO THE FOLLOWING (CONT.) NYC NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS N/A (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % # % MAKE A SHOPPING LIST 41 10% 44 10% 90 21% % % 4 1% 15 4% CHECK TO SEE WHAT IS IN YOUR REFRIGERATOR/FREEZER AND CUPBOARDS BEFORE YOU GO SHOPPING 10 2% 30 7% 90 21% % % 3 1% 16 4% PLAN YOUR MEALS BEFORE SHOPPING 25 6% 48 11% % % 76 18% 4 1% 13 3% ESTIMATE HOW MUCH OF EACH ITEM YOU NEED TO BUY BEFORE GOING SHOPPING BUY ONLY ITEMS ON YOUR SHOPPING LIST IN THE STORE BUY FOOD IN LARGER QUANTITIES THAN DESIRED DUE TO THE WAY FOOD IS PACKAGED PURCHASE MORE OF A PRODUCT THAN YOU NEED BECAUSE IT IS ON SALE PURCHASE MORE OF A PRODUCT THAN YOU NEED BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER TO BUY IN LARGER PACKAGES OR QUANTITIES PURCHASE SOMETHING UNPLANNED BECAUSE IT LOOKS GOOD AT THE TIME TOTAL 20 5% 34 8% % % % 3 1% 16 4% 49 11% 89 21% % % 24 6% 25 6% 15 4% 23 5% % % 73 17% 11 3% 3 1% 17 4% 37 9% 92 21% % 64 15% 19 4% 2 0% 15 4% 42 10% 88 21% % 84 20% 17 4% 3 1% 16 4% 16 4% 52 12% % % 20 5% 1 0% 13 3% NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS N/A (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % # % MAKE A SHOPPING LIST 53 7% 73 10% % % % 4 1% 18 2% CHECK TO SEE WHAT IS IN YOUR REFRIGERATOR/FREEZER AND CUPBOARDS BEFORE YOU GO SHOPPING 19 3% 51 7% % % % 3 0% 19 3% PLAN YOUR MEALS BEFORE SHOPPING 36 5% 89 12% % % % 4 1% 17 2% ESTIMATE HOW MUCH OF EACH ITEM YOU NEED TO BUY BEFORE GOING SHOPPING BUY ONLY ITEMS ON YOUR SHOPPING LIST IN THE STORE BUY FOOD IN LARGER QUANTITIES THAN DESIRED DUE TO THE WAY FOOD IS PACKAGED PURCHASE MORE OF A PRODUCT THAN YOU NEED BECAUSE IT IS ON SALE PURCHASE MORE OF A PRODUCT THAN YOU NEED BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER TO BUY IN LARGER PACKAGES OR QUANTITIES PURCHASE SOMETHING UNPLANNED BECAUSE IT LOOKS GOOD AT THE TIME 33 5% 70 10% % % % 4 1% 18 2% 76 10% % % % 39 5% 32 4% 17 2% 33 5% % % % 17 2% 4 1% 19 3% 49 7% % % % 25 3% 4 1% 17 2% 60 8% % % % 27 4% 5 1% 19 3% 18 2% 91 13% % % 31 4% 2 0% 17 2% Page 51 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

52 Q20. WHEN PLANNING A VISIT TO THE GROCERY STORE OR WHEN SHOPPING FOR FOOD, HOW OFTEN DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD DO THE FOLLOWING (CONT.) NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO "ALWAYS" OR "OFTEN" DO THE FOLLOWING BEFORE OR DURING SHOPPING FOR FOOD: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL MAKE A SHOPPING LIST 52 68% % % % CHECK TO SEE WHAT IS IN YOUR REFRIGERATOR/ FREEZER AND CUPBOARDS BEFORE YOU GO SHOPPING PLAN YOUR MEALS BEFORE SHOPPING ESTIMATE HOW MUCH OF EACH ITEM YOU NEED TO BUY BEFORE GOING SHOPPING BUY ONLY ITEMS ON YOUR SHOPPING LIST IN THE STORE BUY FOOD IN LARGER QUANTITIES THAN DESIRED DUE TO THE WAY FOOD IS PACKAGED PURCHASE MORE OF A PRODUCT THAN YOU NEED BECAUSE IT IS ON SALE PURCHASE MORE OF A PRODUCT THAN YOU NEED BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER TO BUY IN LARGER PACKAGES OR QUANTITIES PURCHASE SOMETHING UNPLANNED BECAUSE IT LOOKS GOOD AT THE TIME 56 74% % % % 35 46% % % % 50 66% % % % 32 42% 88 40% % % 11 14% 57 26% 84 20% % 13 17% 51 23% 83 19% % 17 22% 67 30% % % 25 33% 65 29% % % Page 52 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

53 Q20. WHEN PLANNING A VISIT TO THE GROCERY STORE OR WHEN SHOPPING FOR FOOD, HOW OFTEN DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD DO THE FOLLOWING (CONT.) NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO "RARELY" OR "NEVER" DO THE FOLLOWING BEFORE OR DURING SHOPPING FOR FOOD: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL MAKE A SHOPPING LIST 9 12% 32 14% 85 20% % CHECK TO SEE WHAT IS IN YOUR REFRIGERATOR/ FREEZER AND CUPBOARDS BEFORE YOU GO SHOPPING PLAN YOUR MEALS BEFORE SHOPPING ESTIMATE HOW MUCH OF EACH ITEM YOU NEED TO BUY BEFORE GOING SHOPPING BUY ONLY ITEMS ON YOUR SHOPPING LIST IN THE STORE BUY FOOD IN LARGER QUANTITIES THAN DESIRED DUE TO THE WAY FOOD IS PACKAGED PURCHASE MORE OF A PRODUCT THAN YOU NEED BECAUSE IT IS ON SALE PURCHASE MORE OF A PRODUCT THAN YOU NEED BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER TO BUY IN LARGER PACKAGES OR QUANTITIES PURCHASE SOMETHING UNPLANNED BECAUSE IT LOOKS GOOD AT THE TIME 7 9% 23 10% 40 9% 70 10% 15 20% 37 17% 73 17% % 11 14% 38 17% 54 13% % 21 28% 75 34% % % 21 28% 68 31% % % 19 25% 72 32% % % 22 29% 69 31% % % 8 11% 33 15% 68 16% % Q21. FOR THIS QUESTION, PLEASE CONSIDER THE PERSON IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD WHO MOST FREQUENTLY PREPARES MEALS (IF THERE ISN'T ONE PARTICULAR PERSON THAT APPLIES TO, THEN CONSIDER YOURSELF FOR THIS QUESTION). HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS? NASHVILLE THIS PERSON USUALLY FOLLOWS RECIPES WHEN COOKING THIS PERSON IMPROVISES MEALS BASED ON WHAT FOOD IS AVAILABLE THIS PERSON FREQUENTLY MAKES TOO MUCH FOOD AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE DISAGREE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % 15 20% 26 34% 11 14% 10 13% 13 17% 1 1% 40 53% 26 34% 1 1% 7 9% 1 1% 1 1% 2 3% 14 18% 13 17% 22 29% 23 30% 2 3% Page 53 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

54 Q21. FOR THIS QUESTION, PLEASE CONSIDER THE PERSON IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD WHO MOST FREQUENTLY PREPARES MEALS (IF THERE ISN'T ONE PARTICULAR PERSON THAT APPLIES TO, THEN CONSIDER YOURSELF FOR THIS QUESTION). HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS? (CONT.) DENVER THIS PERSON USUALLY FOLLOWS RECIPES WHEN COOKING THIS PERSON IMPROVISES MEALS BASED ON WHAT FOOD IS AVAILABLE THIS PERSON FREQUENTLY MAKES TOO MUCH FOOD NYC THIS PERSON USUALLY FOLLOWS RECIPES WHEN COOKING THIS PERSON IMPROVISES MEALS BASED ON WHAT FOOD IS AVAILABLE THIS PERSON FREQUENTLY MAKES TOO MUCH FOOD TOTAL THIS PERSON USUALLY FOLLOWS RECIPES WHEN COOKING THIS PERSON IMPROVISES MEALS BASED ON WHAT FOOD IS AVAILABLE THIS PERSON FREQUENTLY MAKES TOO MUCH FOOD AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE DISAGREE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % 52 23% 67 30% 35 16% 42 19% 23 10% 3 1% 83 37% 99 45% 17 8% 13 6% 9 4% 1 0% 19 9% 47 21% 57 26% 63 28% 35 16% 1 0% AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE DISAGREE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % 71 17% % 73 17% 62 14% 66 15% 18 4% % % 42 10% 19 4% 8 2% 17 4% 41 10% 77 18% 85 20% 87 20% % 19 4% AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE DISAGREE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % % % % % % 22 3% % % 60 8% 39 5% 18 2% 19 3% 62 9% % % % % 22 3% Page 54 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

55 Q21. FOR THIS QUESTION, PLEASE CONSIDER THE PERSON IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD WHO MOST FREQUENTLY PREPARES MEALS (IF THERE ISN'T ONE PARTICULAR PERSON THAT APPLIES TO, THEN CONSIDER YOURSELF FOR THIS QUESTION). HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS? (CONT.) NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO RESPONDED "AGREE" OR "SOMEWHAT AGREE" TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL THE PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD WHO MOST FREQUENTLY PREPARES MEALS USUALLY FOLLOWS RECIPES WHEN COOKING THE PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD WHO MOST FREQUENTLY PREPARES MEALS IMPROVISES MEALS BASED ON WHAT FOOD IS AVAILABLE THE PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD WHO MOST FREQUENTLY PREPARES MEALS FREQUENTLY MAKES TOO MUCH FOOD 41 54% % % % 66 87% % % % 16 21% 66 30% % % NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO RESPONDED "DISAGREE" OR "SOMEWHAT DISAGREE" TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL THE PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD WHO MOST FREQUENTLY PREPARES MEALS USUALLY FOLLOWS RECIPES WHEN COOKING THE PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD WHO MOST FREQUENTLY PREPARES MEALS IMPROVISES MEALS BASED ON WHAT FOOD IS AVAILABLE THE PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD WHO MOST FREQUENTLY PREPARES MEALS FREQUENTLY MAKES TOO MUCH FOOD 23 30% 65 29% % % 8 11% 22 10% 27 6% 57 8% 45 59% 98 44% % % Page 55 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

56 Q22. MANY FOODS YOU PURCHASE ARE MARKED WITH A "USE BY," "SELL BY," OR "BEST BY" DATE. BY FOOD TYPE, WHAT DO YOU GENERALLY DO WITH FOODS AFTER THE DATE PROVIDED ON THE PACKAGING HAS PASSED? NASHVILLE DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO DATE LABELS THROW IT AWAY SMELL OR LOOK AT IT TO DETERMINE IF IT IS STILL GOOD EVERYTHING IS EATEN OR FROZEN BEFORE DATE ON PACKAGE I DON'T CONSUME THIS TYPE OF FOOD (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % MEAT & FISH 1 1% 15 20% 27 36% 26 34% 6 8% 1 1% EGGS 19 25% 4 5% 31 41% 17 22% 3 4% 2 3% MILK 0 0% 10 13% 48 63% 12 16% 5 7% 1 1% BREAD 7 9% 5 7% 48 63% 10 13% 4 5% 2 3% CHEESES 7 9% 7 9% 50 66% 7 9% 4 5% 1 1% YOGURT & SOUR CREAM FRUITS & VEGETABLES 3 4% 11 14% 51 67% 4 5% 6 8% 1 1% 7 9% 6 8% 59 78% 2 3% 0 0% 2 3% DENVER DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO DATE LABELS THROW IT AWAY SMELL OR LOOK AT IT TO DETERMINE IF IT IS STILL GOOD EVERYTHING IS EATEN OR FROZEN BEFORE DATE ON PACKAGE I DON'T CONSUME THIS TYPE OF FOOD (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % MEAT & FISH 8 4% 44 20% 75 34% 81 36% 11 5% 3 1% EGGS 46 21% 39 18% 69 31% 55 25% 10 5% 3 1% MILK 3 1% 39 18% % 34 15% 24 11% 1 0% BREAD 15 7% 27 12% % 37 17% 12 5% 2 1% CHEESES 18 8% 30 14% % 34 15% 8 4% 2 1% YOGURT & SOUR CREAM FRUITS & VEGETABLES 7 3% 58 26% % 28 13% 14 6% 2 1% 14 6% 30 14% % 26 12% 0 0% 3 1% NYC DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO DATE LABELS THROW IT AWAY SMELL OR LOOK AT IT TO DETERMINE IF IT IS STILL GOOD EVERYTHING IS EATEN OR FROZEN BEFORE DATE ON PACKAGE I DON'T CONSUME THIS TYPE OF FOOD (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % MEAT & FISH 9 2% % % % 33 8% 15 4% EGGS 60 14% % % % 15 4% 14 3% MILK 8 2% % % 61 14% 25 6% 14 3% BREAD 33 8% 69 16% % 85 20% 9 2% 13 3% CHEESES 27 6% 86 20% % 60 14% 23 5% 14 3% YOGURT & SOUR CREAM FRUITS & VEGETABLES 12 3% % % 51 12% 28 7% 14 3% 32 7% 68 16% % 56 13% 2 0% 14 3% Page 56 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

57 Q22. MANY FOODS YOU PURCHASE ARE MARKED WITH A "USE BY," "SELL BY," OR "BEST BY" DATE. BY FOOD TYPE, WHAT DO YOU GENERALLY DO WITH FOODS AFTER THE DATE PROVIDED ON THE PACKAGING HAS PASSED? (CONT.) TOTAL DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO DATE LABELS THROW IT AWAY SMELL OR LOOK AT IT TO DETERMINE IF IT IS STILL GOOD EVERYTHING IS EATEN OR FROZEN BEFORE DATE ON PACKAGE I DON'T CONSUME THIS TYPE OF FOOD (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % MEAT & FISH 18 2% % % % 50 7% 19 3% EGGS % % % % 28 4% 19 3% MILK 11 2% % % % 54 7% 16 2% BREAD 55 8% % % % 25 3% 17 2% CHEESES 52 7% % % % 35 5% 17 2% YOGURT & SOUR CREAM FRUITS & VEGETABLES 22 3% % % 83 11% 48 7% 17 2% 53 7% % % 84 12% 2 0% 19 3% Page 57 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

58 Q23. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS? NASHVILLE WE ARE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT AVOIDING FOOD POISONING DATE LABELS ARE THE MAIN SOURCE OF INFORMATION WE USE WHEN DECIDING WHETHER TO THROW AWAY FOOD WE FREQUENTLY USE SIGHT, TASTE, OR SMELL TO DETERMINE IF FOOD IS SAFE TO EAT WE FREQUENTLY PUT FOODS THAT NEED TO BE USED SOON IN A CERTAIN PART OF THE REFRIGERATOR I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE TIME TO SPEND ON PREPARING AND COOKING FOOD WE FREQUENTLY PREPARE MEALS A DAY OR MORE IN ADVANCE WE FREQUENTLY EAT PREPARED OR FROZEN MEALS TO SAVE TIME I FEEL LESS GUILTY ABOUT WASTING FOOD THAT HAS BEEN IN THE REFRIGERATOR FOR A LONG TIME I FEEL LESS GUILTY ABOUT WASTING FOOD IF IT IS COMPOSTED I PREFER FRUITS AND VEGETABLES WITH NO BLEMISHES AT LEAST ONE PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD IS A SKILLED COOK HAVING REGULAR FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD MEALS IS IMPORTANT GENERALLY, PREPARING FOOD FOR FRIENDS AND/OR FAMILY MAKES ME FEEL GOOD WHEN HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS EAT OUT IT IS USUALLY SPUR OF THE MOMENT, OR PLANNED WITH LESS THAN 48 HOURS' NOTICE WE CLEAN OUT OUR REFRIGERATOR REGULARLY (AT LEAST EVERY OTHER WEEK) IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE FINISH ALL FOOD THAT IS PUT ON OUR PLATES FOR A MEAL AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE DISAGREE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % 22 29% 13 17% 16 21% 17 22% 7 9% 1 1% 7 9% 15 20% 8 11% 22 29% 23 30% 1 1% 48 63% 22 29% 2 3% 1 1% 2 3% 1 1% 17 22% 13 17% 7 9% 15 20% 21 28% 3 4% 29 38% 24 32% 9 12% 10 13% 3 4% 1 1% 13 17% 17 22% 12 16% 19 25% 13 17% 2 3% 8 11% 15 20% 8 11% 20 26% 24 32% 1 1% 13 17% 21 28% 15 20% 8 11% 18 24% 1 1% 31 41% 19 25% 15 20% 4 5% 6 8% 1 1% 13 17% 23 30% 12 16% 14 18% 11 14% 3 4% 40 53% 16 21% 8 11% 5 7% 6 8% 1 1% 52 68% 12 16% 9 12% 1 1% 1 1% 1 1% 54 71% 13 17% 5 7% 0 0% 3 4% 1 1% 38 50% 17 22% 10 13% 7 9% 2 3% 2 3% 11 14% 19 25% 6 8% 19 25% 20 26% 1 1% 19 25% 31 41% 11 14% 7 9% 7 9% 1 1% Page 58 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

59 Q23. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS? (CONT.) DENVER WE ARE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT AVOIDING FOOD POISONING DATE LABELS ARE THE MAIN SOURCE OF INFORMATION WE USE WHEN DECIDING WHETHER TO THROW AWAY FOOD WE FREQUENTLY USE SIGHT, TASTE, OR SMELL TO DETERMINE IF FOOD IS SAFE TO EAT WE FREQUENTLY PUT FOODS THAT NEED TO BE USED SOON IN A CERTAIN PART OF THE REFRIGERATOR I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE TIME TO SPEND ON PREPARING AND COOKING FOOD WE FREQUENTLY PREPARE MEALS A DAY OR MORE IN ADVANCE WE FREQUENTLY EAT PREPARED OR FROZEN MEALS TO SAVE TIME I FEEL LESS GUILTY ABOUT WASTING FOOD THAT HAS BEEN IN THE REFRIGERATOR FOR A LONG TIME I FEEL LESS GUILTY ABOUT WASTING FOOD IF IT IS COMPOSTED I PREFER FRUITS AND VEGETABLES WITH NO BLEMISHES AT LEAST ONE PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD IS A SKILLED COOK HAVING REGULAR FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD MEALS IS IMPORTANT GENERALLY, PREPARING FOOD FOR FRIENDS AND/OR FAMILY MAKES ME FEEL GOOD WHEN HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS EAT OUT IT IS USUALLY SPUR OF THE MOMENT, OR PLANNED WITH LESS THAN 48 HOURS' NOTICE WE CLEAN OUT OUR REFRIGERATOR REGULARLY (AT LEAST EVERY OTHER WEEK) IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE FINISH ALL FOOD THAT IS PUT ON OUR PLATES FOR A MEAL AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE DISAGREE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % 89 40% 70 32% 30 14% 30 14% 2 1% 1 0% 29 13% 68 31% 32 14% 52 23% 40 18% 1 0% % 81 36% 15 7% 8 4% 1 0% 1 0% 52 23% 43 19% 35 16% 37 17% 54 24% 1 0% 69 31% 59 27% 49 22% 17 8% 26 12% 2 1% 40 18% 49 22% 29 13% 58 26% 44 20% 2 1% 12 5% 51 23% 19 9% 65 29% 74 33% 1 0% 51 23% 51 23% 38 17% 38 17% 43 19% 1 0% 64 29% 60 27% 63 28% 13 6% 20 9% 2 1% 44 20% 77 35% 49 22% 34 15% 17 8% 1 0% % 52 23% 33 15% 9 4% 15 7% 1 0% % 46 21% 23 10% 2 1% 5 2% 2 1% % 43 19% 19 9% 6 3% 2 1% 2 1% 96 43% 74 33% 18 8% 21 9% 12 5% 1 0% 58 26% 56 25% 33 15% 41 18% 32 14% 2 1% 57 26% 74 33% 42 19% 31 14% 15 7% 3 1% Page 59 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

60 Q23. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS? (CONT.) NYC WE ARE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT AVOIDING FOOD POISONING DATE LABELS ARE THE MAIN SOURCE OF INFORMATION WE USE WHEN DECIDING WHETHER TO THROW AWAY FOOD WE FREQUENTLY USE SIGHT, TASTE, OR SMELL TO DETERMINE IF FOOD IS SAFE TO EAT WE FREQUENTLY PUT FOODS THAT NEED TO BE USED SOON IN A CERTAIN PART OF THE REFRIGERATOR I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE TIME TO SPEND ON PREPARING AND COOKING FOOD WE FREQUENTLY PREPARE MEALS A DAY OR MORE IN ADVANCE WE FREQUENTLY EAT PREPARED OR FROZEN MEALS TO SAVE TIME I FEEL LESS GUILTY ABOUT WASTING FOOD THAT HAS BEEN IN THE REFRIGERATOR FOR A LONG TIME I FEEL LESS GUILTY ABOUT WASTING FOOD IF IT IS COMPOSTED I PREFER FRUITS AND VEGETABLES WITH NO BLEMISHES AT LEAST ONE PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD IS A SKILLED COOK HAVING REGULAR FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD MEALS IS IMPORTANT GENERALLY, PREPARING FOOD FOR FRIENDS AND/OR FAMILY MAKES ME FEEL GOOD WHEN HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS EAT OUT IT IS USUALLY SPUR OF THE MOMENT, OR PLANNED WITH LESS THAN 48 HOURS' NOTICE WE CLEAN OUT OUR REFRIGERATOR REGULARLY (AT LEAST EVERY OTHER WEEK) IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE FINISH ALL FOOD THAT IS PUT ON OUR PLATES FOR A MEAL AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE DISAGREE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % % 94 22% 71 17% 35 8% 13 3% 15 4% 97 23% % 58 14% 95 22% 49 11% 14 3% % % 21 5% 18 4% 6 1% 15 4% % 86 20% 58 14% 55 13% 99 23% 14 3% % % 72 17% 36 8% 46 11% 15 4% 70 16% % 61 14% 76 18% 95 22% 16 4% 40 9% 80 19% 45 11% 89 21% % 18 4% 86 20% % 58 14% 53 12% % 17 4% % % 87 20% 24 6% 50 12% 18 4% % % 64 15% 47 11% 27 6% 18 4% % 93 22% 42 10% 17 4% 32 7% 18 4% % 65 15% 35 8% 10 2% 5 1% 17 4% % 94 22% 35 8% 15 4% 5 1% 19 4% % % 57 13% 40 9% 22 5% 19 4% 90 21% 85 20% 66 15% 77 18% 92 21% 18 4% % % 51 12% 42 10% 37 9% 18 4% Page 60 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

61 Q23. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS? (CONT.) TOTAL WE ARE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT AVOIDING FOOD POISONING DATE LABELS ARE THE MAIN SOURCE OF INFORMATION WE USE WHEN DECIDING WHETHER TO THROW AWAY FOOD WE FREQUENTLY USE SIGHT, TASTE, OR SMELL TO DETERMINE IF FOOD IS SAFE TO EAT WE FREQUENTLY PUT FOODS THAT NEED TO BE USED SOON IN A CERTAIN PART OF THE REFRIGERATOR I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE TIME TO SPEND ON PREPARING AND COOKING FOOD WE FREQUENTLY PREPARE MEALS A DAY OR MORE IN ADVANCE WE FREQUENTLY EAT PREPARED OR FROZEN MEALS TO SAVE TIME I FEEL LESS GUILTY ABOUT WASTING FOOD THAT HAS BEEN IN THE REFRIGERATOR FOR A LONG TIME I FEEL LESS GUILTY ABOUT WASTING FOOD IF IT IS COMPOSTED I PREFER FRUITS AND VEGETABLES WITH NO BLEMISHES AT LEAST ONE PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD IS A SKILLED COOK HAVING REGULAR FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD MEALS IS IMPORTANT GENERALLY, PREPARING FOOD FOR FRIENDS AND/OR FAMILY MAKES ME FEEL GOOD WHEN HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS EAT OUT IT IS USUALLY SPUR OF THE MOMENT, OR PLANNED WITH LESS THAN 48 HOURS' NOTICE WE CLEAN OUT OUR REFRIGERATOR REGULARLY (AT LEAST EVERY OTHER WEEK) IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE FINISH ALL FOOD THAT IS PUT ON OUR PLATES FOR A MEAL AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE DISAGREE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % % % % 82 11% 22 3% 17 2% % % 98 13% % % 16 2% % % 38 5% 27 4% 9 1% 17 2% % % % % % 18 2% % % % 63 9% 75 10% 18 2% % % % % % 20 3% 60 8% % 72 10% % % 20 3% % % % 99 14% % 19 3% % % % 41 6% 76 10% 21 3% % % % 95 13% 55 8% 22 3% % % 83 11% 31 4% 53 7% 20 3% % % 67 9% 13 2% 11 2% 20 3% % % 59 8% 21 3% 10 1% 22 3% % % 85 12% 68 9% 36 5% 22 3% % % % % % 21 3% % % % 80 11% 59 8% 22 3% Page 61 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

62 Q23. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS? (CONT.) NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO RESPONDED "AGREE" OR "SOMEWHAT AGREE" TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL WE ARE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT AVOIDING FOOD POISONING DATE LABELS ARE THE MAIN SOURCE OF INFORMATION WE USE WHEN DECIDING WHETHER TO THROW AWAY FOOD WE FREQUENTLY USE SIGHT, TASTE, OR SMELL TO DETERMINE IF FOOD IS SAFE TO EAT WE FREQUENTLY PUT FOODS THAT NEED TO BE USED SOON IN A CERTAIN PART OF THE REFRIGERATOR I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE TIME TO SPEND ON PREPARING AND COOKING FOOD WE FREQUENTLY PREPARE MEALS A DAY OR MORE IN ADVANCE WE FREQUENTLY EAT PREPARED OR FROZEN MEALS TO SAVE TIME I FEEL LESS GUILTY ABOUT WASTING FOOD THAT HAS BEEN IN THE REFRIGERATOR FOR A LONG TIME I FEEL LESS GUILTY ABOUT WASTING FOOD IF IT IS COMPOSTED I PREFER FRUITS AND VEGETABLES WITH NO BLEMISHES AT LEAST ONE PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD IS A SKILLED COOK HAVING REGULAR FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD MEALS IS IMPORTANT GENERALLY, PREPARING FOOD FOR FRIENDS AND/OR FAMILY MAKES ME FEEL GOOD WHEN HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS EAT OUT IT IS USUALLY SPUR OF THE MOMENT, OR PLANNED WITH LESS THAN 48 HOURS' NOTICE WE CLEAN OUT OUR REFRIGERATOR REGULARLY (AT LEAST EVERY OTHER WEEK) IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE FINISH ALL FOOD THAT IS PUT ON OUR PLATES FOR A MEAL 35 46% % % % 22 29% 97 44% % % 70 92% % % % 30 39% 95 43% % % 53 70% % % % 30 39% 89 40% % % 23 30% 63 28% % % 34 45% % % % 50 66% % % % 36 47% % % % 56 74% % % % 64 84% % % % 67 88% % % % 55 72% % % % 30 39% % % % 50 66% % % % Page 62 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

63 Q23. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS? (CONT.) NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO RESPONDED "DISAGREE" OR "SOMEWHAT DISAGREE" TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL WE ARE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT AVOIDING FOOD POISONING DATE LABELS ARE THE MAIN SOURCE OF INFORMATION WE USE WHEN DECIDING WHETHER TO THROW AWAY FOOD WE FREQUENTLY USE SIGHT, TASTE, OR SMELL TO DETERMINE IF FOOD IS SAFE TO EAT WE FREQUENTLY PUT FOODS THAT NEED TO BE USED SOON IN A CERTAIN PART OF THE REFRIGERATOR I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE TIME TO SPEND ON PREPARING AND COOKING FOOD WE FREQUENTLY PREPARE MEALS A DAY OR MORE IN ADVANCE WE FREQUENTLY EAT PREPARED OR FROZEN MEALS TO SAVE TIME I FEEL LESS GUILTY ABOUT WASTING FOOD THAT HAS BEEN IN THE REFRIGERATOR FOR A LONG TIME I FEEL LESS GUILTY ABOUT WASTING FOOD IF IT IS COMPOSTED I PREFER FRUITS AND VEGETABLES WITH NO BLEMISHES AT LEAST ONE PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD IS A SKILLED COOK HAVING REGULAR FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD MEALS IS IMPORTANT GENERALLY, PREPARING FOOD FOR FRIENDS AND/OR FAMILY MAKES ME FEEL GOOD WHEN HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS EAT OUT IT IS USUALLY SPUR OF THE MOMENT, OR PLANNED WITH LESS THAN 48 HOURS' NOTICE WE CLEAN OUT OUR REFRIGERATOR REGULARLY (AT LEAST EVERY OTHER WEEK) IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE FINISH ALL FOOD THAT IS PUT ON OUR PLATES FOR A MEAL 24 32% 32 14% 48 11% % 45 59% 92 41% % % 3 4% 9 4% 24 6% 36 5% 36 47% 91 41% % % 13 17% 43 19% 82 19% % 32 42% % % % 44 58% % % % 26 34% 81 36% % % 10 13% 33 15% 74 17% % 25 33% 51 23% 74 17% % 11 14% 24 11% 49 11% 84 12% 2 3% 7 3% 15 4% 24 3% 3 4% 8 4% 20 5% 31 4% 9 12% 33 15% 62 14% % 39 51% 73 33% % % 14 18% 46 21% 79 18% % Page 63 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

64 Q24. CONSIDERING THE FOOD THROWN AWAY IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD IN THE AVERAGE WEEK, HOW MUCH OF THAT FOOD DISPOSAL DO YOU THINK COULD BE AVOIDED (E.G. THROUGH PLANNING MEALS AHEAD OF TIME, CHANGING FOOD SHOPPING HABITS)? # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL NONE 7 9% 22 10% 45 11% 74 10% A LITTLE 52 68% % % % A FAIR AMOUNT 12 16% 47 21% % % A LOT 4 5% 13 6% 23 5% 40 6% (BLANK) 1 1% 1 0% 13 3% 15 2% TOTAL % % % % Q25. DO YOU THINK THE AMOUNT OF EDIBLE FOOD YOU THROW OUT IS MORE THAN, THE SAME AS, OR LESS THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN? # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL A LOT LESS 33 43% 90 41% % % A LITTLE BIT LESS 25 33% 77 35% % % THE SAME 12 16% 38 17% 63 15% % A LITTLE BIT MORE 4 5% 10 5% 20 5% 34 5% A LOT MORE 1 1% 6 3% 6 1% 13 2% (BLANK) 1 1% 1 0% 13 3% 15 2% TOTAL % % % % Q26. DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD CURRENTLY COMPOST FOOD? # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL NO 49 64% % % % YES, WE COMPOST AT OUR HOME YES, WE CONTRIBUTE TO COMMUNITY OR OTHER TYPE OF COMPOSTING YES, WE SUBSCRIBE TO A COMPOSTING SERVICE 23 30% 38 17% 47 11% % 2 3% 7 3% 52 12% 61 8% 1 1% 32 14% % % (BLANK) 1 1% 1 0% 15 4% 17 2% TOTAL % % % % Note that some respodets compost i more tha oe way, which is why idividual city totals may add up to >100%. Page 64 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

65 Q27. HOW OFTEN DO YOU AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS DURING THE AVERAGE WEEK? NASHVILLE REMOVE AND DISCARD ONLY THE BRUISED PARTS OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES INSTEAD OF THROWING AWAY THE ENTIRE FOOD TRY TO USE ALL PARTS OF FOOD ITEMS (E.G. BROCCOLI STALKS, BONES FOR SOUPS, ETC.) NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES MOST OF THE TIME ALWAYS (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % 4 5% 7 9% 15 20% 27 36% 22 29% 1 1% 5 7% 15 20% 22 29% 20 26% 13 17% 1 1% PRIORITIZE EATING LEFTOVERS 0 0% 4 5% 11 14% 34 45% 26 34% 1 1% FREEZE FOOD IF YOU THINK YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO EAT IT IN TIME DENVER REMOVE AND DISCARD ONLY THE BRUISED PARTS OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES INSTEAD OF THROWING AWAY THE ENTIRE FOOD TRY TO USE ALL PARTS OF FOOD ITEMS (E.G. BROCCOLI STALKS, BONES FOR SOUPS, ETC.) 3 4% 11 14% 15 20% 25 33% 20 26% 2 3% NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES MOST OF THE TIME ALWAYS (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % 6 3% 22 10% 62 28% 84 38% 47 21% 1 0% 19 9% 53 24% 71 32% 50 23% 27 12% 2 1% PRIORITIZE EATING LEFTOVERS 5 2% 12 5% 44 20% % 53 24% 3 1% FREEZE FOOD IF YOU THINK YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO EAT IT IN TIME NYC REMOVE AND DISCARD ONLY THE BRUISED PARTS OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES INSTEAD OF THROWING AWAY THE ENTIRE FOOD TRY TO USE ALL PARTS OF FOOD ITEMS (E.G. BROCCOLI STALKS, BONES FOR SOUPS, ETC.) 12 5% 17 8% 51 23% 76 34% 65 29% 1 0% NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES MOST OF THE TIME ALWAYS (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % 19 4% 41 10% % % % 20 5% 29 7% 59 14% % % 64 15% 19 4% PRIORITIZE EATING LEFTOVERS 8 2% 18 4% % % % 20 5% FREEZE FOOD IF YOU THINK YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO EAT IT IN TIME TOTAL REMOVE AND DISCARD ONLY THE BRUISED PARTS OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES INSTEAD OF THROWING AWAY THE ENTIRE FOOD TRY TO USE ALL PARTS OF FOOD ITEMS (E.G. BROCCOLI STALKS, BONES FOR SOUPS, ETC.) 19 4% 39 9% 81 19% % % 20 5% NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES MOST OF THE TIME ALWAYS (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % 29 4% 70 10% % % % 22 3% 53 7% % % % % 22 3% PRIORITIZE EATING LEFTOVERS 13 2% 34 5% % % % 24 3% FREEZE FOOD IF YOU THINK YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO EAT IT IN TIME 34 5% 67 9% % % % 23 3% Page 65 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

66 Q27. HOW OFTEN DO YOU AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS DURING THE AVERAGE WEEK? (CONT.) NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO "ALWAYS" OR "MOST OF THE TIME" TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS DURING THE AVERAGE WEEK: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL REMOVE AND DISCARD ONLY THE BRUISED PARTS OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES INSTEAD OF THROWING AWAY THE ENTIRE FOOD TRY TO USE ALL PARTS OF FOOD ITEMS (E.G. BROCCOLI STALKS, BONES FOR SOUPS, ETC.) 49 64% % % % 33 43% 77 35% % % PRIORITIZE EATING LEFTOVERS 60 79% % % % FREEZE FOOD IF YOU THINK YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO EAT IT IN TIME 45 59% % % % NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO "RARELY" OR "NEVER" TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS DURING THE AVERAGE WEEK: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL REMOVE AND DISCARD ONLY THE BRUISED PARTS OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES INSTEAD OF THROWING AWAY THE ENTIRE FOOD TRY TO USE ALL PARTS OF FOOD ITEMS (E.G. BROCCOLI STALKS, BONES FOR SOUPS, ETC.) 11 14% 28 13% 60 14% 99 14% 20 26% 72 32% 88 21% % PRIORITIZE EATING LEFTOVERS 4 5% 17 8% 26 6% 47 6% FREEZE FOOD IF YOU THINK YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO EAT IT IN TIME 14 18% 29 13% 58 14% % Q28. IN GENERAL, WHAT HAPPENS TO LEFTOVERS IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL LEFTOVERS ARE EATEN AS ANOTHER MEAL WITHOUT ALTERATION LEFTOVERS ARE USED AS PART OF ANOTHER MEAL (OTHER FOOD IS ADDED) 59 78% % % % 46 61% % % % LEFTOVERS ARE COMPOSTED 10 13% 20 9% 56 13% 86 12% LEFTOVERS ARE THROWN IN THE GARBAGE LEFTOVERS GET FED TO ANIMALS 18 24% 44 20% 77 18% % 9 12% 36 16% 31 7% 76 10% WE DON'T HAVE LEFTOVERS 3 4% 12 5% 22 5% 37 5% (BLANK) 0 0% 0 0% 8 2% 8 1% Page 66 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

67 Q29. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD? NASHVILLE WE ARE MORE LIKELY TO EAT LEFTOVERS FROM A RESTAURANT COMPARED TO LEFTOVERS FROM MEALS MADE AT HOME WE SOMETIMES SAVE LEFTOVERS EVEN IF WE THINK THAT WE MIGHT NOT EAT THEM SAVING LEFTOVERS MAKES ME FEEL LESS GUILTY THAN THROWING THE FOOD AWAY NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES MOST OF THE TIME ALWAYS (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % 5 7% 2 3% 21 28% 18 24% 29 38% 1 1% 22 29% 32 42% 4 5% 7 9% 10 13% 1 1% 42 55% 17 22% 9 12% 1 1% 6 8% 1 1% GENERALLY, WE DO NOT LIKE LEFTOVERS 2 3% 6 8% 3 4% 15 20% 49 64% 1 1% DENVER WE ARE MORE LIKELY TO EAT LEFTOVERS FROM A RESTAURANT COMPARED TO LEFTOVERS FROM MEALS MADE AT HOME WE SOMETIMES SAVE LEFTOVERS EVEN IF WE THINK THAT WE MIGHT NOT EAT THEM SAVING LEFTOVERS MAKES ME FEEL LESS GUILTY THAN THROWING THE FOOD AWAY NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES MOST OF THE TIME ALWAYS (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % 14 6% 13 6% 66 30% 52 23% 75 34% 2 1% 72 32% 84 38% 22 10% 22 10% 21 9% 1 0% % 55 25% 32 14% 6 3% 16 7% 2 1% GENERALLY, WE DO NOT LIKE LEFTOVERS 7 3% 16 7% 30 14% 47 21% % 1 0% NYC WE ARE MORE LIKELY TO EAT LEFTOVERS FROM A RESTAURANT COMPARED TO LEFTOVERS FROM MEALS MADE AT HOME WE SOMETIMES SAVE LEFTOVERS EVEN IF WE THINK THAT WE MIGHT NOT EAT THEM SAVING LEFTOVERS MAKES ME FEEL LESS GUILTY THAN THROWING THE FOOD AWAY NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES MOST OF THE TIME ALWAYS (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % 20 5% 43 10% 99 23% 80 19% % 22 5% % % 51 12% 27 6% 30 7% 21 5% % % 47 11% 13 3% 23 5% 22 5% GENERALLY, WE DO NOT LIKE LEFTOVERS 19 4% 46 11% 58 14% 80 19% % 23 5% TOTAL WE ARE MORE LIKELY TO EAT LEFTOVERS FROM A RESTAURANT COMPARED TO LEFTOVERS FROM MEALS MADE AT HOME WE SOMETIMES SAVE LEFTOVERS EVEN IF WE THINK THAT WE MIGHT NOT EAT THEM SAVING LEFTOVERS MAKES ME FEEL LESS GUILTY THAN THROWING THE FOOD AWAY NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES MOST OF THE TIME ALWAYS (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % 39 5% 58 8% % % % 25 3% % % 77 11% 56 8% 61 8% 23 3% % % 88 12% 20 3% 45 6% 25 3% GENERALLY, WE DO NOT LIKE LEFTOVERS 28 4% 68 9% 91 13% % % 25 3% Page 67 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

68 Q29. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD? (CONT.) NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO RESPONDED "AGREE" OR "SOMEWHAT AGREE" TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL WE ARE MORE LIKELY TO EAT LEFTOVERS FROM A RESTAURANT COMPARED TO LEFTOVERS FROM MEALS MADE AT HOME WE SOMETIMES SAVE LEFTOVERS EVEN IF WE THINK THAT WE MIGHT NOT EAT THEM SAVING LEFTOVERS MAKES ME FEEL LESS GUILTY THAN THROWING THE FOOD AWAY GENERALLY, WE DO NOT LIKE LEFTOVERS 7 9% 27 12% 63 15% 97 13% 54 71% % % % 59 78% % % % 8 11% 23 10% 65 15% 96 13% NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO RESPONDED "DISAGREE" OR "SOMEWHAT DISAGREE" TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL WE ARE MORE LIKELY TO EAT LEFTOVERS FROM A RESTAURANT COMPARED TO LEFTOVERS FROM MEALS MADE AT HOME WE SOMETIMES SAVE LEFTOVERS EVEN IF WE THINK THAT WE MIGHT NOT EAT THEM SAVING LEFTOVERS MAKES ME FEEL LESS GUILTY THAN THROWING THE FOOD AWAY GENERALLY, WE DO NOT LIKE LEFTOVERS 47 62% % % % 17 22% 43 19% 57 13% % 7 9% 22 10% 36 8% 65 9% 64 84% % % % Q30. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD? NASHVILLE IN THE PAST YEAR, MY HOUSEHOLD HAS MADE AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY MY HOUSEHOLD HAS COMPLETE CONTROL OVER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY PEOPLE AROUND ME BELIEVE MY HOUSEHOLD SHOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY MY HOUSEHOLD BELIEVES THAT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY WOULD BE GOOD MY HOUSEHOLD INTENDS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF FOOD THAT IS THROWN AWAY IN THIS COUNTRY, THE ACTIONS OF MY HOUSEHOLD WON'T MAKE A MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF FOOD BEING WASTED AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE DISAGREE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % 19 25% 21 28% 18 24% 4 5% 12 16% 2 3% 34 45% 18 24% 12 16% 8 11% 3 4% 1 1% 2 3% 7 9% 25 33% 3 4% 38 50% 1 1% 43 57% 17 22% 11 14% 0 0% 4 5% 1 1% 34 45% 14 18% 21 28% 2 3% 4 5% 1 1% 5 7% 13 17% 11 14% 14 18% 32 42% 1 1% Page 68 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

69 Q30. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD? (CONT.) DENVER IN THE PAST YEAR, MY HOUSEHOLD HAS MADE AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY MY HOUSEHOLD HAS COMPLETE CONTROL OVER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY PEOPLE AROUND ME BELIEVE MY HOUSEHOLD SHOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY MY HOUSEHOLD BELIEVES THAT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY WOULD BE GOOD MY HOUSEHOLD INTENDS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF FOOD THAT IS THROWN AWAY IN THIS COUNTRY, THE ACTIONS OF MY HOUSEHOLD WON'T MAKE A MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF FOOD BEING WASTED NYC IN THE PAST YEAR, MY HOUSEHOLD HAS MADE AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY MY HOUSEHOLD HAS COMPLETE CONTROL OVER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY PEOPLE AROUND ME BELIEVE MY HOUSEHOLD SHOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY MY HOUSEHOLD BELIEVES THAT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY WOULD BE GOOD MY HOUSEHOLD INTENDS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF FOOD THAT IS THROWN AWAY IN THIS COUNTRY, THE ACTIONS OF MY HOUSEHOLD WON'T MAKE A MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF FOOD BEING WASTED AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE DISAGREE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % 64 29% 66 30% 59 27% 18 8% 14 6% 1 0% 95 43% 73 33% 33 15% 16 7% 4 2% 1 0% 15 7% 20 9% 68 31% 16 7% % 1 0% % 54 24% 27 12% 3 1% 3 1% 2 1% % 67 30% 41 18% 5 2% 5 2% 2 1% 16 7% 34 15% 33 15% 52 23% 86 39% 1 0% AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE DISAGREE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % % % 89 21% 29 7% 38 9% 21 5% % % 69 16% 39 9% 9 2% 22 5% 28 7% 35 8% % 36 8% % 25 6% % % 70 16% 7 2% 9 2% 24 6% % % 86 20% 15 4% 9 2% 26 6% 35 8% 67 16% 75 18% 76 18% % 24 6% Page 69 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

70 Q30. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD? (CONT.) TOTAL IN THE PAST YEAR, MY HOUSEHOLD HAS MADE AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY MY HOUSEHOLD HAS COMPLETE CONTROL OVER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY PEOPLE AROUND ME BELIEVE MY HOUSEHOLD SHOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY MY HOUSEHOLD BELIEVES THAT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY WOULD BE GOOD MY HOUSEHOLD INTENDS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF FOOD THAT IS THROWN AWAY IN THIS COUNTRY, THE ACTIONS OF MY HOUSEHOLD WON'T MAKE A MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF FOOD BEING WASTED AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE DISAGREE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % % % % 51 7% 64 9% 24 3% % % % 63 9% 16 2% 24 3% 45 6% 62 9% % 55 8% % 27 4% % % % 10 1% 16 2% 27 4% % % % 22 3% 18 2% 29 4% 56 8% % % % % 26 4% NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO RESPONDED "AGREE" OR "SOMEWHAT AGREE" TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL IN THE PAST YEAR, MY HOUSEHOLD HAS MADE AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY MY HOUSEHOLD HAS COMPLETE CONTROL OVER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY PEOPLE AROUND ME BELIEVE MY HOUSEHOLD SHOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY MY HOUSEHOLD BELIEVES THAT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY WOULD BE GOOD MY HOUSEHOLD INTENDS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF FOOD THAT IS THROWN AWAY IN THIS COUNTRY, THE ACTIONS OF MY HOUSEHOLD WON'T MAKE A MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF FOOD BEING WASTED 40 53% % % % 52 68% % % % 9 12% 35 16% 63 15% % 60 79% % % % 48 63% % % % 18 24% 50 23% % % Page 70 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

71 Q30. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD? (CONT.) NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO RESPONDED "DISAGREE" OR "SOMEWHAT DISAGREE" TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL IN THE PAST YEAR, MY HOUSEHOLD HAS MADE AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY MY HOUSEHOLD HAS COMPLETE CONTROL OVER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY PEOPLE AROUND ME BELIEVE MY HOUSEHOLD SHOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY MY HOUSEHOLD BELIEVES THAT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY WOULD BE GOOD MY HOUSEHOLD INTENDS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF FOOD THAT IS THROWN AWAY IN THIS COUNTRY, THE ACTIONS OF MY HOUSEHOLD WON'T MAKE A MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF FOOD BEING WASTED 16 21% 32 14% 67 16% % 11 14% 20 9% 48 11% 79 11% 41 54% % % % 4 5% 6 3% 16 4% 26 4% 6 8% 10 5% 24 6% 40 6% 46 61% % % % Q31. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD? NASHVILLE REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE ENERGY REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE WATER REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD FEED HUNGRY PEOPLE REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF MY HOUSEHOLD REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE MY HOUSEHOLD MONEY REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD DECREASE LANDFILL USE REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD DECREASE CARBON EMISSIONS AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE DISAGREE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % 41 54% 19 25% 11 14% 0 0% 4 5% 2 3% 45 59% 16 21% 10 13% 1 1% 3 4% 1 1% 16 21% 16 21% 15 20% 19 25% 9 12% 1 1% 18 24% 18 24% 24 32% 7 9% 8 11% 1 1% 56 74% 11 14% 4 5% 2 3% 2 3% 1 1% 56 74% 6 8% 6 8% 2 3% 4 5% 2 3% 48 63% 13 17% 9 12% 2 3% 3 4% 1 1% Page 71 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

72 Q31. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD? (CONT.) DENVER REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE ENERGY REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE WATER REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD FEED HUNGRY PEOPLE REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF MY HOUSEHOLD REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE MY HOUSEHOLD MONEY REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD DECREASE LANDFILL USE REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD DECREASE CARBON EMISSIONS NYC REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE ENERGY REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE WATER REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD FEED HUNGRY PEOPLE REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF MY HOUSEHOLD REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE MY HOUSEHOLD MONEY REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD DECREASE LANDFILL USE REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD DECREASE CARBON EMISSIONS AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE DISAGREE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % % 55 25% 41 18% 9 4% 7 3% 1 0% % 45 20% 56 25% 8 4% 5 2% 2 1% 53 24% 42 19% 57 26% 43 19% 26 12% 1 0% 40 18% 50 23% 87 39% 26 12% 18 8% 1 0% % 52 23% 14 6% 6 3% 2 1% 2 1% % 38 17% 18 8% 6 3% 8 4% 4 2% % 45 20% 46 21% 5 2% 6 3% 4 2% AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE DISAGREE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % % 97 23% 86 20% 9 2% 8 2% 18 4% % 99 23% 99 23% 11 3% 10 2% 18 4% % 82 19% % 45 11% 50 12% 19 4% 91 21% 81 19% % 50 12% 49 11% 19 4% % 97 23% 27 6% 4 1% 15 4% 19 4% % 87 20% 39 9% 10 2% 13 3% 21 5% % % 67 16% 9 2% 10 2% 24 6% Page 72 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

73 Q31. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD? (CONT.) TOTAL REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE ENERGY REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE WATER REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD FEED HUNGRY PEOPLE REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF MY HOUSEHOLD REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE MY HOUSEHOLD MONEY REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD DECREASE LANDFILL USE REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD DECREASE CARBON EMISSIONS AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE DISAGREE (BLANK) # % # % # % # % # % # % % % % 18 2% 19 3% 21 3% % % % 20 3% 18 2% 21 3% % % % % 85 12% 21 3% % % % 83 11% 75 10% 21 3% % % 45 6% 12 2% 19 3% 22 3% % % 63 9% 18 2% 25 3% 27 4% % % % 16 2% 19 3% 29 4% NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO RESPONDED "AGREE" OR "SOMEWHAT AGREE" TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE ENERGY REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE WATER REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD FEED HUNGRY PEOPLE REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF MY HOUSEHOLD REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE MY HOUSEHOLD MONEY REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD DECREASE LANDFILL USE REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD DECREASE CARBON EMISSIONS 60 79% % % % 61 80% % % % 32 42% 95 43% % % 36 47% 90 41% % % 67 88% % % % 62 82% % % % 61 80% % % % Page 73 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

74 Q31. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD? (CONT.) NUMBER/PERCENTAGE WHO RESPONDED "DISAGREE" OR "SOMEWHAT DISAGREE" TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS: # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE ENERGY REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE WATER REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD FEED HUNGRY PEOPLE REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF MY HOUSEHOLD REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE MY HOUSEHOLD MONEY REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD DECREASE LANDFILL USE REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD DECREASE CARBON EMISSIONS 4 5% 16 7% 17 4% 37 5% 4 5% 13 6% 21 5% 38 5% 28 37% 69 31% 95 22% % 15 20% 44 20% 99 23% % 4 5% 8 4% 19 4% 31 4% 6 8% 14 6% 23 5% 43 6% 5 7% 11 5% 19 4% 35 5% Page 74 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

75 Appedix G: Residetial Bi Dig Data NASHVILLE ALL RESIDENTIAL TRASH BIN DIG SUMMARY FOOD TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD % OF TRASH INEDIBLE % 6% MEAT & FISH 18 3% 1% DAIRY & EGGS 8 1% 0% FRUITS & VEGETABLES % 6% BAKED GOODS 34 6% 1% DRY FOOD 22 4% 1% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 26 4% 1% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 47 8% 2% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS % 7% UNIDENTIFIABLE 4 1% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE % 20% SUBTOTAL FOOD WASTE % 26% DENVER ALL RESIDENTIAL TRASH BIN DIG SUMMARY FOOD TOTAL % OF WASTED POUNDS FOOD % OF TRASH INEDIBLE % 10% MEAT & FISH 17 3% 1% DAIRY & EGGS 7 1% 0% FRUITS & VEGETABLES % 6% BAKED GOODS 30 6% 2% DRY FOOD 5 1% 0% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 26 5% 1% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 30 6% 2% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS 79 16% 4% UNIDENTIFIABLE 1 0% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE % 16% SUBTOTAL FOOD WASTE % 26% NON-FOOD FOOD SOILED PAPER 138 N/A 6% YARD WASTE 11 N/A 0% GLASS 242 N/A 10% PAPER 256 N/A 11% METAL 83 N/A 4% RIGID PLASTIC 117 N/A 5% PLASTIC FILM 146 N/A 6% OTHER 718 N/A 31% SUBTOTAL NON-FOOD 1711 N/A 74% NON-FOOD FOOD SOILED PAPER 104 N/A 5% YARD WASTE 465 N/A 24% GLASS 35 N/A 2% PAPER 101 N/A 5% METAL 31 N/A 2% RIGID PLASTIC 43 N/A 2% PLASTIC FILM 80 N/A 4% OTHER 612 N/A 31% SUBTOTAL NON-FOOD 1471 N/A 74% TOTAL TRASH 2318 N/A 100% TOTAL TRASH 1977 N/A 100% Page 75 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

76 NYC ALL RESIDENTIAL TRASH BIN DIG SUMMARY FOOD TOTAL % OF WASTED POUNDS FOOD % OF TRASH INEDIBLE % 15% MEAT & FISH 23 4% 1% DAIRY & EGGS 9 1% 0% FRUITS & VEGETABLES 94 15% 5% BAKED GOODS 38 6% 2% DRY FOOD 11 2% 1% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 19 3% 1% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 11 2% 1% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS % 8% UNIDENTIFIABLE 0 0% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE % 20% SUBTOTAL FOOD WASTE % 35% ALL CITIES RESIDENTIAL TRASH BIN DIG SUMMARY FOOD TOTAL % OF WASTED POUNDS FOOD % OF TRASH INEDIBLE % 10% MEAT & FISH 58 3% 1% DAIRY & EGGS 24 1% 0% FRUITS & VEGETABLES % 6% BAKED GOODS 102 6% 2% DRY FOOD 38 2% 1% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 71 4% 1% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 88 5% 1% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS % 7% UNIDENTIFIABLE 5 0% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE % 19% SUBTOTAL FOOD WASTE % 29% NON-FOOD FOOD SOILED PAPER 225 N/A 12% YARD WASTE 14 N/A 1% GLASS 38 N/A 2% PAPER 161 N/A 9% METAL 24 N/A 1% RIGID PLASTIC 58 N/A 3% PLASTIC FILM 134 N/A 7% OTHER 530 N/A 29% SUBTOTAL NON-FOOD 1184 N/A 65% NON-FOOD FOOD SOILED PAPER 467 N/A 8% YARD WASTE 490 N/A 8% GLASS 315 N/A 5% PAPER 518 N/A 8% METAL 138 N/A 2% RIGID PLASTIC 218 N/A 4% PLASTIC FILM 360 N/A 6% OTHER 1860 N/A 30% SUBTOTAL NON-FOOD 4366 N/A 71% TOTAL TRASH 1821 N/A 100% TOTAL TRASH 6116 N/A 100% Page 76 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

77 COMPARISON OF TRASH BIN DIGS TO DIARIES (ALL DISCARD DESTINATIONS): NASHVILLE BIN DIGS DIARIES TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD DIFFERENCE IN % OF WASTED FOOD (DIARIES MINUS BIN DIGS) INEDIBLE % % 14% MEAT & FISH 18 3% 9 2% -1% DAIRY & EGGS 8 1% 18 5% 4% FRUITS & VEGETABLES % 84 24% 2% BAKED GOODS 34 6% 10 3% -3% DRY FOOD 22 4% 4 1% -2% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 26 4% 12 3% -1% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 47 8% 34 10% 2% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS % 48 14% -15% UNIDENTIFIABLE 4 1% 1 0% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE % % -14% TOTAL FOOD WASTE % % 0% COMPARISON OF TRASH BIN DIGS TO DIARIES (ALL DISCARD DESTINATIONS): DENVER BIN DIGS DIARIES TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD DIFFERENCE IN % OF WASTED FOOD (DIARIES MINUS BIN DIGS) INEDIBLE % % -13% MEAT & FISH 17 3% 72 6% 2% DAIRY & EGGS 7 1% 71 6% 4% FRUITS & VEGETABLES % % 5% BAKED GOODS 30 6% 67 5% -1% DRY FOOD 5 1% 6 0% -1% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 26 5% 31 2% -3% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 30 6% 111 9% 3% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS 79 16% % 3% UNIDENTIFIABLE 1 0% 5 0% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE % % 13% TOTAL FOOD WASTE % % 0% Page 77 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

78 COMPARISON OF TRASH BIN DIGS TO DIARIES (ALL DISCARD DESTINATIONS): NYC BIN DIGS DIARIES TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD DIFFERENCE IN % OF WASTED FOOD (DIARIES MINUS BIN DIGS) INEDIBLE % % -9% MEAT & FISH 23 4% 62 3% 0% DAIRY & EGGS 9 1% 78 4% 3% FRUITS & VEGETABLES 94 15% % 12% BAKED GOODS 38 6% 79 4% -2% DRY FOOD 11 2% 20 1% -1% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 19 3% 29 1% -2% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 11 2% 82 4% 2% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS % % -3% UNIDENTIFIABLE 0 0% 0 0% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE % % 9% TOTAL FOOD WASTE % % 0% COMPARISON OF TRASH BIN DIGS TO DIARIES (ALL DISCARD DESTINATIONS): ALL CITIES BIN DIGS DIARIES TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD DIFFERENCE IN % OF WASTED FOOD (DIARIES MINUS BIN DIGS) INEDIBLE % % -3% MEAT & FISH 58 3% 142 4% 1% DAIRY & EGGS 24 1% 168 5% 3% FRUITS & VEGETABLES % % 7% BAKED GOODS 102 6% 156 4% -2% DRY FOOD 38 2% 30 1% -1% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 71 4% 71 2% -2% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 88 5% 226 6% 1% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS % % -4% UNIDENTIFIABLE 5 0% 5 0% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE % % 3% TOTAL FOOD WASTE % % 0% Page 78 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

79 COMPARISON OF TRASH BIN DIGS TO DIARIES (TRASH ONLY): NASHVILLE BIN DIGS DIARIES TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD DIFFERENCE IN % OF WASTED FOOD (DIARIES MINUS BIN DIGS) INEDIBLE % 69 38% 15% MEAT & FISH 18 3% 7 4% 1% DAIRY & EGGS 8 1% 7 4% 3% FRUITS & VEGETABLES % 45 25% 2% BAKED GOODS 34 6% 8 4% -1% DRY FOOD 22 4% 1 1% -3% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 26 4% 8 4% 0% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 47 8% 2 1% -7% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS % 33 18% -10% UNIDENTIFIABLE 4 1% 1 1% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE % % -15% TOTAL FOOD WASTE % % 0% COMPARISON OF TRASH BIN DIGS TO DIARIES (TRASH ONLY): DENVER BIN DIGS DIARIES TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD DIFFERENCE IN % OF WASTED FOOD (DIARIES MINUS BIN DIGS) INEDIBLE % % -14% MEAT & FISH 17 3% 54 8% 4% DAIRY & EGGS 7 1% 27 4% 2% FRUITS & VEGETABLES % % 6% BAKED GOODS 30 6% 46 7% 1% DRY FOOD 5 1% 4 1% 0% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 26 5% 19 3% -2% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 30 6% 17 2% -3% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS 79 16% % 6% UNIDENTIFIABLE 1 0% 3 0% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE % % 14% TOTAL FOOD WASTE % % 0% Page 79 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

80 COMPARISON OF TRASH BIN DIGS TO DIARIES (TRASH ONLY): NYC BIN DIGS DIARIES TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD DIFFERENCE IN % OF WASTED FOOD (DIARIES MINUS BIN DIGS) INEDIBLE % % -8% MEAT & FISH 23 4% 44 4% 1% DAIRY & EGGS 9 1% 21 2% 1% FRUITS & VEGETABLES 94 15% % 13% BAKED GOODS 38 6% 48 5% -1% DRY FOOD 11 2% 9 1% -1% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 19 3% 19 2% -1% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 11 2% 10 1% -1% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS % % -2% UNIDENTIFIABLE 0 0% 0 0% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE % % 8% TOTAL FOOD WASTE % % 0% COMPARISON OF TRASH BIN DIGS TO DIARIES (TRASH ONLY): ALL CITIES BIN DIGS DIARIES TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD DIFFERENCE IN % OF WASTED FOOD (DIARIES MINUS BIN DIGS) INEDIBLE % % -3% MEAT & FISH 58 3% 106 6% 2% DAIRY & EGGS 24 1% 56 3% 2% FRUITS & VEGETABLES % % 8% BAKED GOODS 102 6% 101 5% -1% DRY FOOD 38 2% 15 1% -1% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 71 4% 45 2% -2% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 88 5% 29 2% -4% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS % % -1% UNIDENTIFIABLE 5 0% 4 0% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE 1,139 65% 1,306 68% 3% TOTAL FOOD WASTE 1, % 1, % 0% Page 80 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

81 DENVER ALL RESIDENTIAL COMPOST BIN DIG SUMMARY FOOD TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD % OF TRASH INEDIBLE 73 65% 15% MEAT & FISH 4 4% 1% DAIRY & EGGS 0 0% 0% FRUITS & VEGETABLES 28 25% 6% BAKED GOODS 4 4% 1% DRY FOOD 0 0% 0% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 0 0% 0% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 0 0% 0% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS 4 4% 1% UNIDENTIFIABLE 0 0% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE 40 35% 8% SUBTOTAL FOOD WASTE % 23% NYC ALL RESIDENTIAL COMPOST BIN DIG SUMMARY FOOD TOTAL % OF WASTED % OF POUNDS FOOD TRASH INEDIBLE % 64% MEAT & FISH 5 3% 2% DAIRY & EGGS 2 1% 1% FRUITS & VEGETABLES 16 9% 8% BAKED GOODS 6 3% 3% DRY FOOD 1 1% 0% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 4 2% 2% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 0 0% 0% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS 11 6% 5% UNIDENTIFIABLE 0 0% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE 45 25% 22% SUBTOTAL FOOD WASTE % 86% NON-FOOD FOOD SOILED PAPER 22 N/A 4% YARD WASTE 350 N/A 70% GLASS 4 N/A 1% PAPER 3 N/A 1% METAL 1 N/A 0% RIGID PLASTIC 1 N/A 0% PLASTIC FILM 1 N/A 0% OTHER 4 N/A 1% SUBTOTAL NON-FOOD 386 N/A 77% NON-FOOD FOOD SOILED PAPER 18 N/A 9% YARD WASTE 9 N/A 4% GLASS 0 N/A 0% PAPER 0 N/A 0% METAL 0 N/A 0% RIGID PLASTIC 0 N/A 0% PLASTIC FILM 2 N/A 1% OTHER 0 N/A 0% SUBTOTAL NON-FOOD 29 N/A 14% TOTAL COMPOST 499 N/A 100% TOTAL COMPOST 207 N/A 100% Page 81 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

82 ALL CITIES RESIDENTIAL COMPOST BIN DIG SUMMARY FOOD TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD % OF COMPOST INEDIBLE % 29% MEAT & FISH 9 3% 1% DAIRY & EGGS 2 1% 0% FRUITS & VEGETABLES 44 15% 6% BAKED GOODS 10 3% 1% DRY FOOD 1 0% 0% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 4 1% 1% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 0 0% 0% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS 15 5% 2% UNIDENTIFIABLE 0 0% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE 85 29% 12% SUBTOTAL FOOD WASTE % 41% NON-FOOD FOOD SOILED PAPER 40 N/A 6% YARD WASTE 359 N/A 51% GLASS 4 N/A 1% PAPER 3 N/A 0% METAL 1 N/A 0% RIGID PLASTIC 1 N/A 0% PLASTIC FILM 3 N/A 0% OTHER 4 N/A 1% SUBTOTAL NON-FOOD 415 N/A 59% TOTAL TRASH 706 N/A 100% Page 82 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

83 COMPARISON OF COMPOST BIN DIGS TO DIARIES (COMPOST ONLY): DENVER BIN DIGS DIARIES TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD DIFFERENCE IN % OF WASTED FOOD (DIARIES MINUS BIN DIGS) INEDIBLE 73 65% 66 38% -26% MEAT & FISH 4 4% 7 4% 0% DAIRY & EGGS 0 0% 1 1% 1% FRUITS & VEGETABLES 28 25% 56 33% 8% BAKED GOODS 4 4% 7 4% 0% DRY FOOD 0 0% 1 0% 0% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 0 0% 1 1% 1% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 0 0% 1 0% 0% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS 4 4% 32 19% 15% UNIDENTIFIABLE 0 0% 0 0% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE 40 35% % 26% TOTAL FOOD WASTE % % 0% COMPARISON OF COMPOST BIN DIGS TO DIARIES (COMPOST ONLY): NYC BIN DIGS DIARIES TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD DIFFERENCE IN % OF WASTED FOOD (DIARIES MINUS BIN DIGS) INEDIBLE % % -35% MEAT & FISH 5 3% 11 3% 0% DAIRY & EGGS 2 1% 11 3% 1% FRUITS & VEGETABLES 16 9% % 20% BAKED GOODS 6 3% 22 5% 2% DRY FOOD 1 1% 6 1% 1% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 4 2% 4 1% -1% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 0 0% 5 1% 1% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS 11 6% 77 17% 11% UNIDENTIFIABLE 0 0% 0 0% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE 45 25% % 35% TOTAL FOOD WASTE % % 0% Page 83 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

84 COMPARISON OF COMPOST BIN DIGS TO DIARIES (COMPOST ONLY): ALL CITIES BIN DIGS DIARIES TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD TOTAL POUNDS % OF WASTED FOOD DIFFERENCE IN % OF WASTED FOOD (DIARIES MINUS BIN DIGS) INEDIBLE % % -31% MEAT & FISH 9 3% 18 3% 0% DAIRY & EGGS 2 1% 13 2% 1% FRUITS & VEGETABLES 44 15% % 15% BAKED GOODS 10 3% 29 5% 1% DRY FOOD 1 0% 6 1% 1% SNACKS & CONDIMENTS 4 1% 5 1% -1% LIQUIDS, OILS, & GREASE 0 0% 5 1% 1% PREPARED FOODS & LEFTOVERS 15 5% % 13% UNIDENTIFIABLE 0 0% 0 0% 0% SUBTOTAL EDIBLE 85 29% % 31% TOTAL FOOD WASTE % % 0% The followig charts compare Dever households that idicated they participate i city compostig with Dever households that idicated they do ot participate i city compostig. Highlighted cells are those associated with t-tests. Asterisked umbers are those that are statistically sigificat (P<0.1). Note: Of the 25 households that claimed to compost, oly 14 actually set out compost. Oe of the homes oly set out compost without trash, so the umber of trash samples was 24 istead of 25. DENVER COMPARISON PER CAPITA (TRASH AND COMPOST) DOES NOT COMPOST COMPOSTS TRASH COMPOST TRASH TRASH+COMPOST POUNDS WASTED FOOD PER CAPITA POUNDS EDIBLE FOOD PER CAPITA % EDIBLE POUNDS WASTED FOOD PER CAPITA POUNDS EDIBLE FOOD PER CAPITA % EDIBLE POUNDS WASTED FOOD PER CAPITA POUNDS EDIBLE FOOD PER CAPITA % EDIBLE POUNDS WASTED FOOD PER CAPITA POUNDS EDIBLE FOOD PER CAPITA % EDIBLE Average % % % % St Dev % % % % T-Test Score 0.020* 0.032* DENVER COMPARISON BY HOUSEHOLD (TRASH AND COMPOST) DOES NOT COMPOST COMPOSTS TRASH COMPOST TRASH TRASH+COMPOST POUNDS POUNDS WASTED EDIBLE FOOD PER FOOD PER HOUSEHOLD HOUSEHOLD % EDIBLE POUNDS WASTED FOOD POUNDS EDIBLE FOOD PER HOUSEHOLD % EDIBLE POUNDS POUNDS WASTED EDIBLE FOOD PER FOOD PER HOUSEHOLD HOUSEHOLD % EDIBLE POUNDS POUNDS WASTED EDIBLE FOOD PER FOOD PER HOUSEHOLD HOUSEHOLD % EDIBLE Average % % % % St Dev % % % % T-Test Score Page 84 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

85 DENVER COMPARISON PER CAPITA (TRASH ONLY) DOES NOT COMPOST COMPOSTS POUNDS TRASH PER CAPITA POUNDS WASTED FOOD PER CAPITA POUNDS EDIBLE PER CAPITA % FOOD IN TRASH POUNDS TRASH PER CAPITA POUNDS WASTED FOOD PER CAPITA POUNDS EDIBLE PER CAPITA % FOOD IN TRASH Average % % St Dev % % T-Test Score 0.061* 0.001* 0.006* 0.001* DENVER COMPARISON BY HOUSEHOLD (TRASH ONLY) DOES NOT COMPOST COMPOSTS POUNDS TRASH PER HOUSEHOLD POUNDS WASTED FOOD PER HOUSEHOLD POUNDS EDIBLE PER HOUSEHOLD % FOOD IN TRASH POUNDS TRASH PER HOUSEHOLD POUNDS WASTED FOOD PER HOUSEHOLD POUNDS EDIBLE PER HOUSEHOLD % FOOD IN TRASH Average % % St Dev % % T-Test Score 0.083* 0.009* 0.024* 0.001* The followig charts compare NYC households that idicated they participate i city compostig with NYC households that idicated they do ot participate i city compostig. Highlighted cells are those associated with t-tests. Asterisked umbers are those that are statistically sigificat (P<0.1). Note: Of the 27 households that claimed to compost, oly 7 actually set out compost. Oe of the homes oly set out compost without trash, so there were oly 6 trash samples for the compostig group. NYC COMPARISON PER CAPITA (TRASH AND COMPOST) DOES NOT COMPOST COMPOSTS TRASH COMPOST TRASH TRASH+COMPOST POUNDS WASTED FOOD PER CAPITA POUNDS EDIBLE FOOD PER CAPITA % EDIBLE POUNDS WASTED FOOD PER CAPITA POUNDS EDIBLE FOOD PER CAPITA % EDIBLE POUNDS WASTED FOOD PER CAPITA POUNDS EDIBLE FOOD PER CAPITA % EDIBLE POUNDS WASTED FOOD PER CAPITA POUNDS EDIBLE FOOD PER CAPITA % EDIBLE Average % % % % St Dev % % % % T-Test Score Page 85 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

86 NYC COMPARISON BY HOUSEHOLD (TRASH AND COMPOST) DOES NOT COMPOST COMPOSTS TRASH COMPOST TRASH TRASH+COMPOST POUNDS WASTED FOOD PER HOUSEHOLD POUNDS EDIBLE FOOD PER HOUSEHOLD % EDIBLE POUNDS POUNDS WASTED EDIBLE FOOD PER FOOD PER HOUSEHOLD HOUSEHOLD % EDIBLE POUNDS POUNDS WASTED EDIBLE FOOD PER FOOD PER HOUSEHOLD HOUSEHOLD % EDIBLE POUNDS POUNDS WASTED EDIBLE FOOD PER FOOD PER HOUSEHOLD HOUSEHOLD % EDIBLE Average % % % % St Dev % % % % T-Test Score NYC COMPARISON PER CAPITA (TRASH ONLY) DOES NOT COMPOST COMPOSTS POUNDS TRASH PER CAPITA POUNDS WASTED FOOD PER CAPITA POUNDS EDIBLE PER CAPITA % FOOD IN TRASH POUNDS TRASH PER CAPITA POUNDS WASTED FOOD PER CAPITA POUNDS EDIBLE PER CAPITA % FOOD IN TRASH Average % % St Dev % % T-Test Score * 0.019* 0.001* NYC COMPARISON BY HOUSEHOLD (TRASH ONLY) DOES NOT COMPOST COMPOSTS POUNDS TRASH PER HOUSEHOLD POUNDS WASTED FOOD PER HOUSEHOLD POUNDS EDIBLE PER HOUSEHOLD % FOOD IN TRASH POUNDS TRASH PER HOUSEHOLD POUNDS WASTED FOOD POUNDS EDIBLE PER HOUSEHOLD % FOOD IN TRASH Average % % St Dev % % T-Test Score * 0.024* 0.001* Page 86 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

87 Appedix H: Comparig Demographics with Wasted Food Geeratio The followig aalysis compares per capita-level total ad edible food waste geerated (as determied by kitche diaries) to household demographics collected i the first survey. To do this, t-tests were performed to determie relatioships betwee amout of food waste geerated per capita ad demographic variables (e.g. presece of childre i the household, icome). T-tests are tests of sigificace to help determie if two groups are likely to be differet or if their differece is likely a result of radomess. The outcome of the t-test is a p-value. The lower the p-value, the more likely the differece betwee the two groups is ot a result of radom chace. For the purposes of this aalysis, we will cosider ay p-value of uder.1 (or 10% chace of beig a result of radom chace) to be sigificat. Please ote that a sigificat t-test does ot provide defiitive evidece of associatio, but does idicate there is a high likelihood of associatio. A t-test will ot prove causatio of ay kid. Table 1 provides a summary of which demographics had statistically sigificat relatioships with per capita food waste geeratio for all three cities. Tables 2-4 provide more detailed iformatio about the results by city. For example (see Row 2 i Table 2 for Nashville below), a t-test was performed to determie whether household size (sigle-perso or multi-perso household) is related to amouts of total ad edible food waste geerated i Nashville. P-values of.02 for total food waste ad.03 for edible food waste were calculated. These p-values (both less tha.1) idicate that household size is likely related to the amout of food wasted. From examiig the data, the directio of the relatioship ca be oted. Sigle-perso households geerate more wasted food per capita tha multi-perso households. Note 1: The results i terms of food wasted per capita are ot ormally distributed (see histograms of distributio i Appedix D). For the statistical calculatios used i our aalysis, a ormal distributio is a required assumptio. However, because of the large sample size of our data i all three cities, the o-ormal distributio is likely to have a miimal effect o the statistical aalysis. 1 Note 2: We foud that per capita is the appropriate level of aalysis for this compared to household, because household size cofouds the relatioships. Specifically, we foud that may demographics are tightly related to household size. For example, i our study populatio, households i which ethicity of members was primarily idetified as white have a lower average household size compared to o-white households, so a aalysis at the household level would likely show higher food waste geeratio i o-white households, solely because there are more people i those households. However, doig the same aalysis at the per capita level may idicate that for those two groups, food waste geeratio may be lower i the o-white households. 1 Thomas Lumley, Paula Diehr, Scott Emerso, ad Lu Che, The Importace of the Normality Assumptio i Large Public Health Data Sets, Aual Review of Public Health, Volume 23, 2002, Page 87 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

88 TABLE 1: ALL CITIES SUMMARY COMPARING DEMOGRAPHICS WITH PER CAPITA FOOD WASTE GENERATION T-TEST RESULTS - SIGNIFICANCE NASHVILLE DENVER NEW YORK CITY DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES Household Compositio: Family (related idividuals) vs. No-Family (o-related idividuals) Households Household Size: Sigle-Perso Households vs. Multi-Perso Households Household Size: Households with 4 or more people vs. Households with less tha 4 people Maximum Age i Household: Milleial Age (19-35) vs. No-Milleial Age Maximum Age i Household: Households with maximum age greater tha 50 vs. Households with maximum age less tha 50 Average Age i Household (of members over 18): Milleial Age (19-35) vs. No-Milleial Age Average Age i Household (of members over 18): Households with maximum age greater tha 50 vs. Households with maximum age less tha 50 Household Compositio: Households with childre (uder 18) livig i household vs. Households without childre Householder Educatio: Households where at least oe perso has more tha a high school educatio vs. Households where o member has more tha a high school educatio Race/Ethicity: White vs. No-White Households Race/Ethicity: Black vs. No-Black Households Race/Ethicity: Mixed Race Households vs. No-Mixed Race Households TOTAL WASTED FOOD SIGNIFICANCE? EDIBLE WASTED FOOD SIGNIFICANCE? TOTAL WASTED FOOD SIGNIFICANCE? EDIBLE WASTED FOOD SIGNIFICANCE? TOTAL WASTED FOOD SIGNIFICANCE? EDIBLE WASTED FOOD SIGNIFICANCE? o o o o o o YES YES o o YES o YES YES YES o YES YES YES YES o o YES o o o o o o o YES YES o o YES o o o o o YES o YES YES YES YES o o o o YES YES YES o YES o o o YES o o o YES o o o o o o o o o Page 88 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

89 TABLE 1: ALL CITIES SUMMARY COMPARING DEMOGRAPHICS WITH PER CAPITA FOOD WASTE GENERATION (CONT.) T-TEST RESULTS - SIGNIFICANCE NASHVILLE DENVER NEW YORK CITY DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES Primary Laguage Spoke at Home: Eglish vs. No-Eglish Natioal Origi: Households with at least oe member bor outside of US vs. All members bor i US Icome: Household icomes less tha media household icome vs. Household icomes greater tha media (differet threshold for each city) Icome: Household icomes less tha mea household icome vs. Household icomes greater tha mea (differet threshold for each city) Food Expeditures for food eate at home: Households spedig less tha $50 per week vs. Households spedig more tha $50 per week Food Expeditures for food eate at home: Households spedig less tha $201 per week vs. Households spedig more tha $201 per week Food Expeditures for food eate away from home: Households spedig less tha $50 per week vs. Households spedig more tha $50 per week Food Expeditures for food eate away from home: Households spedig less tha $101 per week vs. Households spedig more tha $101 per week Kowledge of Food Waste Issues: Households that kow about the issue of wasted food vs. Households that do t kow about the issue of wasted food Compost: Households that curretly compost wasted food vs. Households that do ot curretly compost TOTAL WASTED FOOD SIGNIFICANCE? EDIBLE WASTED FOOD SIGNIFICANCE? TOTAL WASTED FOOD SIGNIFICANCE? EDIBLE WASTED FOOD SIGNIFICANCE? TOTAL WASTED FOOD SIGNIFICANCE? EDIBLE WASTED FOOD SIGNIFICANCE? o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o YES YES o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o /a /a o o YES o Page 89 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

90 TABLE 2: NASHVILLE COMPARING DEMOGRAPHICS WITH PER CAPITA FOOD WASTE GENERATION Household Compositio: Family (related idividuals) vs. No-Family (o-related idividuals) Households Household Size: Sigle-Perso Households vs. Multi-Perso Households Household Size: Households with 4 or more people vs. Households with less tha 4 people Maximum Age i Household: Milleial Age (19-35) vs. No-Milleial Age Maximum Age i Household: Households with maximum age greater tha 50 vs. Households with maximum age less tha 50 Average Age i Household (of members over 18): Milleial Age (19-35) vs. No-Milleial Age Average Age i Household (of members over 18): Households with maximum age greater tha 50 vs. Households with maximum age less tha 50 Household Compositio: Households with childre (uder 18) livig i household vs. Households without childre Householder Educatio: Households where at least oe perso has more tha a high school educatio vs. Households where o member has more tha a high school educatio P-VALUE FOR TOTAL FOOD WASTED SIGNIFICANT?.37 o.22 o.02 YES.03 YES.01 YES.03 YES.01 YES.03 YES.70 o.64 o.00 YES.02 YES.70 o.64 o.04 YES.07 YES.84 o.94 o Race/Ethicity: White vs. No-White Households.05 YES.20 o Race/Ethicity: Black vs. No-Black Households.31 o.99 o Race/Ethicity: Mixed Race Households vs. No- Mixed Race Households Primary Laguage Spoke at Home: Eglish vs. No-Eglish Natioal Origi: Households with at least oe member bor outside of US vs. All members bor i US Icome: Household icomes less tha $45k vs. Household icomes more tha $45k (based o Nashville media household icome) Icome: Household icomes less tha $65k vs. Household icomes more tha $65k (based o Nashville mea household icome).29 o.24 o.96 o.83 o.83 o.62 o.52 o.22 o.14 o.27 o P-VALUE FOR EDIBLE FOOD WASTED SIGNIFICANT? NOTES ON RELATIONSHIP Sigle-perso households waste more food per capita (total ad edible) tha multi-perso households. Households with 3 or fewer people waste more food per capita (total ad edible) tha households with more tha 4 people. Households with maximum age i the o-milleial rage waste more food per capita (total ad edible) tha milleials (19-35 rage). Households with average age i the o-milleial rage waste more food per capita (total ad edible) tha milleials (19-35 rage). Households without childre waste more food per capita (total ad edible) tha households with childre. White households waste more total food per capita tha o-white households. Page 90 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

91 TABLE 2: NASHVILLE COMPARING DEMOGRAPHICS WITH PER CAPITA FOOD WASTE GENERATION (CONT.) Food Expeditures for food eate at home: Households spedig less tha $50 per week vs. Households spedig more tha $50 per week Food Expeditures for food eate at home: Households spedig less tha $201 per week vs. Households spedig more tha $201 per week Food Expeditures for food eate away from home: Households spedig less tha $50 per week vs. Households spedig more tha $50 per week Food Expeditures for food eate away from home: Households spedig less tha $101 per week vs. Households spedig more tha $101 per week Kowledge of Food Waste Issues: Households that kow about the issue of wasted food vs. Households that do t kow about the issue of wasted food P-VALUE FOR TOTAL FOOD WASTED SIGNIFICANT?.27 o.66 o.00 YES.05 YES.90 o.77 o.85 o.58 o.63 o.74 o P-VALUE FOR EDIBLE FOOD WASTED SIGNIFICANT? NOTES ON RELATIONSHIP Households spedig less tha $201 per week o food eate at home waste more food per capita (total ad edible) tha those spedig more tha $201 per week. TABLE 3: DENVER COMPARING DEMOGRAPHICS WITH PER CAPITA FOOD WASTE GENERATION Household Compositio: Family (related idividuals) vs. No-Family (o-related idividuals) Households Household Size: Sigle- Perso Households vs. Multi-Perso Households Household Size: Households with 4 or more people vs. Households with less tha 4 people Maximum Age i Household: Milleial Age (19-35) vs. No-Milleial Age Maximum Age i Household: Households with maximum age greater tha 65 vs. Households with maximum age less tha 65 Average Age i Household (of members over 18): Milleial Age (19-35) vs. No-Milleial Age Average Age i Household (of members over 18): Households with maximum age greater tha 65 vs. Households with maximum age less tha 65 Household Compositio: Households with childre (uder 18) livig i household vs. Households without childre P-VALUE FOR TOTAL FOOD WASTED SIGNIFICANT?.76 o.60 o.20 o.18 o.00 YES.18 o.16 o.21 o.83 o.78 o.25 o.53 o.58 o.28 o.00 YES.02 YES P-VALUE FOR EDIBLE FOOD WASTED SIGNIFICANT? NOTES ON RELATIONSHIP Households with 3 or fewer people waste more total food per capita tha households with 4 or more. Households without childre waste more food per capita (total ad edible) tha households with childre. Page 91 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

92 TABLE 3: DENVER COMPARING DEMOGRAPHICS WITH PER CAPITA FOOD WASTE GENERATION (CONT.) Householder Educatio: Households where at least oe perso has more tha a high school educatio vs. Households where o member has more tha a high school educatio P-VALUE FOR TOTAL FOOD WASTED SIGNIFICANT?.08 YES.09 YES Race/Ethicity: White vs. No-White Households.41 o.96 o Race/Ethicity: Hispaic vs. No-Hispaic Households Race/Ethicity: Mixed Race Households vs. No-Mixed Race Households Primary Laguage Spoke at Home: Eglish vs. No-Eglish Primary Laguage Spoke at Home: Spaish vs. No-Spaish Natioal Origi: Households with at least oe member bor outside of U.S. vs. All members bor i U.S. Icome: Household icomes less tha $55k vs. Household icomes more tha $55k (based o Dever media household icome) Icome: Household icomes less tha $85k vs. Household icomes more tha $85k (based o Dever mea household icome) Food Expeditures for food eate at home: Households spedig less tha $50 per week vs. Households spedig more tha $50 per week Food Expeditures for food eate at home: Households spedig less tha $301 per week vs. Households spedig more tha $301 per week Food Expeditures for food eate away from home: Households spedig less tha $50 per week vs. Households spedig more tha $50 per week Food Expeditures for food eate away from home: Households spedig less tha $251 per week vs. Households spedig more tha $251 per week Kowledge of Food Waste Issues: Households that kow about the issue of wasted food vs. Households that do t kow about the issue of wasted food Compost: Households that curretly compost wasted food vs. Households that do ot curretly compost.10 YES.27 o.50 o.66 o.70 o.45 o.63 o.89 o.89 o.96 o.72 o.38 o.72 o.30 o.16 o.43 o.29 o.57 o.45 o.78 o.64 o.57 o.82 o.63 o.88 o.32 o P-VALUE FOR EDIBLE FOOD WASTED SIGNIFICANT? NOTES ON RELATIONSHIP Households where at least oe perso has more tha a high school educatio waste more food per capita (total ad edible) tha households where o member has more tha a high school educatio. No-Hispaic households waste more total food per capita tha Hispaic households. Page 92 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

93 TABLE 3: NYC COMPARING DEMOGRAPHICS WITH PER CAPITA FOOD WASTE GENERATION Household Compositio: Family (related idividuals) vs. No-Family (o-related idividuals) Households Household Size: Sigle-Perso Households vs. Multi-Perso Households Household Size: Households with 4 or more people vs. Households with less tha 4 people Maximum Age i Household: Milleial Age (19-35) vs. No-Milleial Age Maximum Age i Household: Households with maximum age greater tha 65 vs. Households with maximum age less tha 65 Average Age i Household (of members over 18): Milleial Age (19-35) vs. No-Milleial Age Average Age i Household (of members over 18): Households with maximum age greater tha 65 vs. Households with maximum age less tha 65 Household Compositio: Households with childre (uder 18) livig i household vs. Households without childre Householder Educatio: Households where at least oe perso has more tha a high school educatio vs. Households where o member has more tha a high school educatio P-VALUE FOR TOTAL FOOD WASTED SIGNIFICANT?.50 o.55 o.01 YES.29 o.00 YES.01 YES.10 YES.51 o.20 o.83 o.01 YES.25 o.04 YES.30 o.23 o.86 o.01 YES.19 o Race/Ethicity: White vs. No-White Households.02 YES.17 o Race/Ethicity: Hispaic vs. No-Hispaic Households.23 o.74 o Race/Ethicity: Asia vs. No-Asia Households.83 o.76 o Race/Ethicity: Mixed Race Households vs. No-Mixed Race Households Primary Laguage Spoke at Home: Eglish vs. No-Eglish Primary Laguage Spoke at Home: Spaish vs. No-Spaish Primary Laguage Spoke at Home: Chiese vs. No-Chiese.33 o.21 o.68 o.51 o.40 o.63 o.30 o.54 o P-VALUE FOR EDIBLE FOOD WASTED SIGNIFICANT? NOTES ON RELATIONSHIP Sigle-perso households waste more total food per capita tha multi-perso households. Households with 3 or fewer people waste more food (total ad edible) per capita tha households with 4 or more. Households where the oldest perso is over 35 waste more total food per capita tha households where the oldest perso is a milleial (19-35 rage). Households where the average age of people over 18 is greater tha 35 (omilleial) waste more total food per capita tha households with average ages betwee Households with average age greater tha 65 waste more total food per capita tha households with average age less tha 65. Households where at least oe perso has more tha a high school educatio waste more total food per capita tha households where o member has more tha a high school educatio. White households waste more total food per capita tha o-white households. Page 93 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

94 TABLE 3: NYC COMPARING DEMOGRAPHICS WITH PER CAPITA FOOD WASTE GENERATION (CONT.) Natioal Origi: Households with at least oe member bor outside of US vs. All members bor i US Icome: Household icomes less tha $55k vs. Household icomes more tha $55k (based o NYC media household icome) Icome: Household icomes less tha $85k vs. Household icomes more tha $85k (based o NYC mea household icome) Food Expeditures for food eate at home: Households spedig less tha $50 per week vs. Households spedig more tha $50 per week Food Expeditures for food eate at home: Households spedig less tha $301 per week vs. Households spedig more tha $301 per week Food Expeditures for food eate away from home: Households spedig less tha $50 per week vs. Households spedig more tha $50 per week Food Expeditures for food eate away from home: Households spedig less tha $251 per week vs. Households spedig more tha $251 per week Kowledge of Food Waste Issues: Households that kow about the issue of wasted food vs. Households that do t kow about the issue of wasted food Compost: Households that curretly compost wasted food vs. Households that do ot curretly compost P-VALUE FOR TOTAL FOOD WASTED SIGNIFICANT?.80 o.82 o.22 o.31 o.27 o.39 o.51 o.35 o.74 o.77 o.47 o.11 o.41 o.51 o.88 o.46 o.02 YES.70 o P-VALUE FOR EDIBLE FOOD WASTED SIGNIFICANT? NOTES ON RELATIONSHIP Households that compost waste more total food per capita tha households that do ot compost. Page 94 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

95 Appedix I: Comparig Attitudes ad Behaviors with Wasted Food Geeratio The followig aalysis compares per capita total ad edible food waste geerated (as determied by kitche diaries) to household attitudes ad behaviors collected i the first survey. To do this, two-tailed t-tests were performed to determie relatioships betwee amout of food geerated per capita ad demographic variables (e.g. presece of childre i the household, icome). T-tests are tests of sigificace to help determie if two groups are likely to be differet or if their differece is likely a result of radomess. The outcome of the t-test is a p-value. The lower the p-value, the more likely the differece betwee the two groups is ot a result of radom chace. For the purposes of this aalysis, we will cosider ay p-value of uder.1 (or 10% chace of beig a result of radom chace) to be sigificat. Please ote that a sigificat t-test does ot provide defiitive evidece of associatio, but does idicate there is a high likelihood of associatio. A t-test will ot prove causatio of ay kid. Note: Oly variables with statistically sigificat relatioships are listed below. TABLE 1: PER CAPITA COMPARISONS OF ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR WITH WASTED FOOD GENERATION ALL CITIES NASHVILLE DENVER NEW YORK CITY ATTITUDE/BEHAVIOR VARIABLES P-VALUE FOR TOTAL WASTED FOOD (P-VALUE FOR EDIBLE WASTED FOOD) DIRECTION OF RELATIONSHIP? P-VALUE FOR TOTAL WASTED FOOD (P-VALUE FOR EDIBLE WASTED FOOD) DIRECTION OF RELATIONSHIP? P-VALUE FOR TOTAL WASTED FOOD (P-VALUE FOR EDIBLE WASTED FOOD) DIRECTION OF RELATIONSHIP? Borrowed Car: Households usig borrowed car vs. households that do t use a borrowed car for food shoppig.08 Households that do t use a borrowed car for food shoppig waste more total food per capita..08 (.01) Households that use a borrowed car for food shoppig waste more food (total ad edible) per capita. Farmers Markets/CSAs: Households that get food from Farmers Markets & CSAs vs. those that do t.01 Households that do ot get food from Farmers Markets ad CSA waste more total food per capita. Backyard Gardes: Households that get food from their backyard garde vs. those that do t.07 Households that get food from their backyard garde waste more total food per capita. Plaig Meals Before Shoppig: Households that always or ofte pla meals before shoppig vs. households that sometimes, rarely, or ever pla meals before shoppig.09 Households that pla meals before shoppig waste more total food per capita. Purchasig Uplaed Items: Households that ever or rarely purchased uplaed items vs. households that sometimes, ofte, or always purchase uplaed items.02 (.06) Households that always/ofte/ sometimes purchased uplaed items waste more food (total ad edible) per capita. Page 95 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

96 TABLE 1: PER CAPITA COMPARISONS OF ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR WITH WASTED FOOD GENERATION ALL CITIES (CONT.) NASHVILLE DENVER NEW YORK CITY ATTITUDE/BEHAVIOR VARIABLES P-VALUE FOR TOTAL WASTED FOOD (P-VALUE FOR EDIBLE WASTED FOOD) DIRECTION OF RELATIONSHIP? P-VALUE FOR TOTAL WASTED FOOD (P-VALUE FOR EDIBLE WASTED FOOD) DIRECTION OF RELATIONSHIP? P-VALUE FOR TOTAL WASTED FOOD (P-VALUE FOR EDIBLE WASTED FOOD) DIRECTION OF RELATIONSHIP? Very Cautious to Avoid Food Poisoig: Households that agree or somewhat agree that they are very cautious to avoid food poisoig vs. those that either agree or disagree, somewhat disagree, or disagree.05 (.03) Households that are very cautious to avoid food poisoig waste more food (total ad edible) per capita. Preparig Food for Family/ Frieds: Households that agree or somewhat agree that geerally, preparig food for frieds ad family makes me feel good vs. those that either agree or disagree, somewhat disagree, or disagree.07 Households for which preparig food for frieds ad family makes them feel good waste more total food per capita. Avoidable Food Waste: Households who characterize their avoidable food waste as a lot or a fair amout vs. oe or a little.02 (.00) Households that characterize their avoidable food waste as a lot or a fair amout waste more food (total ad edible) per capita..05 (.03) Households that characterize their avoidable food waste as a lot or a fair amout waste more food (total ad edible) per capita. Remove Bruised Parts of Fruits & Veggies: Households that always or most of the time remove ad discard bruised parts of fruits ad veggies vs. those that do it sometimes, rarely, or ever.08 Households that always/most of the time discard bruised parts of fruits/ vegetables waste more total food per capita. Try to Use All Parts of Food: Households that always or most of the time try to use all parts of food vs. those that do it sometimes, rarely, or ever.08 Households that sometimes/rarely/ ever try to use all parts of food waste more total food per capita..02 Households that always/most of the time try to use all parts of food waste more total food per capita. Preparig Dier at Home: Households that prepare dier o more tha 1-2 days per week at home vs. those that prepare dier at least 2-4 days per week at home.01 (.01) Households that cook dier at least 2-4 or more days per week at home waste more food (total ad edible) per capita. Eatig Dier at Home: Households that eat dier o more tha 1-2 days per week at home vs. those that eat dier at least 2-4 days per week at home.08 Households that eat dier at least 2-4 days per week at home waste more total food per capita..03 (.02) Households that eat dier at least 2-4 days per week at home are more likely to waste more food (total ad edible) per capita. Page 96 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

97 TABLE 1: PER CAPITA COMPARISONS OF ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR WITH WASTED FOOD GENERATION ALL CITIES (CONT.) NASHVILLE DENVER NEW YORK CITY ATTITUDE/BEHAVIOR VARIABLES P-VALUE FOR TOTAL WASTED FOOD (P-VALUE FOR EDIBLE WASTED FOOD) DIRECTION OF RELATIONSHIP? P-VALUE FOR TOTAL WASTED FOOD (P-VALUE FOR EDIBLE WASTED FOOD) DIRECTION OF RELATIONSHIP? P-VALUE FOR TOTAL WASTED FOOD (P-VALUE FOR EDIBLE WASTED FOOD) DIRECTION OF RELATIONSHIP? Owig a Car: Households that use a car to shop for food more tha oce per week vs. those that use a car to shop less tha oce per week (does ot iclude households without cars).09 (.10) Households that use a car to shop for food more tha oce per week waste more food (total ad edible) per capita. Preparig Too Much Food: Households that agree or somewhat agree that the perso that most frequetly prepares food frequetly makes too much food vs. those that either agree or disagree, somewhat disagree, or disagree.10 (.07) Households that agree/somewhat agree that the primary food preparer frequetly makes too much food waste more food (total ad edible) per capita. Walkig: Households that walk to shop for food more tha oce per week vs. those that walk to shop less tha oce per week (does ot iclude households that do ot use walkig as a mode of trasportatio for food shoppig).09 Households that walk to shop for food less tha oce a week waste more total food per capita. Estimate How Much Before Shoppig: Households that always or ofte estimate how much of each item to buy before goig shoppig vs. those that sometimes, rarely, or ever.00 (.01) Households that always or ofte estimate how much before shoppig waste more food (total ad edible) per capita. Reducig Wasted Food = Good: Households that agree or somewhat agree that reducig the amout of food they throw away is good vs. those that either agree or disagree, somewhat disagree, or disagree.01 (.09) Households that agree/somewhat agree that reducig the amout of food they waste is good waste more food (total ad edible) per capita. Spur of the Momet Eatig Out: Households that agree or somewhat agree that household members usually eat out spur of the momet (less tha 48 hours otice) vs those that either agree or disagree, somewhat disagree, or disagree.00 Households that do ot usually eat out spur of the momet waste more total food per capita. Page 97 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

98 Comparig Demographics, Attitudes ad Behaviors (From Survey #1) with Wasted Food Geeratio Multivariate ad Categorical Aalysis The followig aalysis compares the followig: 1. Per capita total food waste (as reported i the kitche diaries) with selected demographics, behaviors ad attitudes reported i survey #1 usig multivariate aalysis (ANOVA). ANOVA allows for the compariso of multiple groups of people i terms of the mea per capita total (ot edible) food waste geeratio (i compariso to t-tests which oly allow for two groups to be compared). ANOVA is a test of sigificace to help determie if the compared groups are likely to be differet or if their differece is likely a result of radomess. 2. Reported demographics, attitudes ad behaviors with other demographics, attitudes ad behaviors. We used categorical aalysis (Pearso s Chi-Squared Test) to test correlatio betwee two attitudes, behaviors, or demographics that do ot have specific umerical values. The output of both ANOVA ad Pearso s Chi-Squared is a p-value. The lower the p-value, the more likely the differece betwee the two groups is ot a result of radom chace. For the purposes of this aalysis, we will cosider ay p-value of uder.1 (or 10% chace of beig a result of radom chace) to be sigificat. Please ote that a sigificat t-test does ot provide defiitive evidece of associatio or idicate the stregth of the associatio, but does idicate there is a high likelihood of associatio. Neither of these tests provide causatio of ay kid. Note 1: Oly variables with statistically sigificat relatioships are listed below. Note 2: The multivariate ad categorical aalysis was performed oly for Dever ad NYC, as Nashville s sample size was too small for this type of test. TABLE 2: MULTIVARIATE AND CATEGORICAL PER CAPITA COMPARISONS OF DEMOGRAPHICS, ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR WITH WASTED FOOD GENERATION DENVER & NYC DENVER NEW YORK CITY RELATIONSHIP ANALYZED (TEST USED) Average Age of Household Members with Per Capita Food Waste Geeratio (ANOVA) Groups: 1. Milleials (19-35) 2. Middle (36-64) 3. Older (65+) Household Size with Per Capita Food Waste Geeratio (ANOVA) Groups: 1. Livig Aloe 2. 2 to 4 people 3. 5 or more people Food Waste Compared to Average America with Avoidable Food Waste (Chi-Squared) Groups for Average America: 1. A Lot More & A Little Bit More 2. The Same 3. A Lot Less ad A Little Bit Less Groups for Avoidable Food Waste: 1. A Lot & A Fair Amout 2. Noe & A Little P-VALUE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP P-VALUE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Smaller households waste more food per capita. Average Food Waste Geeratio Per Capita i lbs/week by group: Livig Aloe: 3.3 lbs 2 to 4 people: 2.8 lbs 5 or more people: 1.5 lbs People who say they have a lot or a fair amout of avoidable food waste also say they waste more or the same amout of food tha the average America Households with older average age waste more food per capita. Average Food Waste Geeratio Per Capita i lbs/week by group: Milleials (19-35): 1.8 lbs Middle (36-64): 2.3 lbs Older (65+): 3.0 lbs Smaller households waste more food per capita. Average Food Waste Geeratio Per Capita i lbs/week by group: Livig Aloe: 2.9 lbs 2 to 4 people: 2.1 lbs 5 or more people: 1.5 lbs People who say they have a lot or a fair amout of avoidable food waste also say they waste more or the same amout of food tha the average America. Page 98 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

99 TABLE 2: MULTIVARIATE AND CATEGORICAL PER CAPITA COMPARISONS OF DEMOGRAPHICS, ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR WITH WASTED FOOD GENERATION DENVER & NYC DENVER NEW YORK CITY RELATIONSHIP ANALYZED (TEST USED) Whether Household Composts with Less Guilt If Food is Composted (Chi-Squared) Groups for Less Guilt if Food is Composted: 1. Agree & Somewhat Agree 2. Neither Agree Nor Disagree 3. Disagree & Somewhat Disagree Whether Household Composts with Food Waste Compared to Average America (Chi-Squared) Groups: 1. A Lot More & A Little Bit More 2. The Same 3. A Lot Less ad A Little Bit Less Maximum Age of Household with Cookig/ Preparig Diers at Home (Chi-Squared) Groups for Age: 1. Milleials (19-35) 2. Over 35 Groups for Cookig/Preparig Dier at Home: 1. 2 or Fewer Times Per Week 2. 3 or More Times Per Week Maximum Age of Household with Eatig Out Spur of the Momet (Chi-Squared) Groups for Age: 1. Milleials (19-35) 2. Over 35 Groups for Eatig Out Spur of the Momet: 1. Agree & Somewhat Agree 2. Neither Agree Nor Disagree 3. Disagree & Somewhat Disagree P-VALUE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP P-VALUE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP.00 People who compost feel less guilty about wasted food if it is composted People who compost feel less guilty about wasted food if it is composted. People who compost say they waste less tha the average America. Households with a maximum age of 35 or less (milleials) cook/ prepare 2 or fewer diers at home per week. Households with maximum age over 35 are more likely to eat out spur of the momet. Page 99 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

100 Appedix J: Survey 1 ad 2 Compariso ad Survey 2 Uique Questios Compariso to Survey 1: Questios Repeated i Survey 2 from Survey 1 A subset of questios i residetial surveys give to respodets i survey 1 (completed before the kitche diary period) were idetical to questios i survey 2 (completed after the kitche diary period). Tables Q1 through Q15 show the directio of chage i resposes to the questios repeated i Survey 2 as compared to iitial resposes by the same respodets to the same questios i Survey 1. Q16 through Q24 summarize resposes to questios uique to Survey 2. Q1. CONSIDERING THE FOOD THROWN AWAY IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD IN THE AVERAGE WEEK, HOW MUCH OF THAT FOOD DISPOSAL DO YOU THINK COULD BE AVOIDED (E.G. THROUGH PLANNING MEALS AHEAD OF TIME, CHANGING FOOD SHOPPING HABITS)? # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL PERCEPTION OF AMOUNT THAT COULD BE AVOIDED INCREASED 9 13% 26 13% 46 13% 81 13% STAYED THE SAME 47 66% % % % PERCEPTION OF AMOUNT THAT COULD BE AVOIDED DECREASED 13 18% 48 25% 89 26% % (BLANK) 2 3% 1 1% 6 2% 9 1% Q2. DO YOU THINK THE AMOUNT OF EDIBLE FOOD YOU THROW OUT IS MORE THAN, THE SAME AS, OR LESS THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN? # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL PERCEPTION OF AMOUNT OF EDIBLE FOOD THROWN AWAY COMPARED TO AVERAGE AMERICAN INCREASED 6 8% 22 11% 43 12% 71 12% STAYED THE SAME 52 73% % % % PERCEPTION OF AMOUNT OF EDIBLE FOOD THROWN AWAY COMPARED TO AVERAGE AMERICAN DECREASED 13 18% 64 33% 78 22% % (BLANK) 0 0% 0 0% 6 2% 6 1% Q3. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT? IN THE PAST YEAR, MY HOUSEHOLD HAS MADE AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL RESPONDENT AGREED MORE STRONGLY 30 42% 47 24% % % STAYED THE SAME 29 41% 97 50% % % RESPONDENT DISAGREED MORE STRONGLY 12 17% 50 26% 47 14% % (BLANK) 0 0% 0 0% 9 3% 9 1% Page 100 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

101 Q4. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT? MY HOUSEHOLD HAS COMPLETE CONTROL OVER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL RESPONDENT AGREED MORE STRONGLY 14 20% 48 25% 90 26% % STAYED THE SAME 40 56% 97 50% % % RESPONDENT DISAGREED MORE STRONGLY 17 24% 49 25% 79 23% % (BLANK) 0 0% 0 0% 11 3% 11 2% Q5. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT? PEOPLE AROUND ME BELIEVE MY HOUSEHOLD SHOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL RESPONDENT AGREED MORE STRONGLY 16 23% 43 22% 97 28% % STAYED THE SAME 40 56% % % % RESPONDENT DISAGREED MORE STRONGLY 15 21% 49 25% 73 21% % (BLANK) 0 0% 0 0% 14 4% 14 2% Q6. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT? MY HOUSEHOLD BELIEVES THAT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY WOULD BE GOOD # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL RESPONDENT AGREED MORE STRONGLY 23 32% 27 14% % % STAYED THE SAME 42 59% % % % RESPONDENT DISAGREED MORE STRONGLY 6 8% 46 24% 32 9% 84 14% (BLANK) 0 0% 0 0% 14 4% 14 2% Q7. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT? MY HOUSEHOLD INTENDS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WE THROW AWAY # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL RESPONDENT AGREED MORE STRONGLY 20 28% 39 20% % % STAYED THE SAME 41 58% % % % RESPONDENT DISAGREED MORE STRONGLY 10 14% 48 25% 45 13% % (BLANK) 0 0% 0 0% 15 4% 15 2% Page 101 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

102 Q8. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT? GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF FOOD THAT IS THROWN AWAY IN THIS COUNTRY, THE ACTIONS OF MY HOUSEHOLD WON'T MAKE A MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF FOOD BEING WASTED # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL RESPONDENT AGREED MORE STRONGLY 15 21% 41 21% 62 18% % STAYED THE SAME 46 65% % % % RESPONDENT DISAGREED MORE STRONGLY 10 14% 53 27% % % (BLANK) 0 0% 0 0% 13 4% 13 2% Q9. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT? REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE ENERGY # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL RESPONDENT AGREED MORE STRONGLY 12 17% 46 24% 74 21% % STAYED THE SAME 47 66% % % % RESPONDENT DISAGREED MORE STRONGLY 12 17% 38 20% 65 19% % (BLANK) 0 0% 0 0% 9 3% 9 1% Q10. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT? REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE WATER # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL RESPONDENT AGREED MORE STRONGLY 11 15% 48 25% 80 23% % STAYED THE SAME 42 59% % % % RESPONDENT DISAGREED MORE STRONGLY 18 25% 40 21% 67 19% % (BLANK) 0 0% 0 0% 10 3% 10 2% Q11. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT? REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD FEED HUNGRY PEOPLE # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL RESPONDENT AGREED MORE STRONGLY 19 27% 47 24% 88 25% % STAYED THE SAME 32 45% 98 51% % % RESPONDENT DISAGREED MORE STRONGLY 19 27% 49 25% 93 27% % (BLANK) 1 1% 0 0% 10 3% 11 2% Page 102 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

103 Q12. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT? REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF MY HOUSEHOLD # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL RESPONDENT AGREED MORE STRONGLY 18 25% 48 25% 52 15% % STAYED THE SAME 33 46% 94 48% % % RESPONDENT DISAGREED MORE STRONGLY 20 28% 52 27% 67 19% % (BLANK) 0 0% 0 0% 12 3% 12 2% Q13. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT? REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD SAVE MY HOUSEHOLD MONEY # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL RESPONDENT AGREED MORE STRONGLY 8 11% 43 22% 64 18% % STAYED THE SAME 51 72% % % % RESPONDENT DISAGREED MORE STRONGLY 10 14% 36 19% 61 18% % (BLANK) 2 3% 0 0% 10 3% 12 2% Q14. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:? REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD DECREASE LANDFILL USE # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL RESPONDENT AGREED MORE STRONGLY 8 11% 41 21% 74 21% % STAYED THE SAME 49 69% % % % RESPONDENT DISAGREED MORE STRONGLY 12 17% 27 14% 58 17% 97 16% (BLANK) 2 3% 0 0% 13 4% 15 2% Q15. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT? REDUCING MY HOUSEHOLD'S FOOD WASTE WOULD DECREASE CARBON EMISSIONS # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL RESPONDENT AGREED MORE STRONGLY 11 15% 39 20% 39 20% 89 15% STAYED THE SAME 45 63% % % % RESPONDENT DISAGREED MORE STRONGLY 15 21% 42 22% 42 22% 99 16% (BLANK) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Page 103 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

104 Questios Uique to Survey 2 Q16. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT AS IT RELATES TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD? MEASURING THE FOOD THAT WAS DISCARDED IN OUR HOUSEHOLD CHANGED HOW MUCH WE THROW AWAY # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL AGREE 15 21% 37 18% 67 19% % SOMEWHAT AGREE 20 28% 62 31% % % NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 12 17% 43 21% 78 22% % SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 16 23% 23 11% 42 12% 81 13% DISAGREE 8 11% 36 18% 54 15% 98 16% (BLANK) 0 0% 2 1% 5 1% 7 1% Q17. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT AS IT RELATES TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD? AFTER MEASURING THE FOOD THAT WAS DISCARDED IN OUR HOUSEHOLD, I NOW BELIEVE THAT OUR HOUSEHOLD WASTES MORE THAN I PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL AGREE 6 8% 14 7% 35 10% 55 9% SOMEWHAT AGREE 12 17% 35 17% 52 15% 99 16% NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 9 13% 22 11% 67 19% 98 16% SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 14 20% 50 25% 71 20% % DISAGREE 30 42% 80 39% % % (BLANK) 0 0% 2 1% 7 2% 9 1% Q18. HOW FREQUENTLY DID YOU TALK TO A MEMBER OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD ABOUT FOOD WASTE BECAUSE OF PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY? # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL NEVER 15 21% 46 23% 66 18% % ONE TIME 3 4% 13 6% 45 13% 61 10% A COUPLE OF TIMES 24 34% 81 40% % % MANY TIMES 29 41% 60 30% % % (BLANK) 0 0% 3 1% 9 3% 12 2% Q19. HOW FREQUENTLY DID YOU TALK TO SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD ABOUT FOOD WASTE BECAUSE OF PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY? # NASHVILLE % NASHVILLE # DENVER % DENVER # NYC % NYC # TOTAL % TOTAL NEVER 10 14% 59 29% % % ONE TIME 10 14% 40 20% 76 21% % A COUPLE OF TIMES 38 54% 85 42% % % MANY TIMES 13 18% 16 8% 22 6% 51 8% (BLANK) 0 0% 3 1% 9 3% 12 2% Page 104 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

105 Survey #2 Results: Uique Questios (Part 2) OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS The followig are major themes from aswers to the followig ope-eded questios i Survey 2. Themes represet summaries of resposes ad the umber of resposes fittig each theme is idetified i paretheses. Not all aswers are captured below. Q20. What (if aythig) would have made it easier to complete the kitche diary? Nothig/it was easy (209) Olie or electroic versio of the kitche diary (68) More space to write o the kitche diary (41) Beig able to lump food items together istead of weigh them separately (18) Simpler istructios (7) Take pictures of wasted food istead of writig it dow (6) Start o ay day that is coveiet (2) Add colum for thigs dropped o floor or wasted by childre (2) Q21. What (if aythig) would have made it easier to be a participat i the study? Nothig (209) Olie or electroic versio of the kitche diary (24) Reduce time eeded to complete (20) Make it easier to record food wasted outside of the home (8) Make it easier to track all household members (8) Clearer istructios (8) Beig able to lump food items together istead of weigh them separately (7) Start o ay day that is coveiet (7) More publicity o the study ad iitiative (4) Questios ad kitche diary were geared towards family uits ad/or sigle persos; hard for roommates or ocovetioal housig situatios (2) Q22. What did you lear (if aythig) from participatig i this study? Household wastes less food tha previously thought or household is doig a good job ot wastig (118) More aware of the sigificat quatities of food throw away (86) Participatig icreased desire to compost (38) Most of the food wasted was iedible (16) Household eeds to be more aware of the issue (12) Need to chage purchasig habits to waste less (19) Waste a lot of oe item (7) Household eats out a lot (6) Most of the waste related to food is packagig (6) Waste a lot of coffee (2) Page 105 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

106 Additioal Resposes to Q22: I marked much of our food waste as iedible parts, but eve may of those iedible parts (oio skis, stems from grees, carrot peeligs) could have bee used aother time to make broths, smoothies, teas, etc. We cook almost every ight i our home (sigificat ivestmet of time) but as a family of four with two workig parets goig the extra mile to save compostable kitche scraps for secod use (like uses listed above), it feels like it tips us over the edge of what kid of time we ca give to maitaiig our kitche. I also leared that cookig large quatities of meals (pasta especially) to eat all week for luches cotributed to wastig food (surprised me) because we ultimately get sick of eatig the leftovers aroud the fourth day i a row. That my persoal household does ot produce much food waste. I thik that primary focus should be o restaurats, evets spaces, festivals ad sportig evets. That most of the food we throw out is whe we clea out the fridge whe we take out the trash. All of the little food wastes accumulate to somethig. Some of the thigs we throw away probably could be composted (egg shells, coffee grouds, moldy vegetables), but also that we ted to waste more whe we eat away from home. I do t kow if it s because I m ot actually preparig it (do t have a vested iterest i ot seeig it go to waste), or because our child is picky, but we all ted to waste less whe we eat at home. I leared that each idividual is i complete cotrol of how much food they throw away. The food we throw away directly relates to may other importat factors i the world we live i today. Thak you for allowig me to be a part of this study ad helpig me realize the impact ad cotrol I have over the food I throw away. That I eed to stop wastig food as much. I wat to miimize buyig a to of produce at a time ad maybe make more frequet stops at the store. I pla to go to the store more ofte, start meal plaig more, ad eat the food we have before buyig ew. For example, we have two baaas that are pretty ripe but totally fie to eat. I was at the store ad I was goig to grab baaas but I thought about how we have two at home. We foud ourselves reachig toward the ewly purchased baaas rather tha eatig the oes that are a bit more ripe. The those would get too ripe ad we would toss them. I leared that our household food waste was ot so much, but that if we caught me durig a fridge cleaout week, it would be huge. Also we eat out a lot, ad I believe restaurat per capita food waste would be greater tha if we ate at home all the time. I do t waste as much as I thought. I have great portio cotrol. My problem is I am the Quee of Freeze, ad this particular week I did ot do a big throw out from my freezer. Such periodic tossig occurs about oce every two moths ad waste from it probably adds up over a year. I freeze thigs ad do NOT eat them i the log ru. I waste more tha I wat, but less tha I feared. It s the packagig, ot the food, that s the biggest waste. A much greater percetage of waste was due to food packagig. Though we recycle everythig we ca, we re still gettig food packaged i styrofoam, which ca t be recycled. Also, the amout of plastic food is packaged i is icredible. Eve if it is recycled the plastic we discarded (ito recyclig) was 10 times the amout of food we discarded i a week. I leared that our food waste habits vary from week to week. The week of the study we hardly wasted ay food at all, but the followig week our food waste was higher because of some food that was spoilig. I throw away a lot more food whe I eat out tha whe I cook ad eat at home. Geerally, I throw out very little, but saw I could throw out less. I became more thoughtful about it. Whe weighig the items I would thik to myself, Is there ay other applicatio I ca thik of where I ca use this item rather tha throwig it out? - it helped push me to keep coffee grids as a shower scrub, ad some lemo peels for air fresheer sprays. The study helped spark creativity i ways to reuse the food rather tha tossig it. My household actually wastes a cosiderable amout of food without thikig. We let food go past due dates ad o whim, whe we eat out, we do t cosider food that s already i the fridge. Now I cook oly the amout of food for the people that are i the house. Sometimes I would cook extra because someoe called to say that they are comig over ad they ever show up. Now I will wait util they come. If they do t show up by the time they say they are comig. I will oly cook for the oes that are here. Page 106 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

107 Q23a. What do you thik Nashville ca do to help residets waste less food? Provide educatio o issues of food waste (28) Promote awareess of food waste through the Mayor s office ad issue a challege for the commuity to strive to reduce food waste Focus o educatio i elemetary schools Promote outreach through eighborhood associatio groups Provide tips for reducig food waste (10) Smaller ad more frequet shoppig trips Meal plaig Date labels Compostig or aaerobic digestio (20) Make cheaper Make available city-wide Offer deals o compost bis Neighborhood compost sites Make it possible to buy food i smaller portios i stores ad restaurats, especially for small households (4) Additioal Resposes to Q23a (Nashville): I do t uderstad the expiratio dates o products. Some say sell by (but the by whe do I eed to use them?); caed or jarred products just have a date, but oce opeed, whe do they eed to be throw away? How log do thigs like spices last? Seems to me there is a lot of cofusio regardig these dates ad this causes me to err o the side of cautio ad throw away products that are perfectly good just because of cofusig expiratio dates. They could start a ad campaig with slogas like: Save your cash, do t throw food i the trash!, Food did t come to Nashville for a bachelorette party, do t let it get wasted!, or Truth be told, that bread is old, but it still is viable if you scrape off the mold! Educate Nashvillias o what the causes of wasted food are ad what the cosequeces of that are I eed suggestios for creatig less waste that is the result of iedible parts of fruits ad vegetables. It would also be helpful if there were smaller portios that meet the eeds of sigle households available whe purchasig fruits like melo ad vegetables like spiach. Nashville eeds to make healthy food more affordable, so people do t have to wait util it goes o sale ad stock up. That leads to waste (at least i our household). Q23b. What do you thik Dever ca do to help residets waste less food? Provide educatio o issues of food waste (57) Provide tips for reducig food waste (14) Compostig (71) Make cheaper or free Make available city-wide Make it possible to buy food i smaller portios i stores ad restaurats, especially for small households (7) Do more studies ad surveys o food waste (9) Page 107 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

108 Do t really kow how a city ca help sice it is more of a idividual issue (4) Provide icetives (3) Focus o restaurats ad grocers to reduce food waste (6) Additioal Resposes to Q23b (Dever): Curretly we pay a separate fee to have curbside compost pickup. We thik it should be icluded i our curret waste maagemet fees for trash ad recycle pickup. It might ecourage more people to participate. Have families take the challege. I thought we would waste more but because we were doig this study, I wated to eat the food we have. My husbad would look at expiratio dates ad put the food about to expire toward the frot of the fridge. It made us thik about it ad will probably do it more i the future. Remiders i the produce sectio of the store how log certai items may last i the fridge ad maybe a fu campaig that icludes i-store remiders to buy what you eed. Create opportuities for restaurats ad grocery stores to get their waste to people i eed, eve if that was just havig a time ad a clea dumpster where people could expect items to be throw out. I thik a huge part of food waste stems from restaurats ad grocery stores. I thik there eed to be more programs i place for food that is wasted from those veues, to dissemiate those products to people who might eed them. I thik that while residetial food waste is certaily a problem, it is t THE problem. Most of the food waste comes before the cosumer takes it home. I ve voluteered with Dever Food Rescue ad see how much grocery stores get rid of that is still 100% edible EVERY DAY ad I kow that eve more (especially produce) ever eve makes it to the grocery store because it is t pretty eough. Add a extra hour i the day :) I really do t thik there is much we ca do. I mea my recycle bi is right ext to my trash bi ad I still throw recyclables away. Icetivize it?? Q23c. What do you thik New York City ca do to help residets waste less food? Provide educatio o issues of food waste (77) Educatio i schools Billboards, ads, etc. Provide tips for reducig food waste (19) Compostig (81) Make cheaper or free Make available city-wide Make it possible to buy food i smaller portios i stores ad restaurats, especially for small households (19) Do more studies ad surveys o food waste (11) Do t really kow how a city ca help sice it is more of a idividual issue (5) Focus o restaurats ad grocers to reduce food waste (8) Additioal Resposes to Q23c (New York City): We eed to quit buyig i bulk sice people s good itetios (cookig homecooked meals throughout the week) ca get sidetracked by huger, somethig else poppig up, etc., ad that bulk food ca be forgotte. Iform people of the facts. Such as whether you ca still eat food if it is past the date o the package I kow you ca still eat it uless it has goe bad, but some people throw it out as soo as it is past the date o the package. I persoally would like to kow whether egg yolks are still viewed as bad for your heart, because I do t like throwig out egg yolks, but I also do t wat to eat too may egg yolks if they are bad for my health. Compared to the compaies the cosumer is small potatoes ad we are fightig a losig battle. Page 108 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

109 Make them aware of the size of the total problem. Make it clear that eve though it seems that each family s waste is a tiy percetage of the whole, it all adds up, so everyoe should do their bit. It s the same idea as votig, or lowerig the amout of electricity, gas ad gasolie we use. Make it easier to compost ad recycle like may NYCers I live i a small place ad mice ad cockroaches come up ofte. That meas we have to keep our trash o a specific couter. Sice we have to already split up our paper recyclig, ad have trash, there is o room for four bis!!! Whe we lived i Sa Fracisco ad we could throw all recyclig i oe bi, we composted a lot more ofte. The problem is the grocery stores it ca be hard to buy some thigs i small quatities. I thik more educatio would be good I have the compostig bucket, but hoestly all it did was create a have for fruit flies. The whe I d go to dump it, it was a disgustig mess. I do t thik the city ca do aythig. This is where persoal resposibility plays a role. Ru ads kid of similar to the oes i the early 2000 s: like the oe with the diosaurs that taught kids to ot let the water ru while brushig your teeth, or the talkig trash cas that taught you how to recycle cardboard, plastic ad metal. Somethig actually fu ad ot guilt trippy? I do ot thik that residets of metropolita NYC waste much food, sice they buy oly as much food as they ca carry by foot, it really forces oe to pla all the meals. The same with takeouts portios are small ad delicious; plates are licked out! Make it easier to buy fresh food more frequetly, discouragig bulk/excess purchasig. More blame is o the retail ecoomy tha the cosumer. Q24. What suggestios do you have for the study team to improve the experiece for participats i the study? Nothig (183) Provide kitche diary electroically or olie (52) The collectio of garbage as part of the study was off-puttig or cofusig (11) Be clearer about the process to participate i the study (10) Share the study results (9) More icetives (5) Study should be loger tha oe week to better capture how much food is wasted (3) Page 109 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

110 Appedix K: ICI Bi Digs Coversio Factors Bi digs were performed i Nashville, Dever, ad New York City to help uderstad how much ad what types of food are discarded from istitutioal, commercial, ad idustrial (ICI) facilities. Samples of up to 200 pouds of trash (ad compost, whe available) were collected from each facility ad sorted ito 10 food ad 8 o-food categories. Additioally, facilities were asked to fill out a survey which icluded basic iformatio to aid i sample pickup coordiatio, facility characteristics such as umber of employees ad aual reveue, ad iformatio o curret food- ad food waste-related behaviors. Whe feasible, fidigs from the bi digs were extrapolated to geerate aual food waste geeratio estimates. Two methods of extrapolatio were used based o available iformatio: 1) If the bi dig represeted all or a kow portio of food waste discarded for a kow period of time, the amout was extrapolated for a etire year based o the umber of days a facility operates per year (if the portio of waste material collected was ot kow, the bi dig was ot extrapolated); ad/or 2) If the bi dig represeted all trash ad/or compost materials disposed by that facility ad the facility provided aual estimates of total waste geeratio i their survey, the percetage of total trash or compost material that food represeted by weight i the bi dig was multiplied by the estimate of total food waste disposed per year. I some cases, both methods could be used to geerate a estimate ad umbers are preseted as a rage. For most cases, there was oly eough iformatio ad/or the bi dig oly allowed for extrapolatio usig oe method. However, if it was evidet that the sampled material did ot represet a facility s ormal waste patter, the bi dig results were ot extrapolated. Bi digs were oly coducted oe time ad geerally represeted oe day s worth of waste materials from each facility. As such, these bi digs are sapshots ad may ot represet a facility s ormal waste geeratio patter. Additioally, the samples collected were a maximum of 200 pouds of material each; for example, for larger facilities with o-homogeeous waste (e.g., grocers), a sigle 200-poud sample may ot have bee represetative of that facility s waste. Whe it was obvious that the sampled material did ot represet a facility s ormal waste patter, the bi dig results were ot extrapolated. Usig estimated aual food waste geeratio as determied, coversio factors were estimated for each facility, wheever possible. As applicable by facility type, coversio factors iclude food waste geeratio per: 1) employee; 2) bed; 3) studet; 4) $ of reveue; 5) rooms; ad 6) meals. Below are the coversio factors calculated below by facility type. For each facility, the followig iformatio is provided: 1) Aoymized sample ID; 2) Facility Characteristics (e.g. Public Elemetary School); 3) Coversio Factors as applicable; 4) Method of Extrapolatio (see paragraph two for descriptio of each; ote that method 1 above correspods to bi dig ad method 2 correspods to self-reported ); 5) Notes Relevat to Estimate. Prior to the table for each sector, there is a list of coversio factors curretly used or geerated by EPA, Massachusetts, Califoria, or MetroVacouver for compariso. See Appedix L for specific coversio factors ad citatios for these refereces. COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES The followig coversio factor was derived from previous studies:.35 lbs/meal * SAMPLE ID (CITY) FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY EMPLOYEE (LBS/EMPLOYEE/YR) BY BED (LBS/BED/YR) BY MEAL (LBS/MEAL) T39/C39 (NYC) Uiversity 60 lbs/bed/yr Bi Dig T45/C45 (NYC) Uiversity lbs/employee/ yr METHOD OF EXTRAPOLATION: BIN DIG OR SELF- REPORTED? Bi Dig NOTES Residece Hall ad Diig Hall Diig Hall Oly T13 (Dever) Uiversity 931 lbs/employee/yr.17 lbs/meal Bi Dig Diig Hall Oly * Used i NRDC s ICI Food Waste Estimates Page 110 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

111 CORPORATE CAFETERIAS AND BREAKROOMS Corporate cafeterias ad breakrooms were ot icluded as a sector of iterest i the city-level food waste estimatios; however, the results below idicate that they could be a sigificat geerator of wasted food. By employee, corporate cafeteria food waste geeratio raged from 5 lbs/employee/yr to 80 lbs/employee/yr. SAMPLE ID (CITY) FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY EMPLOYEE (LBS/EMPLOYEE/YR) ICI-09/10 (Nashville) Corporate Cafeteria/ Breakroom 5 lbs/employee/yr Bi Dig METHOD OF EXTRAPOLATION: BIN DIG OR SELF-REPORTED? NOTES ICI-21 (Nashville) Corporate Cafeteria/ Breakroom 29 lbs/employee/yr Bi Dig T43/C43 (NYC) Corporate Cafeteria/ Breakroom 63 lbs/employee/yr Bi Dig T42 (NYC) Corporate Cafeteria/ Breakroom 16 lbs/employee/yr Bi Dig T15/C15 (NYC) Corporate Cafeteria/ Breakroom 22 to 25 lbs/employee/yr Both T36 (NYC) Corporate Cafeteria/ Breakroom 9 lbs/employee/yr Bi Dig T13/C13 (NYC) Corporate Cafeteria/ Breakroom 74 lbs/employee/yr Bi Dig T12 (NYC) Corporate Cafeteria/ Breakroom 80 lbs/employee/yr Self-Reported T35/C35 (NYC) Corporate Cafeteria/ Breakroom 38 lbs/employee/yr Self-Reported T15/C15 (Dever) Corporate Cafeteria/ Breakroom 54 lbs/employee/yr Bi Dig T18 (Dever) Corporate Cafeteria/ Breakroom 53 lbs/employee/yr Bi Dig T07/C07 (Dever) Corporate Cafeteria/ Breakroom 49.2 lbs/employee/yr Bi Dig CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES The followig coversio factors were derived from previous studies: 1 lbs/imate/day (365 lbs/imate/yr) * 2 lbs/imate/day (730 lbs/imate/yr) FACILITY BY EMPLOYEE BY BED BY MEAL METHOD OF EXTRAPOLATION: SAMPLE ID (CITY) CHARACTERISTICS (LBS/EMPLOYEE/YR) (LBS/BED/YR) (LBS/MEAL) BIN DIG OR SELF-REPORTED? ICI-13 (Nashville) Correctioal Facility 629 lbs/employee/yr 99 lbs/bed/yr.09 lbs/meal Bi Dig NOTES EVENTS & RECREATION FACILITIES As expected, the amout of wasted food geerated by Evets & Recreatio facilities greatly varies at least partially due to the varyig uses of these facilities. Additioally, large variatios i waste geeratio are expected throughout the year based o evet frequecy ad type. The followig coversio factors were derived from previous studies:.6 lbs/seat/day*.45 lbs/visitor* 1 lb/meal 1 to/employee/yr (2000 lbs/employee/yr).53 tos/1,000 visitors/yr (1 lb/visitor) * Used i NRDC s ICI Food Waste Estimates Page 111 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

112 SAMPLE ID (CITY) ICI-15 (Nashville) FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS Multiple daily food vedors, produce vedors, special evets BY EMPLOYEE (LBS/EMPLOYEE/YR) BY VISITOR (LBS/VISITOR) SEAT (LBS/SEAT/YEAR) 230 lbs/employee/yr Bi Dig T33 (NYC) Sports Area 4200 lbs/employee/yr.13 lbs/visitor 7 lbs/seat/year Self-Reported METHOD OF EXTRAPOLATION: BIN DIG OR SELF-REPORTED? NOTES T01 (NYC) Zoo 152 lbs/employee/yr T14/C14 (Dever) Covetio Ceter 169 to 495 lbs/ employee/yr.01 lbs/visitor FOOD RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS Food rescue orgaizatios were ot icluded as a sector of iterest i the city-level food waste estimatios; while this sector as a whole is ot likely to be a large geerator of food waste, the results below suggest that idividual facilities withi this sector may be sigificat geerators of wasted food. Quatity per employee rages widely, ragig from 1,823 to 10,455 lbs/employee/yr. SAMPLE ID (CITY) FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY EMPLOYEE (LBS/EMPLOYEE/YR) METHOD OF EXTRAPOLATION: BIN DIG OR SELF-REPORTED? ICI-11 (Nashville) Distributio Ceter 5,365 lbs/employee/yr Self-Reported NOTES ICI-14 (Nashville) Re-purposes Food O-Site 1,823 lbs/employee/yr Self-Reported T41/C41 (NYC) Distributio 10,455 lbs/employee/yr Self-Reported FOOD SERVICE (RESTAURANTS & CATERERS) The amout of food waste geerated per employee varies widely from 82 lbs/employee/yr to 5,200 lbs/employee/yr; however, most of the facilities raged betwee 623 ad 2,306 lbs/employee/year. By meal, the rage was.01 lbs per meal to 1.7 lbs per meal. The followig coversio factors were derived from previous studies: 3,000 lbs/employee/yr * 1,500 lbs/employee/yr.5 lbs/meal * Used i NRDC s ICI Food Waste Estimates Page 112 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

113 SAMPLE ID (CITY) FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY EMPLOYEE (LBS/EMPLOYEE/YR) BY REVENUE (LBS/$ REVENUE) BY MEAL (LBS/MEAL) METHOD OF EXTRAPOLATION: BIN DIG OR SELF- REPORTED? NOTES ICI-01 (Nashville) Full Service Restaurat 465 to 791 lbs/ employee/yr.004 to.006 lbs/$ reveue.1 to.16 lbs/meal Both ICI-03 (Nashville) Full Service Restaurat lbs/ employee/yr.01 lbs/$ reveue.79 lbs/meal Bi Dig UNDERESTIMATE. Does ot cout food goig to compost collectio. Trash oly. ICI-12 (Nashville) Full Service Restaurat lbs/ employee/yr Bi Dig UNDERESTIMATE. Was ot oe full day of service. Picked up i late eveig but before restaurat closed. ICI-22 (Nashville) Limited Service Restaurat 623 to 3,242 lbs/ employee/yr.01 to.08 lbs/$ reveue.09 to.48 lbs/meal Both Large rage due to discrepacy i self-reported waste rate vs. bi dig T21 (NYC) Limited Service Restaurat 5200 lbs/ employee/year.26 lbs/meal Bi Dig T22/C22 (NYC) Limited Service Restaurat 82 lbs/ employee/year.01 lbs/meal Bi Dig Seems like a outlier T19/C19 (NYC) Limited Service Restaurat 1522 to 2306 lbs/ employee/year.02 to.03 lbs/ $ reveue.24 to.36 lbs/meal Both T05/C05 (Dever) Full Service Restaurat 838 to 3263 lbs/ employee/yr.01 to.5 lbs/$ reveue.17 to.67 lbs/meal Both T17 (Dever) Full Service Restaurat 1672 lbs/ employee/yr 1.7 lbs/meal Bi Dig GROCERS & MARKETS The followig coversio factors were derived from previous studies: 3,000 lbs/employee/yr* 5,577 lbs/employee/yr SAMPLE ID (CITY) FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY EMPLOYEE (LBS/EMPLOYEE/YR) T31/C31 (NYC) Small Grocer/Market 1700 lbs/employee/yr Bi Dig METHOD OF EXTRAPOLATION: BIN DIG OR SELF-REPORTED? NOTES HEALTH CARE: HOSPITALS By employee, food waste geeratio raged widely from 31.6 to 3500 lbs/employee. However, multiple facilities had a factor of.07 lbs of wasted food per meal. Note that may of these are uderestimates, as oly a portio of discarded food was captured i the bi digs. The followig coversio factors were derived from previous studies: 3.42 lbs/bed/day* (1,248.3 lbs/bed/yr).6 lbs/meal.16 tos/employee/yr (320 lbs/employee/yr) 3.12 lbs/bed/day (1,138.8 lbs/bed/yr) * Used i NRDC s ICI Food Waste Estimates Page 113 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

114 SAMPLE ID (CITY) ICI-19/20 (Nashville) FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS Hospital. Cafeteria ad Food Productio. BY EMPLOYEE (LBS/EMPLOYEE/YR) 293 lbs/ employee/yr BY BED (LBS/BED/YR) BY MEAL (LBS/MEAL) METHOD OF EXTRAPOLATION: BIN DIG OR SELF- REPORTED? NOTES 51 lbs/bed/yr.07 lbs/meal Bi Dig UNDERESTIMATE. Does ot iclude plate waste from patiet rooms. T11 (NYC) Hospital 244 lbs/bed/yr Bi Dig Kitche & Post-Cosumer T29 (NYC) Hospital 3500 lbs/ employee/yr T25 (Dever) Hospital 31.6 lbs/ employee/yr 512 lbs/bed/yr.31 lbs/meal Bi Dig Kitche & Post-Cosumer.07lbs/meal Self-Reported T28 (Dever) Hospital.07 lbs/meal Bi Dig UNDERESTIMATE: Kitche waste oly HOSPITALITY (HOTELS) The followig coversio factors have bee used: 1,984 lbs/employee/yr* 1 lb/guest/day 345 lbs/room/yr 1.31 tos/room/yr (2,620 lbs/room/yr) 1,370 lbs/employee/yr SAMPLE ID (CITY) FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY EMPLOYEE (LBS/EMPLOYEE/YR) T25/C25 (NYC) Hotel 600 lbs/ employee/yr BY ROOM (LBS/ROOM/YR) METHOD OF EXTRAPOLATION: BIN DIG OR SELF- REPORTED? NOTES 600 lbs/room/yr Bi Dig Kitche, dish pit, ad employee commissary K-12 SCHOOLS By studet, food waste geeratio raged from 12 lbs/studet/year to 50 lbs/studet/year (ote that outlier of 165 lbs/ studet/year was ot cosidered). These are i lie with the estimates below. The followig coversio factors were derived from previous studies: 1.13 lbs/elemetary studet/week* (40.68 lbs/elemetary studet/yr).73 lbs/middle school studet/week* (26.28 lbs/middle school studet/yr).35 lbs/middle school studet/week* (12.6 lbs/middle school studet/yr).72 lbs/studet/week (25.92 lbs/studet/yr).5 lbs/studet/week (18 lbs/studet/yr) 1.4 lbs/studet/week (50.4 lbs/studet/yr) Note: Assume 36 weeks i a school year * Used i NRDC s ICI Food Waste Estimates Page 114 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

115 SAMPLE ID (CITY) FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS BY STUDENT (LBS/STUDENT/YR) ICI-05 (Nashville) Public Elemetary 14 lbs/studet/yr Bi Dig METHOD OF EXTRAPOLATION: BIN DIG OR SELF-REPORTED? NOTES ICI-06 (Nashville) Public Elemetary 50 lbs/studet/yr Bi Dig ICI-07 (Nashville) Public Elemetary 50 lbs/studet/yr Bi Dig ICI-16 (Nashville) Private, All Grades 13 lbs/studet/yr Bi Dig ICI-17 (Nashville) Private, High School 16 to 34 lbs/studet/yr Both ICI-23 (Nashville) Private, Middle/High School 18 lbs/studet/yr Bi Dig UNDERESTIMATE. Oly took frot-of-thehouse waste. T02/C02(NYC) Public, Middle/High School 12 lbs/studet/yr Bi Dig T26/C26 (NYC) Private, Elemetary 165 lbs/studet/year Bi Dig Seems like a outlier T05/C05 (NYC) Private 41 lbs/studets/year Bi Dig T10 (Dever) Public, Elemetary 19 lbs/studet/year Bi Dig T16 (Dever) Public, Middle School 17 lbs/studet/year Bi Dig T19 (Dever) Public, High School 12 lbs/studet/year Bi Dig GROUND-TRUTHING ICI FOOD WASTE ESTIMATES I order to groud-truth the coversio factors used by the ICI food waste estimates (see Appedix L), the coversio factors derived from the bi digs (see descriptio above for method of developig coversio factors) were compared to those used i our aalysis. To compare, both a rage of values ad average coversio factors derived from bi digs were compared to the coversio factors used i ICI food waste estimates (see table below). Additioally, for each sector, ay otable ad commo characteristics of bi dig results are preseted i the table below. Please ote that the table below oly compares coversio factors derived above with the oe used for the city-level estimates. Other coversio factors were derived ad ca be foud above by sector. SECTOR Colleges & Uiversities Correctioal Facilities Evets & Recreatio Food Maufacturers CONVERSION FACTOR USED IN ICI FOOD WASTE ESTIMATES RANGE OF DERIVED CONVERSION FACTORS AVERAGE OF DERIVED CONVERSION FACTORS RATIONALE FOR OR AGAINST USING NUMBER IN ICI FOOD WASTE ESTIMATES.35 lbs/meal.17 lbs/meal.17 lbs/meal Coversio factor seems reasoable give limited data. 1 lb/imate/day.3 lbs/bed/yr.3 lbs/bed/yr Coversio factor seems reasoable give limited data..6 lbs/seat/day lb/seat/yr.7lb/seat/yr Coversio factor seems.45 lbs/visitor.07 lbs/visitor.07 lbs/visitor reasoable give limited data ad highly variable ature of evets ad recreatio facilities. NOTABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF SECTOR BIN DIGS Diig halls oly Oly based o oe facility Highest proportio of wasted food by type was cooked/ prepared foods/leftovers. Oly based o oe facility Oly based o oe facility for seat/yr coversio factor.053 lbs/$ of reveue/yr Noe Derived Uable to get represetative facility that provided facilitylevel iformatio Page 115 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

116 SECTOR Food Service (Restaurats & Caterers) Food Wholesalers & Distributors Grocers & Markets CONVERSION FACTOR USED IN ICI FOOD WASTE ESTIMATES RANGE OF DERIVED CONVERSION FACTORS 3,000 lbs/employee/yr 82-5,200 lbs/ employee/yr AVERAGE OF DERIVED CONVERSION FACTORS RATIONALE FOR OR AGAINST USING NUMBER IN ICI FOOD WASTE ESTIMATES 1,620 lbs/employee/yr Coversio factor seems reasoable give large variability ad it falls withi rage of derived coversio factors. NOTABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF SECTOR BIN DIGS Restaurats oly Huge variability i derived coversio factors Highest proportios of wasted food by type were cooked/ prepared foods/leftovers ad iedible parts..01 lbs/$ of reveue/yr Noe Derived Uable to get represetative facility that provided facilitylevel iformatio 3,000 lbs/employee/yr 1,700 lbs/ employee/yr 1,700 lbs/employee/yr Oly based o oe small grocer Hospitals 3.42 lbs/bed/day lbs/bed/day.74 lbs/bed/day Coversio factor seems reasoable give that patiet waste is ot icluded. Hospitality (Hotels) 1,984 lbs/employee/yr 600 lbs/ employee/yr K-12 Schools Elemetary 1.13 lbs/studet/week Middle.73 lbs/studet/week High.35 lbs/studet/week All.74 lbs/studet/week Elemetary/Middle.93 lbs/studet/week Middle/High.54 lbs/studet/week lbs/studet/ week 600 lbs/employee/yr Coversio factor seems reasoable give limited data. 1 lbs/studet/week Coversio factor is withi rage ad very close to average. Does ot iclude patiet waste for health ad safety reasos. Highest proportios of wasted food by type were cooked/ prepared foods/leftovers ad liquids. Oly based o oe facility Highest proportio of wasted food by type is fruits & vegetables Page 116 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

117 Appedix L: ICI Estimates Coversio Factors FACILITY-LEVEL INFORMATION I order to coduct ICI food waste geeratio estimates, iformatio o the types of facilities i the geographic area was obtaied usig several databases, both public ad proprietary. Iformatio o locatio, sales, umber of employees, umber of studets, square footage, ad umber of beds at each facility was obtaied to estimate food waste geeratio, wheever possible. The iformatio collected from the database was cleaed to remove duplicates, facilities outside of the sectors of iterest, ad facilities located outside of the city limits. The followig public databases were used (facility iformatio for other sectors was foud o proprietary databases): Natioal Ceter for Educatio Statistics: Provided list of colleges/uiversities ad K-12 schools (both public ad private), icludig locatio, educatio levels, ad umber of studets. America Hospital Directory: Provided list of hospitals, icludig locatio ad umber of beds. PrisoPro.com: Provided list of correctioal facilities by locatio ad umber of beds. CONVERTING FACILITY-LEVEL INFORMATION TO FOOD WASTE ESTIMATES For each sector, coversio factors were used to covert facility-level iformatio to food waste geeratio estimates (see Table 1 below for list of coversio factors). The coversio factors used for this aalysis were idetified by the U.S. Evirometal Protectio Agecy i their report etitled Techical Methodology for the U.S. EPA Wasted Food Opportuities Map (Versio 1.0) 1. The sources were compared to other potetial sources of iformatio, icludig some of the limited umber of food waste characterizatios completed by local ad state govermets (see Table 1 for specific sources). Below is the mai piece of facility-level iformatio used to estimate food waste geeratio for each sector: Colleges & Uiversities (# of studets) Correctioal Facilities (# of imates/beds) Evets & Recreatio Facilities (# of seats) Food Maufacturig & Processig (reveue) Food Wholesalers & Distributors (reveue) Grocers & Markets (# of employees) Health Care (# of beds for hospitals; reveue for ursig homes) Hospitality (Hotels) (# of employees) K-12 Schools (# of studets, grade levels) Restaurats & Caterers (# of employees) Page 117 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

118 TABLE 1. CONVERSION FACTORS USED IN ANALYSIS SECTOR CONVERSION FACTOR(S) USED DATABASE USED FOR LIST OF FACILITIES.35 lbs/meal Natioal Ceter for Educatio Statistics Colleges & Uiversities Residetial 405 meals/studet/yr No-Residetial 108 meals/studets/yr 2 Correctioal Facilities 1 lb/imate/day 3 PrisoPro.com Evets & Recreatio Facilities 100 days/yr.6 lbs/seat/day Attedace is 80% of capacity Olie Search OR (depedig o available facility iformatio):.45 lbs/visitor 4 Food Maufacturig & Processig.053 lbs/$ of reveue/yr 5 Proprietary Database Food Service Sector (Restaurats & Caterers) 3,000 lbs/employee/yr 6 Proprietary Database Food Wholesalers & Distributors.01 lbs/$ of reveue/yr 7 Proprietary Database Grocers & Markets 3,000 lbs/employee/yr 8 Proprietary Database Health Care Hospitals 3.42 lbs/bed/day 9 America Hospital Directory Proprietary Database Health Care Nursig Homes 1.8 lbs/bed/day 23 beds/$ millio of reveue 10 Hospitality (Hotels) 1,984 lbs/employee/yr 11 Proprietary Database K-12 Schools 31 weeks/year Elemetary 1.13 lbs/studet/week Middle.73 lbs/studet/week High -.35 lbs/studet/week All.74 lbs/studet/week Elemetary/Middle -.93 lbs/studet/week Middle/High -.54 lbs/studet/week 12 Natioal Ceter for Educatio Statistics K-12 Schools For K-12 schools, differet wastage rates were used for elemetary, middle, ad high schools. However, some schools are combied middle/high schools or have all grades. It was assumed that there were 36 weeks of school per year. For combied schools, a average was used: Elemetary/Middle School:.93 lbs per studet per week Middle/High School:.54 lbs per studet per week All Grades:.74 lbs per studet per week Nursig Homes For ursig homes, it was estimated that 23 beds equate to $1 millio i reveue. This estimate was geerated usig iformatio from the America Health Care Associatio 13 statig that there are 1.7 millio beds i ursig homes i the U.S. represetig $72 billio of reveue. Page 118 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

119 Evets & Recreatio Facilities A comprehesive list of evets ad recreatio facilities servig food was ot available. A list of facilities was geerated through olie searches; however, iformatio o umber of seats, umber of employees, umber of visitors, ad reveue could ot be foud for all facilities. Additioally, evets ad recreatio facilities represet a wide rage of facility types ad uses (umber of days per year the facility is i use, types of evet, etc.), thus determiig a coversio factor that works for all is difficult. EPA s methodology did ot iclude coversio factors for evet facilities, so two coversio factors from Recyclig Works Massachusetts 14 were used due to the overall similarity betwee umbers used by Recyclig Works ad EPA. If iformatio o umber of seats was available, the followig assumptios ad coversio factors were used: Each facility is i operatio for 100 days per year (assumptio by NRDC) 80% capacity (assumptio by NRDC).6 lbs/seat/day If iformatio o the umber of visitors was available ad umber of seats was ot, the followig coversio factor was used:.45 lbs/visitor COMPARISONS TO OTHER CONVERSION FACTORS The coversio factors used for this aalysis were idetified by the U.S. Evirometal Protectio Agecy i their report etitled Techical Methodology for the U.S. EPA Wasted Food Opportuities Map (Versio 1.0). 15 Ackowledgig that there are other potetial sources of food waste geeratio iformatio, we compared EPA s coversio factors to other sources of iformatio, icludig some of the limited umber of waste characterizatios completed by local ad state govermets. Additioally, potetial cocers about specific coversio factors were idetified as potetial areas for further research (see Table 2 for compariso of coversio factors ad Table 3 for list of cocers). Please ote that the iformatio i these tables is ot comprehesive of all studies o food waste geerated i the istitutioal, commercial, ad idustrial sectors. A sesitivity aalysis was performed for some of the facility types (see Table 3 for list) to determie the potetial impact of specific coversio factors o the etire food waste geeratio estimate. Although we believe that the most appropriate coversio factors were selected for this aalysis, the alterate estimatios derived from the scearios used to coduct the sesitivity aalysis ca be used as a rage to show certaity if desired. (See Tables 4-6 for detailed scearios ad coversio factors derived from the sesitivity aalysis.) Page 119 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

120 TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF CONVERSION FACTORS SECTOR NRDC ANALYSIS EPA WASTED FOOD OPPORTUNITIES MAP 16 NOTES ON SOURCE No Direct Measuremet. Uses previous studies ad other state estimatio factors. CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES RECYCLING WORKS MASSACHUSETTS FOOD WASTE ESTIMATION GUIDE 17 No Direct Measuremet. Uses previous studies ad coversatios with idustry. 1 lb/imate/day 1 lb/imate/day 1) 2 lbs/imate/day 2) 30% of total waste geerated by weight METRO VANCOUVER 2014 ICI WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 18 Direct Measuremet. Used total waste geerated (tos/ employee/yr) i each sector ad % of total waste that is food to determie factors below. Sampled from 100 geerators i Metro Vacouver. Note: Numbers provided are for compostable orgaics CALRECYCLE 2014 GENERATOR- BASED CHARACTERIZATION OF COMMERCIAL SECTOR DISPOSAL AND DIVERSION IN CA 19 Direct Measuremet. Used total waste geerated (tos)/employee/yr i each sector ad % of total waste that is food to determie factors below. Sampled from 837 geerators i Califoria. EDUCATION 1).17 tos/employee/yr 2) 3.67 tos/100 studets/yr (1.4 lbs/studet/week) K-12 SCHOOLS.72 lbs/studet/week 40 weeks/yr K-12 SCHOOLS - PRIVATE K-12 SCHOOLS - PUBLIC K-12 SCHOOLS - ELEMENTARY K-12 SCHOOLS - MIDDLE K-12 SCHOOLS - MIDDLE/HIGH K-12 SCHOOLS - HIGH SCHOOL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES - RESIDENTIAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES - NON-RESIDENTIAL EVENTS & RECREATION.35 lbs/meal 180 meals/studet/yr.5 lbs/studet/week 40 weeks/yr 1.13 lbs/studet/week 1.13 lbs/studet/week.73 lbs/studet/week.73 lbs/studet/week.54 lbs/studet/week.35 lbs/studet/week.35 lbs/studet/week.35 lbs/meal 405 meals/studet/yr.35 lbs/meal 108 meals/studet/yr.35 lbs/meal 405 meals/studet/yr.35 lbs/meal 108 meals/studet/yr 1).5 lbs/studet/week 2) 45% of disposed waste by weight.35 lbs/meal 405 meals/studet/yr.35 lbs/meal 108 meals/studet/yr.6 lbs/seat/day 1).6 lbs/seat/day 2) 1 lb/meal 3).45 lbs/visitor 4) 25% of disposed waste by weight 1) 1 to/employee/yr 2).53 tos/1,000 visitors/yr Page 120 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

121 TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF CONVERSION FACTORS (CONT.) SECTOR FOOD MANUFACTURERS FOOD SERVICE (RESTAURANTS AND CATERERS) FOOD WHOLESALERS AND DISTRIBUTORS GROCERY STORES AND MARKETS NRDC ANALYSIS EPA WASTED FOOD OPPORTUNITIES MAP 16 RECYCLING WORKS MASSACHUSETTS FOOD WASTE ESTIMATION GUIDE 17 METRO VANCOUVER 2014 ICI WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 18 CALRECYCLE 2014 GENERATOR- BASED CHARACTERIZATION OF COMMERCIAL SECTOR DISPOSAL AND DIVERSION IN CA lbs/$ of reveue/yr.053 lbs/$ of reveue/yr 2,398 lbs/employee/yr.7 tos/employee/yr 3,000 lbs/employee/yr 3,000 lbs/employee/yr 1).5 lbs/meal 2) 1,500 lbs/ employee/yr 3) 66% of disposed waste by weight 4) 51% of disposed waste by weight.01 lbs/$ of reveue/yr.01 lbs/$ of reveue/yr 3,000 lbs/employee/yr 3,000 lbs/employee/yr 1) 3,000 lbs/ employee/yr 2) 63% of disposed waste by weight 1) 666 lbs/employee/yr 2).13 lbs/visitor/yr 1.5 tos/employee/yr (2,978 lbs/employee/yr) 2.8 tos/employee/yr (5,577 lbs/employee/yr) HEALTH CARE 1).16 tos/employee/yr 2).57 tos/bed/yr (3.12 lbs/ bed/day) HEALTH CARE - HOSPITALS HEALTH CARE - NURSING HOMES HOSPITALITY (HOTELS) 3.42 lbs/bed/day 3.42 lbs/bed/day 1).6 lbs/meal 2) 30% of food served by weight 3) 3.42 lbs/bed/day 1.8 lbs/bed/day (23 beds/$1 millio - calculated by NRDC based o ifo from America Health Care Associatio 20 ) 1.8 lbs/bed/day.269 beds/$ millio reveue (was based o hospitals) 1,984 lbs/employee/yr 1,984 lbs/employee/yr (Alterate: lbs/ room/yr; 3.38 rooms/ employee) 1).6 lbs/meal 2) 20% of food served by weight 3) 1.8 lbs/bed/day 1) 1 lb/guest/day 2) 345 lbs/room/yr 3) 36% of disposed waste by weight 1) 994 lbs/employee/yr 2).4 lb/visitor/yr 1).68 tos/employee/yr ( lbs/employee/yr) 2) 1.31 tos/guest room/yr Page 121 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

122 ICI ESTIMATES SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS I order to coduct ICI food waste geeratio estimates, iformatio o the types of facilities i the geographic area was obtaied usig several databases, both public ad proprietary. Iformatio o locatio, sales, umber of employees, umber of studets, square footage, ad umber of beds at each facility was obtaied to estimate food waste geeratio, wheever possible. The coversio factors used are sector-based averages of food waste geeratio. The average represets a etire sector of diverse facilities with wide-ragig food waste geeratio rates. The data used were the best available; however, there were cocers about some of the coversio factors (see Table 3 below). TABLE 3: CONCERNS ABOUT CONVERSION FACTORS SECTOR CONCERNS ABOUT DATA SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS? Colleges & Uiversities Correctioal Facilities Evets & Recreatio Facilities Food Maufacturig & Processig Food Service Sector (Restaurats ad Caterers) Food Wholesalers & Distributors Grocers & Markets Health Care - Hospitals Health Care Nursig Homes Depeds sigificatly o evet types, umber of evets/year, ad other factors that make this sector diverse Seat capacity vs. visitors is importat distictio (may oly be able to fid seat capacity) May be sigificat differeces based o type of restaurat: quick service vs. full service vs. limited service Some idustry estimates are lower (e.g. 1,500 lbs/employee/yr) 3,000 lb umber is from 1990s. There has bee a reductio i employee size for grocers which may mea a higher food waste/employee umber Does ot distiguish betwee hypermarkets, supermarkets, ad smaller grocers Does ot iclude food that goes to reclaimer No No No No Yes (Scearios 1 & 2) No Yes (Sceario 3) No No Hospitality May sigificatly deped o what types of food services are provided (e.g. room service, restaurats, bars, etc.) K-12 Schools May be sigificat differeces by public vs. private school withi school level No Yes (Sceario 4) I order to determie the impact of usig other available coversio factors from trusted sources, the followig four scearios were ru to determie sesitivity of the aalysis to chages i coversio factors: Sceario 1: Use 1,500 lbs/employee/year for restaurats & caterers istead of 3,000 lbs/employees/year. New figure is from Recyclig Works Massachusetts. 21 Sceario 2: Use 1,500 lbs/employee/year for limited service restaurats ad 3,000 lbs/employee/year for all other restaurats ad caterers istead of 3,000 lbs/employees/year. New figure is from Recyclig Works Massachusetts. 22 Sceario 3: Use 5,577 lbs/employee/year for grocers & markets istead of 3,000 lbs/employees/year. New figure is from CalRecycle s 2014 Geerator-Based Characterizatio of Commercial Sector Disposal ad Diversio i Califoria. 23 Sceario 4: Use 1,369.6 lbs/employee/year for hospitality istead of 1,984 lbs/employees/year. New figure is from CalRecycle s 2014 Geerator-Based Characterizatio of Commercial Sector Disposal ad Diversio i Califoria. 24 Page 122 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

123 Summary tables for each city are below. TABLE 4: NASHVILLE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS BASELINE SCENARIO SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL USED 1,500 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR FOR RESTAURANTS AND CATERERS (INSTEAD OF 3,000 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR) FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL USED 1,500 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR FOR LIMITED SERVICE RESTAURANTS AND 3,000 LBS/YEAR FOR ALL OTHERS (INSTEAD OF 3,000 LBS/EMPLOYEE/ YEAR FOR ALL) FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL USED 5577 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR FOR GROCERS (INSTEAD OF 3000 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR) FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL USED 1,369.6 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YEAR FOR HOSPITALITY (INSTEAD OF 1,984 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR) FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) Colleges ad Uiversities 3,223 3% 3,223 3% 3,223 3% 3,223 2% 3,223 3% Hospitality 6,773 6% 6,773 7% 6,773 6% 6,773 5% 4, % Health Care 3,794 3% 3,794 4% 3,794 3% 3,794 3% 3,794 3% Grocers ad Markets 15,299 13% 15,299 15% 15,299 14% 28, % 15,299 13% % OF TOTAL Food Wholesalers ad Distributors 14,271 12% 14,271 14% 14,271 13% 14,271 11% 14,271 12% Restaurats ad Caterers 59,993 50% 39, % 52, % 59,993 45% 59,993 51% Food Maufacturig ad Processig Evets ad Recreatio Facilities 11,586 10% 11,586 12% 11,586 10% 11,586 9% 11,586 10% 2,996 3% 2,996 3% 2,996 3% 2,996 2% 2,996 3% K-12 Schools 876 1% 876 1% 876 1% 876 1% 876 1% Correctioal Facilities 469 <1% 469 <1% 469 0% 469 <1% 469 <1% TOTAL 119, % 99, % 111, % 132, % 117, % Page 123 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

124 TABLE 5: DENVER SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS BASELINE SCENARIO SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL USED 1,500 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR FOR RESTAURANTS AND CATERERS (INSTEAD OF 3,000 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR) FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL USED 1,500 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR FOR LIMITED SERVICE RESTAURANTS AND 3,000 LBS/YEAR FOR ALL OTHERS (INSTEAD OF 3,000 LBS/EMPLOYEE/ YEAR FOR ALL) FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL USED 5577 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR FOR GROCERS (INSTEAD OF 3000 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR) FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL USED 1,369.6 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YEAR FOR HOSPITALITY (INSTEAD OF 1,984 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR) FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) Colleges ad Uiversities 2,736 3% 2,736 3% 2,736 3% 2,736 2% 2,736 3% Hospitality 7,675 7% 7,675 9% 7,675 7% 7,675 6% 5, % Health Care 2,683 2% 2,683 3% 2,683 3% 2,683 2% 2,683 3% Grocers ad Markets 11,480 11% 11,480 13% 11,480 11% 21, % 11,480 11% Food Wholesalers ad Distributors Restaurats ad Caterers Food Maufacturig ad Processig Evets ad Recreatio Facilities 16,757 15% 16,757 19% 16,757 16% 16,757 14% 16,757 16% 45,158 42% 22, % 40, % 45,158 38% 45,158 43% 15,980 15% 15,980 19% 15,980 15% 15,980 13% 15,980 15% 4,197 4% 4,197 5% 4,197 4% 4,197 4% 4,197 4% K-12 Schools 1,296 1% 1,296 2% 1,296 1% 1,296 1% 1,296 1% Correctioal Facilities 568 1% 568 1% 568 1% 568 0% 568 1% TOTAL 108, % 85, % 104, % 118, % 106, % % OF TOTAL 1 Evirometal Protectio Agecy, Techical Methodology for the U.S. EPA Wasted Food Opportuities Map (Versio 1.0), to be available at sustaiable-maagemet-food/techical-methodology-wasted-food-opportuities-map (ot yet available at time of prit). 2 South Carolia Departmet of Commerce (SCDOC), South Carolia Food Waste Geeratio Report. Prepared by South Carolia Departmet of Commerce, available at (February 2015); Vermot Agecy of Natural Resources, Departmet of Evirometal Coservatio, Solid Waste Program (DECVT), ANR Uiversal Recyclig Materials Maagemet Database & Map Methodology, available at documets/methodology_orgaicsmapdatabase.pdf (2014); Food Scrap Geerator Database Calculatios available at (2014); Recyclig Works Massachusetts available at (all accessed o October 17, 2017); Recyclig Works Massachusetts, Food Waste Estimatio Guide, available at (accessed o October 17, 2017). 3 SCDOC (2015); DECVT (2014a); DECVT (2014b); Recyclig Works Massachusetts. 4 Recyclig Works Massachusetts, Food Waste Estimatio Guide, available at (accessed o October 17, 2017). 5 Food Waste Reductio Alliace (FWRA), Aalysis of U.S. Food Waste Amog Food Maufacturers, Retailers, ad Wholesalers, available at org/wp-cotet/uploads/2014/11/fwra_bsr_tier3_final.pdf (2014) (accessed o October 17, 2017). 6 SCDOC (2015); DECVT (2014a); DECVT (2014b); ad Recyclig Works Massachusetts. 7 FWRA (2014). 8 SCDOC (2015); DECVT (2014a); DECVT (2014b); Recyclig Works Massachusetts. 9 SCDOC (2015); Recyclig Works Massachusetts. 10 SCDOC (2015); Recyclig Works Massachusetts. Page 124 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

125 TABLE 6: NEW YORK CITY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Colleges ad Uiversities BASELINE SCENARIO SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL USED 1,500 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR FOR RESTAURANTS AND CATERERS (INSTEAD OF 3,000 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR) FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL USED 1,500 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR FOR LIMITED SERVICE RESTAURANTS AND 3,000 LBS/YEAR FOR ALL OTHERS (INSTEAD OF 3,000 LBS/EMPLOYEE/ YEAR FOR ALL) FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL USED 5577 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR FOR GROCERS (INSTEAD OF 3000 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR) FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL USED 1,369.6 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YEAR FOR HOSPITALITY (INSTEAD OF 1,984 LBS/ EMPLOYEE/YR) FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) 30,115 5% 30,115 7% 30,115 5% 30,115 5% 30,115 5% Hospitality 52,113 9% 52,113 11% 52,113 9% 52,113 8% 36, % Health Care 28,752 5% 28,752 6% 28,752 5% 28,752 4% 28,752 5% Grocers ad Markets 61,310 10% 61,310 13% 61,310 11% 113, % 61,310 11% Food Wholesalers ad Distributors Restaurats ad Caterers Food Maufacturig ad Processig Evets ad Recreatio Facilities 49,122 8% 49,122 11% 49,122 9% 49,122 8% 49,122 9% 262,226 44% 131, % 238, % 262,226 41% 262,226 45% 86,296 15% 86,296 19% 86,296 15% 86,296 13% 86,296 15% 7,520 1% 7,520 2% 7,520 1% 7,520 1% 7,520 1% K-12 Schools 12,895 2% 12,895 3% 12,895 2% 12,895 2% 12,895 2% Correctioal Facilities 2,976 <1% 2,976 1% 2,976 1% 2,976 <1% 2,976 1% TOTAL 593, % 462, % 569, % 645, % 577, % % OF TOTAL 11 Califoria Evirometal Protectio Agecy, Itegrated Waste Maagemet Board, Waste Disposal ad Diversio Fidigs for Selected Idustry Groups. No , prepared by Cascadia Cosultig Group available at (Jue 2006) (accessed o October 17, 2017). 12 DECVT (2014a); DECVT (2014b). 13 America Health Care Associatio, Fast Facts, available at (accessed o October 17, 2017). 14 Recyclig Works Massachusetts. 15 Evirometal Protectio Agecy, Techical Methodology for the U.S. EPA Wasted Food Opportuities Map (Versio 1.0), (ot yet available at time of prit). 16 Evirometal Protectio Agecy, Techical Methodology for the U.S. EPA Wasted Food Opportuities Map (Versio 1.0), (ot yet available at time of prit). 17 Recyclig Works Massachusetts. 18 Metro Vacouver, 2014 ICI Waste Characterizatio Program, available at ICIWasteCharacterizatioProgram3-Ju-15.pdf (Jue 2015) (accessed o October 17, 2017). 19 CalRecycle, Geerator-Based Characterizatio of Commercial Sector Disposal ad Diversio i Califoria, available at Detailaspx?PublicatioID=1543 (2014) (accessed o October 17, 2017). 20 America Health Care Associatio, Fast Facts, available at (accessed o October 17, 2017). 21 Recyclig Works Massachusetts. 22 Ibid. 23 CalRecycle, Ibid. Page 125 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

126 Appedix M: Sample Idividual Facility ICI Report Note: this is a sample of the customized reports set to ICI facilities i NYC that participated i bi digs. Similar reports customized with city-specific iformatio were set to participatig facilities i Dever ad Nashville. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL FOOD WASTE ASSESSMENT STUDY RESULTS Sample Busiess - Jauary 2017 The Natural Resources Defese Coucil (NRDC) recetly collected, sorted, ad categorized a sample of waste material from dozes of busiesses ad istitutios i New York City. This iformatio will be used to help set a baselie for how much ad what types of food are wasted i NYC. Below are geeral recommedatios for reducig the amout of food i your waste stream as well as iformatio o orgaizatios ad resources i NYC that might be useful to your facility. Page Two of this documet provides details o what types of food ad o-food materials were foud i your waste stream durig our audit. Page Three provides idividualized recommedatios based o the fidigs from your facility. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Reducig the amout of food i your waste stream ca help save moey as well as reduce your ecological impact. Here are some easy steps you ca take to miimize wasted food i your operatios: Prevet food waste: Prevetig food waste i the first place is the best way to save your busiess moey while beefitig the eviromet. Measurig wasted food will empower your staff to better maage this issue. For more iformatio, see the Evirometal Protectio Agecy s Tools for Assessig Wasted Food ( ad Leapath ( for software to track the amouts, causes ad costs of wasted food i istitutioal foodservice ad restaurat eviromets. Educatig your customers ad staff ca also help reduce food waste. Doate food surpluses: Doatig food ca yield valuable tax beefits, is protected from liability by federal law, ad is a way your busiess ca help address food isecurity i NYC. Orgaizatios that receive or help direct doated food i NYC iclude City Harvest ( Rock ad Wrap it Up ( ad Rescuig Leftover Cuisie ( You ca also check out the City of New York directory to fid food patries (www1.yc.gov/apps/311utils/provideriformatio.htm?serviceid=1083). Recycle food scraps: After maximizig waste prevetio ad food doatio, you ca help keep food waste out of the ladfill by sedig it to a composter or aaerobic digester. As of July 19, 2016, certai New York City busiesses are required by law to separate their orgaic waste (see the DSNY website for more iformatio: www1.yc.gov/assets/ dsy/zerowaste/busiesses/food-scraps-ad-yard-waste.shtml). Busiesses covered by this law are give the optio to arrage for collectio by a private carter, trasport orgaic waste themselves, or process the material o site (e.g. through compostig or aaerobic digestio). Busiesses both covered by ad exempt from the orgaics separatio requiremet may fid this resource sheet useful (www1.yc.gov/assets/dsy/docs/commercial-orgaics-otice-eglish. pdf). For more iformatio o the evirometal impacts associated with food waste, please see NRDC s food waste resources ( NRDC welcomes your participatio i the atioal Save The Food public service campaig. See for more iformatio. Every citize ad busiess i NYC, as well as muicipal govermet, ca help reduce food waste. Please cotact NRDC for more iformatio or to lear more about reducig food waste i NYC. Page 126 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

127 What is i your trash? Sample Busiess Name New York City Jauary % 4% 1% 8% Edible Food Iedible Food 10% Other Compostable Materials Paper & Cardboard 12% 6% 56% Metals Glass Cotaiers Rigid Plastic Cotaiers Other Materials Edible Edible Food: Food: 19%; 56%; Iedible Iedible Food: Food: 1%; 6%; Other Other Compostable Compostable Materials: Materials: 6%; 12%; Paper Paper & Paperboard: & Cardboard: 46%; 10%; Metals: Metals: 2%; 1%; Glass Glass Cotaiers: 4%; 3%; Rigid Rigid Plastic Plastic Cotaiers: Cotaiers: 8%; 4%; Other Other Materials: Materials: 14% 8% What types of food waste are i your trash? Cooked Cooked or Prepared or Prepared Food Food & Leftovers: & Leftovers: 17%; 45%; Liquids, Liquids, Oils, Oils, & Grease: & Grease: 65%; 2%; Sacks Sacks & Codimets: & Codimets: 5%; 11%; Dry Dry Foods: Foods: 0%; 0%; Baked Baked Goods: Goods: 1%; 3%; Vegetables Vegetables & Fruits: & Fruits: 1%; 22%; Dairy Dairy & Eggs: & Eggs: 1%; 0%; Meat Meat & Fish: & Fish: 5%; 8%; Iedible: Iedible: 5% 9% Material Categories Iedible Food 0% 8% 22% 3% 9% 11% 2% Examples 45% Cooked or Prepared Food & Leftovers Liquids, Oils, & Grease Sacks & Codimets Dry Foods (Grais, Pasta, ad Cereals) Baked Goods Vegetables & Fruits Dairy & Eggs Meat & Fish Iedible Iedible peels (baaa, citrus, melo, witer squash), apple cores, pits, shells, boes, husks, aimal fat ad tedos Edible Food Other Compostable Materials Recyclable Materials Other Materials Meat, fish, dairy, eggs, vegetables, fruits, baked goods, dry goods, grais, pastas, cereals, sacks, codimets, caed goods, cady, sacks, driks, water, oil, fats, cooked meals Food-soiled paper, pizza boxes, paper cups, paper towels/apkis, grass, leaves, braches, yard trimmigs Paper, cardboard, metal cotaiers, glass cotaiers, rigid plastic cotaiers All other materials such as o-cotaier glass, plastic bags, plastic wrap, polystyree foam, hygiee products, clothig, electroics Page 127 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

128 A sample of your trash (up to 220 lbs) was sorted ad categorized ito 9 food waste categories ad 6 other materials categories. Results ca be foud o the previous page. Below are idividualized suggestios for reducig your waste. The idividual results provided i this report will ot be shared with ayoe other tha your orgaizatio. Ay results reported by NRDC will be reported i aggregate ad your facility participatio will be kept cofidetial. Idividualized Recommedatios Notable Fidigs 146 lbs of waste material were take from the trash bi (ot recyclig) of your facility. 74% of the material i your trash is compostable, with a majority beig edible food. Of the food foud i your trash, 91% was cosidered edible. 45% of discarded food was cooked or prepared foods (see pictures below) 22% was fruits ad vegetables 11% was sacks ad codimets Potetial Strategies to Reduce Wasted Food Sice a majority of your wasted food was edible prior to disposal ad seems to origiate from the back-of-the-house, here are some potetial ways to reduce your edible wasted food: Doate surplus food to local food rescue orgaizatios; Create secodary uses for food (e.g. make old bread ito bread crumbs, Frech toast, or crispy bread garish); or Perform a quick assessmet to uderstad which types of food are most frequetly wasted (ad reduce purchase of those items). A fair amout of wasted food was from codimets i sigle-servig packets. Providig bulk codimets could reduce both food ad packagig waste. Sice a majority of your facility s waste is compostable (icludig food ad food-soiled paper), this facility could sigificatly reduce ladfilled material through compostig, either o-site (e.g. i-vessel compostig system) or usig a hauler. Page 128 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

129 Appedix N: ICI Sectors NASHVILLE ICI SUMMARY BY SECTOR FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YEAR) PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL # OF FACILITIES RESTAURANTS & CATERERS 59,993 50% 3,188 COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES 3,223 3% 28 K-12 SCHOOLS 876 1% 157 HOSPITALITY 6,773 6% 211 HEALTH CARE 3,794 3% 24 EVENTS & RECREATION FACILITIES 2,996 3% 17 CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES 469 0% 4 GROCERS & MARKETS 15,299 13% 703 FOOD WHOLESALERS & DISTRIBUTORS FOOD MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING 14,271 12% ,586 10% % 12% FOOD WASTE GENERATION BY SECTOR: NASHVILLE (ICI ONLY) 6% 10% 0% 3% 3% 1% 3% 50% Restaurats & Caterers Colleges & Uiversities K-12 Schools Hospitality Health Care Evets & Recreatio Facilities Correctioal Facilities Grocers & Markets Food Wholesalers & Distributors Food Maufacturig & Processig TOTAL 119, % 4,698 BREAKDOWN OF RESTAURANTS & CATERERS: NASHVILLE TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YEAR) PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CAFETERIAS, GRILL BUFFETS, & BUFFETS 329 1% CATERERS 2,328 4% FULL SERVICE 42,389 71% LIMITED SERVICE 14,948 25% TOTAL 59, % RESTAURANT AND CATERER FOOD WASTE GENERATION: NASHVILLE 1% 4% 25% Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, & Buffets Caterers Full Service Limited Service 71% Page 129 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

130 DENVER ICI SUMMARY BY SECTOR FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YEAR) PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL # OF FACILITIES RESTAURANTS & CATERERS 45,158 42% 1,759 COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES 2,736 3% 15 K-12 SCHOOLS 1,296 1% 240 HOSPITALITY 7,675 7% 144 HEALTH CARE 2,683 2% 61 EVENTS & RECREATION FACILITIES 4,197 4% 17 CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES 568 1% 4 GROCERS & MARKETS 11,480 11% 188 FOOD WHOLESALERS & DISTRIBUTORS FOOD MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING 16,757 15% ,980 15% 32 TOTAL 108, % 2,565 15% 11% FOOD WASTE GENERATION BY SECTOR: DENVER (ICI ONLY) 15% 4% 7% 1% 2% 1% 3% 42% Restaurats & Caterers Colleges & Uiversities K-12 Schools Hospitality Health Care Evets & Recreatio Facilities Correctioal Facilities Grocers & Markets Food Wholesalers & Distributors Food Maufacturig & Processig BREAKDOWN OF RESTAURANTS & CATERERS: DENVER TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YEAR) PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CAFETERIAS, GRILL BUFFETS, & BUFFETS 57 0% CATERERS 1,493 3% FULL-SERVICE RESTAURANTS 35,102 78% LIMITED-SERVICE RESTAURANTS 8,507 19% TOTAL 45, % RESTAURANT AND CATERER FOOD WASTE GENERATION: DENVER 3% 19% Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, & Buffets Caterers Full Service Limited Service 78% Page 130 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

131 NYC ICI SUMMARY BY SECTOR FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YEAR) PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL # OF FACILITIES RESTAURANTS & CATERERS 262,226 44% 18,300 COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES 30,115 5% 138 K-12 SCHOOLS 12,895 2% 2,100 HOSPITALITY 52,113 9% 752 HEALTH CARE 28,752 5% 216 EVENTS & RECREATION FACILITIES 7,520 1% 19 CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES 2,976 1% 11 GROCERS & MARKETS 61,310 10% 4,451 FOOD WHOLESALERS & DISTRIBUTORS 49,122 8% 577 8% 10% 1% 1% 5% FOOD WASTE GENERATION BY SECTOR: NYC (ICI ONLY) 15% 9% 2% 5% 44% Restaurats & Caterers Colleges & Uiversities K-12 Schools Hospitality Health Care Evets & Recreatio Facilities Correctioal Facilities Grocers & Markets Food Wholesalers & Distributors Food Maufacturig & Processig FOOD MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING 86,296 15% 213 TOTAL 593, % 26,777 BREAKDOWN OF RESTAURANTS & CATERERS: NYC TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YEAR) PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CAFETERIAS, GRILL BUFFETS, & BUFFETS 2,785 1% CATERERS 7,392 3% FULL-SERVICE RESTAURANTS 205,372 78% LIMITED-SERVICE RESTAURANTS 46,677 18% TOTAL 262, % RESTAURANT AND CATERER FOOD WASTE GENERATION: NYC 1% 3% 18% Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, & Buffets Caterers Full Service Limited Service 78% Page 131 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

132 THREE CITY ICI SECTOR COMPARISON FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) NASHVILLE DENVER NYC % OF TOTAL FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) Restaurats ad Caterers 59,993 50% 45,158 42% 262,226 44% Colleges ad Uiversities 3,223 3% 2,736 3% 30,115 5% K-12 Schools 876 1% 1,296 1% 12,895 2% Hospitality 6,773 6% 7,675 7% 52,113 9% Health Care 3,794 3% 2,683 2% 28,752 5% % OF TOTAL Evets & Recreatio Facilities 2,996 3% 4,197 4% 7,520 1% Correctioal Facilities 469 0% 568 1% 2,976 1% Grocers ad Markets 15,299 13% 11,480 11% 61,310 10% Food Wholesalers ad Distributors Food Maufacturig ad Processig 14,271 12% 16,757 15% 49,122 8% 11,586 10% 15,980 15% 86,296 15% TOTAL 119, % 108, % 593, % BREAKDOWN OF RESTAURANTS & CATERERS: ALL CITIES TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, ad Buffets FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) NASHVILLE DENVER NYC % OF TOTAL FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL 329 1% 57 0% 2,785 1% Caterers 2,328 4% 1,493 3% 7,392 3% Full-Service Restaurats 42,389 71% 35,102 78% 205,372 78% Limited-Service Restaurats 14,948 25% 8,507 19% 46,677 18% TOTAL 59, % 45, % 262, % Page 132 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

133 Appedix O: ICI ad Residetial Combied NASHVILLE ICI SECTOR FOOD WASTE GENERATION SUMMARY FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YEAR) PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL # OF FACILITIES FOOD WASTE GENERATION BY SECTOR: NASHVILLE (ICI AND RESIDENTIAL) COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES 3,223 3% 28 HOSPITALITY 6,773 6% 211 HEALTH CARE 3,794 3% 24 GROCERS & MARKETS 15,299 13% 703 FOOD WHOLESALERS & DISTRIBUTORS 14,271 12% 125 RESTAURANTS & CATERERS 59,993 50% 3,188 FOOD MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING EVENTS & RECREATION FACILITIES 11,586 10% 241 2,996 3% 17 K-12 SCHOOLS 876 1% 157 2% 0% 9% 2% 0% 4% 2% 8% 7% 34% 33% Residetial Restaurats & Caterers Colleges & Uiversities K-12 Schools Hospitality Health Care Evets & Recreatio Facilities Correctioal Facilities Grocers & Markets Food Wholesalers & Distributors Food Maufacturig & Processig CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES 469 0% 4 TOTAL 119, % 4,698 NASHVILLE RESIDENTIAL FOOD WASTE GENERATION SUMMARY NASHVILLE POPULATION (2016) 660,388 CORRECTED FOOD WASTE GENERATION PER CAPITA (LBS/PERSON/ WEEK) FROM KITCHEN DIARIES 3.4 ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YEAR) 58,378 NASHVILLE ICI AND RESIDENTIAL FOOD WASTE GENERATION SUMMARY FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % RESIDENTIAL 58,378 33% RESTAURANTS & CATERERS 59,993 34% COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES 3,223 2% K-12 SCHOOLS 876 0% HOSPITALITY 6,773 4% HEALTH CARE 3,794 2% EVENTS & RECREATION FACILITIES 2,996 2% CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES 469 0% GROCERS & MARKETS 15,299 9% FOOD WHOLESALERS & DISTRIBUTORS 14,271 8% FOOD MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING 11,586 7% TOTAL 177, % Page 133 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

134 DENVER ICI SECTOR FOOD WASTE GENERATION SUMMARY FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YEAR) PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL # OF FACILITIES FOOD WASTE GENERATION BY SECTOR: DENVER (ICI AND RESIDENTIAL) COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES 2,736 3% 15 HOSPITALITY 7,675 7% 144 HEALTH CARE 2,683 2% 61 GROCERS & MARKETS 11,480 11% 188 FOOD WHOLESALERS & DISTRIBUTORS 16,757 15% 105 RESTAURANTS & CATERERS 45,158 42% 1,759 FOOD MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING EVENTS & RECREATION FACILITIES 15,980 15% 32 4,197 4% 17 K-12 SCHOOLS 1,296 1% 240 2% 0% 9% 6% 1% 1% 4% 1% 9% 25% 41% Residetial Restaurats & Caterers Colleges & Uiversities K-12 Schools Hospitality Health Care Evets & Recreatio Facilities Correctioal Facilities Grocers & Markets Food Wholesalers & Distributors Food Maufacturig & Processig CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES 568 1% 4 TOTAL 108, % 2,565 DENVER RESIDENTIAL FOOD WASTE GENERATION SUMMARY DENVER POPULATION (2016) 693,060 CORRECTED FOOD WASTE GENERATION PER CAPITA (LBS/PERSON/ WEEK) FROM KITCHEN DIARIES 4.2 ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YEAR) 75,682 DENVER ICI AND RESIDENTIAL FOOD WASTE GENERATION SUMMARY FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/ YEAR) % RESIDENTIAL 75,682 41% RESTAURANTS & CATERERS 45,158 25% COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES 2,736 1% K-12 SCHOOLS 1,296 1% HOSPITALITY 7,675 4% HEALTH CARE 2,683 1% EVENTS & RECREATION FACILITIES 4,197 2% CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES 568 0% GROCERS & MARKETS 11,480 6% FOOD WHOLESALERS & DISTRIBUTORS 16,757 9% FOOD MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING 15,980 9% TOTAL 184, % Page 134 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

135 NYC ICI SECTOR FOOD WASTE GENERATION SUMMARY FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YEAR) PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL # OF FACILITIES FOOD WASTE GENERATION BY SECTOR: NYC (ICI AND RESIDENTIAL) COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES 30,115 5% 138 2% HOSPITALITY 52,113 9% 752 HEALTH CARE 28,752 5% 216 GROCERS & MARKETS 61,310 10% 4,451 FOOD WHOLESALERS & DISTRIBUTORS 49,122 8% 577 RESTAURANTS & CATERERS 262,226 44% 18,300 FOOD MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING EVENTS & RECREATION FACILITIES 86,296 15% 213 7,520 1% 19 K-12 SCHOOLS 12,895 2% 2,100 1% 0% 5% 4% 1% 20% 2% 4% 7% 54% Residetial Restaurats & Caterers Colleges & Uiversities K-12 Schools Hospitality Health Care Evets & Recreatio Facilities Correctioal Facilities Grocers & Markets Food Wholesalers & Distributors Food Maufacturig & Processig CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES 2,976 1% 11 TOTAL 593, % 26,777 NYC RESIDENTIAL FOOD WASTE GENERATION SUMMARY NYC POPULATION (2016) 8,537,673 CORRECTED FOOD WASTE GENERATION PER CAPITA (LBS/PERSON/ WEEK) FROM KITCHEN DIARIES 3.2 ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YEAR) 710,334 NYC ICI AND RESIDENTIAL FOOD WASTE GENERATION SUMMARY FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/ YEAR) % RESIDENTIAL 710,334 54% RESTAURANTS & CATERERS 262,226 20% COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES 30,115 2% K-12 SCHOOLS 12,895 1% HOSPITALITY 52,113 4% HEALTH CARE 28,752 2% EVENTS & RECREATION FACILITIES 7,520 1% CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES 2,976 0% GROCERS & MARKETS 61,310 5% FOOD WHOLESALERS & DISTRIBUTORS 49,122 4% FOOD MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING 86,296 7% TOTAL 1,303, % Page 135 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

136 THREE CITY SECTOR COMPARISON - COMBINED ICI AND RESIDENTIAL NASHVILLE DENVER NYC FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL # OF UNITS FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL # OF UNITS FOOD WASTE GENERATION (TONS/YR) % OF TOTAL # OF UNITS Residetial 58,378 33% 660,388 75,682 41% 693, ,334 54% 8,537,673 Restaurats ad Caterers 59,993 34% 3,188 45,158 25% 1, ,226 20% 18,300 Colleges ad Uiversities 3,223 2% 28 2,736 1% 15 30,115 2% 138 K-12 Schools 876 0% 157 1,296 1% ,895 1% 2,100 Hospitality 6,773 4% 211 7,675 4% ,113 4% 752 Health Care 3,794 2% 24 2,683 1% 61 28,752 2% 216 Evets ad Recreatio Facilities 2,996 2% 17 4,197 2% 17 7,520 1% 19 Correctioal Facilities 469 0% % 4 2,976 0% 11 Grocers ad Markets 15,299 9% ,480 6% ,310 5% 4,451 Food Wholesalers ad Distributors Food Maufacturig ad Processig 14,271 8% ,757 9% ,122 4% ,586 7% ,980 9% 32 86,296 7% 213 TOTAL 177, % 4,698 (ICI) 184, % 2,565 (ICI) 1,303, % 26,777 (ICI) Page 136 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

137 Appedix P: Study Templates 1. Guidebook ad Kitche Diary Templates Natural Resources Defese Coucil Residetial Food Waste Assessmet Kitche Diary Istructios Participat ID: Page 137 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

138 Quick Start Guide Thak you for participatig i this importat research that will examie wasted food i [city]. This study is beig coducted by researchers with the Natural Resources Defese Coucil. The purpose of this research study is to uderstad ad measure how much ad what types of food are wasted i [city] households. The followig Quick Start Guide provides you with the basic iformatio o how to participate i the study. For more detailed iformatio, please cosult the Guidebook. If you have ay questios or cocers about the research or how to complete the surveys or kitche diary, please cotact participat support at [phoe or text] or [ ]. Over the ext two weeks, please complete the followig: First Olie Survey..More ifo o page 3 of the Guidebook Go to [lik] to fill out the first survey BEFORE you start the kitche diary. It should take o more tha10-15 miutes to aswer the questios about your household s waste ad food related activities. At the begiig of the survey, you will be requested to put i your four-digit Participat ID, which ca be foud at the bottom of this page. Please cotact participat support at [phoe or text] or [ ] if you caot complete the survey olie to make alterate arragemets. Kitche Diary...More ifo o pages 3-7 of the Guidebook Start your kitche diary i the morig of [date] ad fiish it i the eveig of [date] (please capture all food discarded o the start ad fiish days as well as the days i betwee). Provide iformatio o ALL food ad drik that is discarded (ot eate) by all people i your household for oe week usig the provided kitche diary sheets. This icludes iedible food ad drik, such as baaa peels, eggshells, ad coffee grouds. Each day, write dow the basic iformatio about what food was discarded outside of the household (e.g. at work or at a restaurat) i the Daily Commets sectio. Iclude iformatio o food, iedible food parts (e.g. boes, peels), ad beverages disposed of i ay way (e.g. garbage, dow the drai, composted, fed to aimals). Secod Olie Survey.... More ifo o page 8 of the Guidebook Go to [lik] to fill out the secod, shorter survey by [date]. It should take o more tha 5-15 miutes to aswer the questios about your household s waste ad food related activities, as well as your experiece participatig i this study. At the begiig of the survey, you will be requested to put i your four-digit Participat ID, which ca be foud o the bottom of this page. Please cotact participat support at [phoe or text] or [ ] if you would rather ot complete the survey olie to make alterate arragemets. IMPORTANT: I order to receive your $50 gift card, you must complete the survey (as well as the previous survey ad the kitche diary) ad either mail or sca your completed kitche diary. To mail your kitche diary, use the provided postage-paid evelope (oly iclude the kitche diary, ot other materials). To your kitche diary, sca the completed diary ad to [ ]. After receipt of the kitche diary, your gift card will be set to you. If you caot receive s, cotact participat support to coordiate. Participat ID: 2 Page 138 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

139 Guidebook Table of Cotets Thak you for participatig i this importat research that will examie wasted food i your city. The followig guidebook provides you with detailed iformatio o how to participate i the study. To help you measure your wasted food, we have also provided a digital kitche scale. As oe of our thak you gifts, this scale is yours to keep. If you have ay questios or cocers about the research or how to complete the surveys or kitche diary, please cotact participat support at [phoe or text] or [ ]. Bi Dig Iformatio Page 3 First Olie Survey Page 3 Kitche Diary Page 3 Importat Notes Page 4 Kitche Diary Kit Cotets Page 4 How to Fill Out Kitche Diary Pages 5 & 6 How to Use the Kitche Scale Pages 6 & 7 Secod Olie Survey Page 8 Frequetly Asked Questios (FAQs) Pages 8 & 9 3 Page 139 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

140 Bi Dig Iformatio Your household may be radomly selected to have your trash (ad compost, if you are part of the compost collectio pilot) sorted ad categorized oce durig the study. You should ot chage ay of your ormal disposal habits, whether of food or other materials. If you happe to be i the radomly selected group, we will collect your trash ad compost durig the week followig your kitche diary completio. Please put out your trash ad compost the ight before your trash collectio day every week. If you happe to be i the radomly selected group, we will collect your trash ad compost early i the morig ad do the sortig ad categorizig at aother locatio. If you have a shared dumpster, please put all of your trash (ad compost) i the provided bags durig the study period. Your trash will be collected from your commual trash (ad compost) bi. First Olie Survey Please fill out the first olie survey prior to startig the kitche diary. You ca access the olie survey at [lik]. Please cotact participat support at [phoe or text] or [ ] if you caot complete the survey olie to make alterate arragemets. The survey takes approximately miutes ad asks you to report your household s waste ad food related activities. You do ot have to complete the survey i oe sittig. If you feel ucomfortable aswerig ay questios, please feel free to skip those questios. At the begiig of the survey, you will be asked for your four-digit participat ID, which ca be foud at the bottom of the Quick Start Guide. You must put i this ID to complete the survey. Kitche Diary Thak you for completig the first olie survey. Now, it is time to start the kitche diary. Please record all of the food (icludig iedible food parts, e.g. baaa peels, eggshells, ad coffee grouds) ad beverages you discard i your household for oe week usig the kitche diary templates provided. Additioally, we do ot ask that you measure ay food/drik discarded outside of your home, but we do ask that you describe it i the Daily Commets sectio at the bottom of each kitche diary page. You ca help us by fillig out the kitche diary as completely ad accurately as possible. To help everyoe i your household remember to write dow all of the food ad drik that gets throw away durig the week, you may wat to select oe perso to take the lead i your household. It is very importat that you write dow ALL of the food ad drik that is throw away: By all the people i your household; No matter what it is or why it is beig discarded (eve food that you would ot ormally eat such as fruit pits, boes, or vegetable peels); No matter where you discarded it (i your trash, curbside compost, put dow the drai, fed to pets or aimals, or composted i your backyard); No matter the amout beig discarded (othig is too small to measure); Do ot iclude food purchased for the mai itetio of feedig aimals. 4 Page 140 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

141 Kitche Diary: Importat Notes Please cosult your Quick Start Guide for dates to start ad ed your kitche diary. Do t chage how you usually prepare or discard food/driks. If you would ormally do a refrigerator or cupboard clea out durig the week, do that. If aythig uusual occurs i your weekly food-related activities (like you throw a party or eat out more tha usual), please ote that i the daily commets sectio. Describe ay food/drik discarded i detail ad fill out the required boxes i each row of the kitche diary. If there are may igrediets, please provide as much detail as possible (for example: oe pa of homemade lasaga icludig two zucchii, groud beef, tomato sauce, ad cheese). You do ot eed to iclude food/drik discarded outside of your household i the rows of the kitche diary table. However, ay food discarded i your household trash or compost should be recorded i the table eve if it was ot prepared at home (for example: you should record leftovers from restaurats that are later discarded at home). Make sure to provide a daily arrative i the Daily Commets sectio (located at the bottom of each diary page) of ay food discarded outside of your household (at work or restaurats) by all household members, icludig estimates of how much ad what was discarded (for example: for luch I had oe tua sadwich ad oe large salad, threw away half the sadwich ad about 1 cup of the salad). Do ot leave ay day s pages completely blak. If you did ot discard ay food/drik at home that day, please check the box that best explais why ot at the top of the first kitche diary page for that day. If you ru out of room to record iformatio, there are extra pages at the back of your kitche diary packet. It is best to record discarded food/drik as it happes; however, you or other household members may wat to set discarded food aside util you ca record it i the kitche diary. Kitche Diary Cotets Before you begi, please esure that you have all the ecessary items i your kitche diary kit: Kitche Scale (with batteries) Kitche Diary Template ad Sheets Pe If you have ay questios or cocers about the research or how to complete the surveys or kitche diary, please cotact participat support at [phoe or text] or [ ]. 5 Page 141 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

142 How to Fill Out the Kitche Diary It is very importat that you fill out the kitche diary as completely ad accurately as possible. For each day of the study, you are provided with two kitche diary sheets to provide iformatio o the food you discard i the household. If you ru out of room, there are extra pages at the ed of your kitche diary packet (make sure to idicate the date if you use those pages). Every time you discard food (icludig iedible parts) or drik, please provide all of the followig iformatio i the diary sheets. Most of the iformatio ca be provided by simply checkig the appropriate box. Time (What time are you recordig each item? Idicate AM or PM) What Are You Discardig? (Please give a detailed descriptio of ay food/drik (icludig iedible parts) that you discard for example: Pizza with cheese, tomato sauce, ad pepperoi) Which Meal Is This Food/Drik Associated With? (Check the box i the colum that best describes the meal associated with the discarded food/drik. If food waste is ot associated with ay meal, please check Other.) o Breakfast o Luch o Dier o Sacks How Much Does it Weigh? (Usig the provided kitche scale ad weighig bis, approximate the weight of the material to the earest teth of a ouce [.1 ouces]) o Istructios o usig the kitche scale ca be foud o page 6 o Remember to tare (set the kitche scale to zero) before each use Was The Food/Drik Weighed i Packagig? o If it is ot easy to remove the discarded food/drik from its packagig before weighig it, the you do ot eed to remove the food/drik from the packagig. o If the discarded food was i glass, metal, or hard plastic whe weighed, estimate the size of the packagig (dimesios or volume). o If it is easier to place the discarded food/drik i a separate cotaier to weigh it, you may use a cotaier durig weighig. If you use a cotaier, tare it prior to weighig food material. You do ot eed to idicate that you used a cotaier for weighig i the kitche diary. o Do ot record lightweight packagig such as plastic wrap or paper packagig i the door diary, as these materials are much lighter tha the weight of the food/drik. Where Are You Discardig The Food/Drik? Check the box that best describes where you discarded the food/drik; if oe of them apply please write i where you discarded the food/drik ito the Other box. o Trash o Dow the Drai o Fed Pets/Aimals o Backyard Compost o Curbside Compost Collectio o Compost Drop-Off (e.g. Greemarket or commuity garde) o Other (write i) 6 Page 142 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

143 How to Fill Out the Kitche Diary cotiued What Was The State Of The Food/Drik At The Time Of Discardig? Check the box that best describes the state of the food/drik whe discarded. If oe of them apply, please write the state of the food/drik i the Other box. o o o o Whole (meaig it was ot cut up or cooked for example: whole oio or carrot) Prepared, But Not Cooked (meaig the food was chopped or prepared to be cooked, but was ot yet i its fial state for example: raw chopped oios) Cooked or Leftovers (meaig food was cooked or i the fial state before eatig for example: salads, lasaga, sadwiches) Iedible Parts (meaig the parts of food that are ot edible for example: boes or eggshells) Why Did You Discard The Food? Check the box that best describes why you discarded the food/drik. If oe of them apply, please write the reaso i the Other box. Oly choose oe optio. o Past Date o Label o Moldy or Spoiled o Did t Taste Good o Left Out Too Log o Improperly Cooked o Too Little to Save o Do t Wat As Leftovers o Iedible Parts How to Use the Kitche Scale Learig how to use the kitche scale may seem a little cofusig at first, but is simple oce you kow how to use it. Follow the istructios below whe weighig wasted food/drik. Step 1 (iitial setup oly): Istall the provided batteries ito the kitche scale. Step 2: Press the Power/Tare butto. Step 3 (iitial setup oly): Esure the uit of measuremet is ouces by pressig the Uit butto util lb:oz appears o the scree right above the amazo basics logo. The weight i ouces is o the right-had side of the scree. Oly use that umber whe recordig the weight, ot the umber o the left-had side. 7 Page 143 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC

144 How to Use the Kitche Scale cotiued Step 4: Press the Tare butto right before each time you add food/drik to be weighed to esure that the scale reads 0.0 prior to weighig food/drik. o If you are weighig the food/drik i a empty cotaier, you must weigh that cotaier beforehad so the weight ca be subtracted from the weight of the food. To make this easy, put the empty cotaier o scale ad press Tare. Esure that the scale reads 0.0 prior to weighig food. Step 5: Add food/drik to be throw away. There will be two umbers o the scree, oe o the left ad oe o the right (for example 1 : 11.3). Please record both umbers. The first umber is i lbs ad the secod is i oz. If you see 1 : 11.3, please record 1 lb oz. Step 6: Tur off scale by holdig Power/Tare butto. 8 Page 144 ESTIMATING QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF FOOD WASTE AT THE CITY LEVEL: TECHNICAL APPENDICES NRDC